Investing

Domino’s will roll out 800 custom-branded 2023 Chevy Bolt electric vehicles at locations across the U.S. in the coming months.

Wall Street analysts are focusing on companies that are well-positioned to navigate the ongoing economic turmoil and emerge stronger.
Here are five stocks chosen by Wall Street’s top pros, according to TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.

CrowdStrike

related investing news

2 hours ago

Rapid digitization has helped enterprises enhance their productivity. However, it has also made them more vulnerable to cyberattacks. This scenario is driving more demand for cybersecurity companies, including CrowdStrike (CRWD).
Following a recent virtual investor briefing with CrowdStrike’s management, Mizuho analyst Gregg Moskowitz reaffirmed a buy rating on the stock with a price target of $175 and said that CRWD remains a top pick.
The analyst noted that management expects solid growth opportunities for endpoint security and emerging use cases, fueled by Falcon, CrowdStrike’s “truly extensible cloud platform.” The company continues to see a potential total addressable market of $158 billion by 2026, a huge increase compared to $25 billion at the time of its initial public offering in 2019.
The analyst highlighted management’s claim that enterprise customers choose CrowdStrike over Microsoft 80% of the time for several reasons, including its next-generation platform that leverages artificial intelligence compared with the rival’s signature-based approach.
“Despite a more challenging macro backdrop, we continue to believe CRWD’s cloud platform remains highly differentiated, its GTM [go-to-market] is unrivaled, the co. is demonstrating clear success extending beyond traditional endpoint security markets, and FCF [free cash flow] margins remain ~30%,” said Moskowitz.

Moskowitz holds the 237th position among more than 8,300 analysts followed by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 57% of the time, with each rating delivering an average return of 12.6%. (See CrowdStrike Stock Chart on TipRanks)

Costco

Membership-only warehouse chain Costco (COST) is known to be one of the most consistent players in the retail space, thanks to its resilient business model and impressive membership renewal rates that are generally above 90%.   
Costco recently reported 0.5% growth in its March sales to $21.71 billion, with its comparable sales declining 1.1% year-over-year. (See Costco Insider Trading Activity on TipRanks)
Baird analyst Peter Benedict noted that core comparable sales (which exclude the impact of changes in gasoline prices and foreign exchange) growth slowed to 2.6% in March from 5% in February due to weaker performance in the U.S. and a slackening in non-food categories. Additionally, weakness in e-commerce persisted.
Benedict acknowledged that Costco is “clearly not immune” to a slowdown in general merchandise sales. The analyst said that downward revisions to fiscal third-quarter estimates appear likely following the March sales update. With COST’s forward valuation slightly below its five-year average, he prefers to “opportunistically accumulate shares on pullbacks.”
Benedict reiterated a buy rating on Costco with a price target of $535, as he thinks that the company is well-positioned to handle uneven consumer spending.
Benedict is ranked No. 84 among the more than 8,300 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 69% of the time, with each rating delivering an average return of 14.2%.  

Caesars Entertainment

There is another analyst on this week’s list who was positive about his stock pick following a meeting with the company’s management. Deutsche Bank’s Carlo Santarelli recently hosted investor meetings with casino operator Caesars Entertainment’s (CZR) management. 
Santarelli noted that the company’s strategic priorities are focused on bringing down its debt levels, “operational prudence,” and the growth of its digital business. The company reduced its debt by $1.2 billion in 2022. (See Caesars Hedge Fund Trading Activity on TipRanks) 
The analyst said that he remains “favorably inclined” toward the company, given its stable operations and positive movement in its digital business.
Santarelli reaffirmed a buy rating on Caesars with a price target of $70. He ranks No. 25 among the more than 8,300 analysts followed on TipRanks. Additionally, 66% of his ratings have been successful, with each generating a return of 21.1%, on average.

Domino’s Pizza

Fast-food restaurant chain Domino’s Pizza (DPZ) reported lower-than-anticipated sales for the fourth quarter of 2022. Its U.S. delivery business faced significant pressure last year. Meanwhile, the carryout business saw strong momentum in the U.S. market.
Based on a survey of over 1,000 Domino’s customers, BTIG analyst Peter Saleh noted that carryout-only guests are very loyal to the brand, with only a few indicating that they purchase from other large pizza chains, independents or aggregators.
While carryout sales have been strong recently, the analyst pointed out that the channel is seeing a considerably lower average check compared to delivery. He said that if Domino’s increases the price of the carryout deal by $1, “reclaiming the historical pricing gap with Mix and Match,” it would translate into same-store sales growth of 300 to 350 basis points.
Saleh also feels that Domino’s could drive customers to the carryout segment by migrating its rewards program to a spend-based model. The analyst discussed certain other potential catalysts for the company, including the possibility of a third-party delivery partnership.
Saleh reiterated a buy rating on Domino’s with a price target of $400. He sees potential for the company, even though other analysts have downgraded it.  
The analyst is ranked No. 376 among the more than 8,300 analysts followed by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 63% of the time, with each rating delivering an average return of 11.4%. (See Domino’s Blogger Opinions & Sentiment on TipRanks)

Texas Roadhouse

Saleh is also bullish on the casual-dining restaurant chain Texas Roadhouse (TXRH) and reaffirmed a buy rating on TXRH. He increased the price target to $120 from $110 following several investor meetings hosted by his firm with the company’s key executives. 
The analyst highlighted management’s commentary about how Texas Roadhouse is gaining market share due to the decision by some diners to scale up from fast casual restaurants, and by other diners to scale down from fine dining.  He added that over the past two years, the value gap between fast casual operators and Texas Roadhouse has “narrowed considerably,” as restaurant chains like Chipotle have increased menu prices by more than 20%, while Texas Roadhouse has raised prices by only about 10%.
“We continue to believe that Texas Roadhouse is leveraging its value leadership, especially on the kid’s menu, to take market share, as evidenced by record average weekly sales,” said Saleh. (See Texas Roadhouse Financial Statements on TipRanks) 
Despite higher commodity costs, the analyst expects Texas Roadhouse to stick to its strategy of setting lower prices than other restaurants in its category, with its pricing focused on offsetting higher wages only. Overall, Saleh finds TXRH to be one of the “most compelling casual dining concepts,” backed by its consistent industry-leading top line, better unit economics and substantial long-term unit potential. More

Changes may be coming to fix Social Security’s trust funds, which are projected to be able to pay full benefits only until the 2030s.
While uncertainty may tempt many to claim retirement benefits early, experts say that’s usually a mistake.

Fertnig | E+ | Getty Images

Negative headlines about Social Security’s future may be affecting how prepared people feel when it comes to their own retirement.
Almost three-quarters, 74%, of people say they cannot count on Social Security benefits when it comes to the money they will have in retirement, according to a new survey from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America.

The firm included questions on Social Security for the first time in its quarterly market perceptions study, in response to increased focus on the program in the news. The survey, which was conducted in March, included more than 1,000 respondents.
In late March, the Social Security Administration trustees issued a new annual report with a more imminent prognosis for the program’s two trust funds, one of which pays retirement benefits and the other disability benefits. In 2034 — one year earlier than previously projected — the program may be able to pay just 80% of the combined funds’ benefits.
More from Personal Finance:You may face a ‘stealth tax’ on Social Security benefits, expert warnsSome experts argue Social Security retirement age should not pass 67Senators call for changes to encourage later Social Security claiming
Notably, the insolvency date only for the fund used to pay retirement benefits is even sooner — 2033, or one decade away. At that point, 77% of those benefits will be payable, the trustees project.
“Although the program has been a great success, steps must be taken to ensure its solvency for the long term,” AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins wrote in an op-ed Thursday.

And while most leaders and experts agree action needs to be taken, it remains uncertain as to what changes exactly may happen.
For many, that adds more uncertainty to planning for retirement. Worries about being able to count on Social Security in retirement were most prevalent with Gen Xers, with 84%; followed by millennials, 80%; and baby boomers, 63%, according to Allianz’s survey.

Moreover, the survey also found most respondents — 88% — say it’s critical to have another source of guaranteed income in retirement aside from Social Security in order to live comfortably.
Yet not everyone is so lucky to have other resources to fall back on. Social Security represents the largest source of income for most people over retirement age, Jenkins noted. Meanwhile, for 14% of those people, it is their only source of income.
“Unfortunately, it’s one of the things that makes people make the mistake of claiming their benefits too early,” Kelly LaVigne, vice president of consumer insights at Allianz Life, said of the outlook for the program.
They think, “‘I’m going to get mine before it goes broke,’ when in reality, that is not helping at all,” he said.

‘Still a big advantage to waiting’

To see just how a 23% benefit cut (based on the latest projections for Social Security’s retirement fund) would affect you, experts say it’s best to turn to a calculator or other such online tool for maximizing benefits.
Larry Kotlikoff — an economics professor at Boston University and creator of Maximize My Social Security, a claiming software tool — ran the numbers and said there is “still a big advantage to waiting.”
“The benefit cut is going to happen even if you take benefits early,” Kotlikoff said.
“So the advantage of taking them early is smaller than one might expect,” he said.

People make the mistake of claiming their benefits too early … ‘I’m going to get mine before it goes broke,’ when in reality, that is not helping at all.

Kelly LaVigne
vice president of consumer insights at Allianz Life

Changes were enacted in 1983 to shore up Social Security. One key reform — raising the full retirement age, when beneficiaries stand to get 100% of the retirement benefits they’ve earned — is still getting phased in today. For people born in 1960 or later, the retirement age will be 67, not 66, as it was for older cohorts.
Lawmakers may follow the same strategy again, and raise the full retirement age to 70, according to Kotlikoff. Indeed, some leaders in Washington are already discussing this idea.
Under current rules, claimants stand to get a big boost — up to 8% per year — for waiting beyond full retirement age up to age 70 to start benefits.
Particularly for people who are single, who do not have a spouse or children who may qualify for benefits based on their record, it still makes sense to wait, according to Kotlikoff.

However, for other situations — a lower life expectancy, disabled children who cannot collect until you collect, a spouse who might also be able to collect benefits for taking care of them — the software will typically recommend starting at an earlier age, according to Kotlikoff.
If the retirement age is raised, that will be a benefit cut. However, it is unlikely such a change would affect current or near retirees, both Kotlikoff and LaVigne said.

Why you shouldn’t claim just to get 8.7% COLA

There is yet another reason people may be tempted to claim retirement benefits early — an 8.7% cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, that went into effect for this year to compensate for high inflation. It is the highest increase in about 40 years.
“If you are 62 or older, whether you are claiming your benefit or whether you are waiting, that [COLA] was increased to your Social Security amount,” LaVigne said.
In other words, either way you stand to benefit, whether it increased the future amount you receive or the amount you are taking right now, he said.
Rather than focusing on the COLA, it’s important for prospective beneficiaries to focus on putting a plan together so they will know how to minimize their tax bills and what to do if inflation spikes again during their retirement years.
“If you don’t have a plan in place, how do you know what to do when the unexpected happens?” LaVigne said. More

Adene Sanchez | E+ | Getty Images

Company: Exelixis (EXEL)

Business: Exelixis, an oncology-focused biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of new medicines to treat cancers in the United States. They have produced four marketed pharmaceutical products, including their flagship molecule, cabozantinib.
Stock Market Value: $6.3B ($19.46 per share)

Activist: Farallon Capital Management

Percentage Ownership:  7.5%
Average Cost: $17.47
Activist Commentary: Farallon Capital is a $36 billion multi-strategy hedge fund founded in 1986. Farallon’s investment strategies include credit investments, long/short equity, merger arbitrage, risk arbitrage, real estate investments and direct investments. Farallon is not an activist investor but will pursue an activist agenda when it feels forced to do so. The firm does not seek a fight but will not back down from one, either.

What’s Happening?

On April 5, Farallon sent a letter to the company announcing its nomination of the following director nominees for election to the board at the company’s 2023 annual meeting: (i) Tomas Heyman, interim CEO at Interlaken Therapeutics and former president of Johnson & Johnson’s corporate venture capital group, (ii) David Johnson, managing partner of Caligan Partners, and (iii) Robert Oliver, the former CEO of Otsuka America Pharmaceutical and an executive advisor. Farallon also expressed its belief that Exelixis should focus its research and development efforts and spending, communicate a differentiated and coherent strategy, as well as commit to ongoing distributions of excess capital to shareholders.

Behind the Scenes

As the strategy of shareholder activism has become more mainstream, it has been utilized by a larger breadth of investors. For the average investor it is hard to distinguish between shareholders using activism as a short term and opportunistic tool and real long-term investors using shareholder activism because the company is in desperate need of change and the shareholder has exhausted all other amicable options. This situation is the latter. Farallon did not buy the majority of its shares in the last 60 days like we often see from opportunistic investors filing 13Ds. The firm has been a shareholder of Exelixis since 2018 and is just now going public with their concerns. It has given management more than enough time to create shareholder value. Further, Farallon is not using an activist template like we see from novice activists where they criticize everything from board share ownership to executive compensation. Rather, the firm is focusing on glaring company issues and opportunities.  

The firm takes issue with the level of R&D and the lack of discipline and communication with respect to an R&D plan. Every company that spends a material amount on R&D should have a disciplined plan articulated to the market, but that is even more crucial for a company like Exelixis that spends over 50% of its revenue on R&D. In 2022, the company had $1.6 billion in revenue with an R&D budget of nearly $900 million, leading to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $222 million. This R&D budget is expected to increase to more than $1 billion in 2023. To make matters worse, the company is investing in many projects in scientific and clinical areas where it lacks differentiation and a competitive advantage. Instead of becoming more focused and disciplined, Exelixis is doing the opposite: pursuing 27 indications across 79 trials using at least three very different therapeutic modalities, a total that is much higher than any of their peers. Investors want to see a reasoned, disciplined R&D plan that explains the differentiated approach and competitive advantage the company is exploiting so that they can assess the likelihood of success.
Farallon estimates that the net present value of the company’s cabozantinib cash flows alone (with a modest R&D program) is worth in excess of $33 per share. Farallon would also like to see Exelixis commit to a much larger share repurchase program than the $550 million it has announced. The company has over $2 billion in cash and investments versus virtually no long-term debt and using a portion of this cash to buy back shares ahead of any R&D restructuring would not only create shareholder value but will help add discipline to management by forcing them to run a leaner operation without a cash stockpile on the balance sheet.
While improving margins and buying back stock may seem to be a typical activist play, it is not Farallon’s typical play. In the firm’s 2021 engagement with health-care company Acceleron Pharma, the firm suggested the opposite plan. At Acceleron, Farallon was in favor of increased R&D and opposed Merck’s acquisition of the company, lobbying for a standalone company which had significant prospects following the positive results of the Phase 2 trials of its pulmonary drug. Ultimately, Merck acquired Acceleron in the face of Farallon’s opposition, and the pulmonary drug’s Phase 3 trials have been a success. It’s expected to hit the market later this year, and Merck is slated to make an oversized return on this acquisition.
Farallon is making a very reasonable request to add three board members to Exelixis’s 11-person board. We believe this is reasonable just based on the company’s lack of discipline with respect to R&D and its serial underperformance compared to the market and its peers. However, other than three female directors added to the otherwise all-male board since 2016, the company has not added a new director since 2010. Eight of the 11 directors have been on the board between 13 and 29 years, for an average of over 20 years each. What is worse is that the board dismissed Farallon’s overtures; the firm said it was told that “the Board does its own refreshing.” Three new directors in the past 13 years is the company’s idea of board refreshing. It is one thing to have bad corporate governance; it is quite another to not even recognize bad corporate governance when you see it.
Farallon is nominating only three directors to this board, and it befuddles us as to how Exelixis does not see this as a gift. Assuming Farallon is targeting the three directors who have been on the board for 26 years, 22 years and 19 years, the firm is sparing three directors who have been on the board for 19 years, 18 years and 16 years, not to mention the chair and CEO, who have been on the board for 29 years and 13 years, respectively. All five of them are male. We do not see how Institutional Shareholder Services and the large institutional stockholders who own 25% of the company’s common stock could support these long-tenured directors if presented with a competing slate of qualified, fresh, diverse directors. In our opinion, Farallon could have won six seats on this board and should take three seats in a cake walk. Farallon has nominated three very qualified directors. Tomas Heyman is a venture investor formerly of Johnson & Johnson; Robert Oliver is the former CEO of a pharmaceutical business; and David Johnson is an experienced shareholder investor who is well versed in corporate governance and shareholder activism. Johnson, formerly a Carlyle Group managing director, is the founder of Caligan Partners, a fund that uses activism as a tool to unlock value.
This seems like the type of situation that should settle. Less than a week ago, that was the case when the parties had reached a near-final agreement which included the appointment of two Farallon nominees (Heyman and Oliver), the retirement of two long-standing existing directors and the formation of a new Capital Allocation Committee. However, Exelixis claims that the deal was derailed when Farallon requested too much confidential information related to their R&D strategy, their pipeline, people and clinical trial data.
On April 13, the company announced that two incumbent directors were resigning from the board and it was recommending that shareholders vote for Heyman and Oliver to replace them. This was not done as part of a settlement with Farallon but likely to effectively implement a settlement offer that Farallon had previously rejected. The company may be hoping that this will prevent shareholders from voting for Farallon’s third nominee, David Johnson. This is a tactical move that was made much easier by the implementation of the universal proxy card. The unfortunate part of this is that often the nominee the company resists the most is the one who is most needed. That is true in this case. As a sophisticated shareholder investor with activist experience, we believe David Johnson was the candidate most capable of reining in management’s R&D spending and further refreshing a board that still needs many newer directors. However, if Farallon gets tactical, the firm can orchestrate it so any two of its three nominees who they select will be elected to the board with a free option for the third.
Ken Squire is the founder and president of 13D Monitor, an institutional research service on shareholder activism, and the founder and portfolio manager of the 13D Activist Fund, a mutual fund that invests in a portfolio of activist 13D investments. More

As the cost of living rises, Americans are leaning more on credit cards.
However, that type of debt is costlier than ever with credit card interest rates at an all-time high.
Here are the three best ways to pay down expensive credit card debt once and for all.

Collectively, Americans owe more on credit cards than ever before. And they’re paying a higher price for it, as well.
The average annual interest rate for credit cards is now near 21%, according to data from the Federal Reserve — marking the highest rate since the Fed began tracking this figure nearly three decades ago.

With rates at record highs, households carrying credit card debt will pay an average of $1,380 in interest alone this year — up from $1,029 last year, a NerdWallet study found.
More from Personal Finance:Here’s the inflation breakdown for March 2023 — in one chartThis strategy could shave thousands off the cost of collegeWhy travel to Europe is no longer as much of a bargain
As the Fed raises rates to cool inflation, it’s becoming even costlier to borrow. With another possible hike on the horizon, average credit card annual percentage rates, or APRs, could still move higher in the months ahead, according to Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.
Sky-high APRs make credit cards one of the most expensive ways to borrow money from month to month. However, there are some tools and tricks to help pay down that balance.
Here are the three steps experts most often recommend.

1. Avail yourself of balance transfer cards

Cards offering 15, 18 and even 21 months with no interest on transferred balances “can be your best friend on the path to getting out of credit card debt,” McBride said.
“The 0% will shield you from interest charges and further rate hikes, but you’ll still have to do the dirty work of actually paying down the debt.”

Making the best use of a balance transfer boils down to making those payments on time and aggressively paying down the balance during the introductory period.
If you don’t pay the balance off, the remaining balance will have a higher APR applied to it, which is generally about 23%, on average, in line with the rates for new credit.
Further, there can be limits on how much you can transfer, as well as fees attached. Most cards have a one-time balance transfer fee, usually around 3% to 5% of the tab. And one late payment can negate your no-interest offer.

2. Consider a personal loan

Otherwise, consider a debt consolidation loan, which is a type of personal loan that allows you to combine interest from multiple credit cards into one low-interest fixed payment, advised Sara Rathner, a credit cards expert at NerdWallet.
“The interest rate will depend on your credit, but it may be worth it if the cost of interest and fees are significantly lower than what you’re currently paying on your credit cards,” Rathner said.

Currently, those rates are around 10%, on average, still well below what you may have on your credit card.
Further, borrowers may find it simpler to budget for a fixed monthly payment until the debt is paid off, Rathner added. “That can be easier to wrap your head around.”

3. Employ a debt-payoff method

Most experts also recommend coming up with a strategy to stay motivated. The two most common are the avalanche method and the snowball method.
The avalanche method lists your debts from highest to lowest by interest rate. That way you pay off the debts that rack up the most in interest first.
Alternatively, the snowball method prioritizes your smallest debts first, regardless of interest rate. The idea is that you’ll gain momentum as the debts are paid off and that will motivate you to keep going.
With either strategy, you’ll make the minimum payments each month on all your debts, and put any extra cash toward accelerating repayment on one debt of your choice.
“Avalanche will save you more on interest over time, but if your priority is knocking out the first couple of debts really fast to stay motivated, that’s where snowball comes in handy,” Rathner said.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

Ask an Advisor

Nothing is ever a sure bet, but artificial intelligence technology looks set to grow and profoundly alter the way we do things.
No one knows if today’s big tech players will take the lead in AI, but investors might looks at supporting players in the field for good investment opportunities.
These firms include Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices and Arista Networks.

Sompong_tom | Istock | Getty Images

The rise of ChatGPT has sparked another national conversation about artificial intelligence.
Depending on your viewpoint, the bot is either the key to making a host of companies and their workers more efficient, or it’s a slippery slope toward robots eventually taking over society, leaving millions jobless.

While the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, what is clear is that all the big tech companies think AI will be a huge profit driver in the years ahead.

More from Ask an Advisor

Here are more FA Council perspectives on how to navigate this economy while building wealth.

That has poured more fuel on an arms race that has been going on for years in AI. (Remember when everyone started to pour billions into driverless car technology?)

Determining a winner

Naturally, investors are thinking about who will come out ahead. It may seem like a sure bet that it will be one or a combination of Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft, each of which has nearly limitless resources to spend. But it’s hard to know for sure.
History is littered with examples of companies that once enjoyed a dominant position in an industry, only for them to slack off and become forever weakened. Yahoo! at one time was synonymous with the internet, ruling search. Now it has a little over 1% of that market.

BlackBerry was a status symbol as recently as 2010, when it was the top smartphone platform. Today, the device is barely functional after the company shut off a host of services last year.

This is partly why investing in AI could be a classic pick-and-shovel play. Not only are Amazon, Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft all mature companies, but there’s no guarantee any of them will become the undisputed king of AI.

A time to wait

Therefore, the safer bets could be on the companies that will help make that a reality, regardless of who wins the AI arms race. At the same time, it’s probably best to wait for a better opportunity to jump in because anyone going headlong into AI now will pay a steep price.
The largest cloud service providers, or hyper-scalers, today each have millions of servers in data centers scattered across the country. The portion of those servers running AI workloads — including powering a chatbot, a chess-playing machine, a driverless car and everything in between — will need to go through a massive upgrade cycle to add capacity.
Investors have taken notice.

The iShares Semiconductor ETF — a collection of the 30 largest U.S. listed companies involved in producing memory chips, microprocessors, integrated circuits and related equipment — is up about 23% year-to-date. If you drill down further, a couple companies within that fund have done even better.
Nvidia has gained more than 80%, while Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. has advanced by more than 50%. Together, these firms control about 29% of the graphics processing unit market. GPUs are essential for AI because they help to process massive amounts of data.
Meanwhile, Arista Networks has climbed over 30% this year. The company produces network switches for large data centers that enable connectivity between devices in a network. It enjoys about a 10% share of that market.

Good news is bad news

These are all great companies, and it’s hard to see the AI revolution moving forward without them. Still, making a case for any of them at their current valuations is nearly impossible. Yet, in a classic case of bad news is good news, they could become more attractive later this year.
The banking industry has thus far averted disaster, with contagion fears associated with the closure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — as well as the issues related to Credit Suisse — having dissipated in recent days. Even so, it’s reasonable to expect tighter loan conditions in the near term across the banking sector.
That could stifle personal consumption and business investment, pushing an economy already struggling with higher interest rates and elevated inflation over the edge. That would put pressure on stocks, leading to broad-based declines.
While that wouldn’t be a great development overall, it may provide an opportunity to make the best of a bad situation by adding AI exposure — including the likes of Nvidia, AMD and Arista Networks.  
— By Andrew Graham, founder and managing partner of Jackson Square Capital More

Ask an Advisor

The share of women who earn as much as or significantly more than their husbands has roughly tripled over the last half-century, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
But as women’s financial contributions increase, they still pick up a heavier load when it comes to household chores and caregiving responsibilities, the report also found.

More women are becoming breadwinners, but the division of labor at home has barely budged, a new report found.
Although men still out-earn women in most households, the share of women who earn as much as or significantly more than their husband has roughly tripled over the last half-century, according to a new Pew Research Center survey and analysis of government data.

Today, 55% of opposite-sex marriages have a husband who is the primary or sole breadwinner, down from 85% 50 years ago, Pew found.
Now, both spouses earn about the same amount of money in nearly one-third, or 29%, of such marriages, up from only 11% in 1972.

And about 16% of opposite-sex marriages have a breadwinner wife, a jump from just 5% five decades ago, the analysis found.
Women are achieving increasing levels of education, making them more likely to out-earn their husbands, according to Richard Fry, a senior researcher at Pew.
But as women’s financial contributions increase, they still pick up a heavier load when it comes to household chores and caregiving responsibilities, the report also found.

“The reality is, the majority of traditional marriages still adhere to traditional gender roles,” said Stacy Francis, a certified financial planner and president and CEO of Francis Financial in New York. She is also a member of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.

More from Ask an Advisor

Here are more FA Council perspectives on how to navigate this economy while building wealth.

Age, race and family size also play a role, the Pew report found, with Black women, as well as older women and women without children, more likely to be the breadwinners.
Many studies show that women shoulder the brunt of the responsibilities at home, regardless of their financial contributions.
In marriages where husbands and wives earn about the same, women spend roughly 2 hours more a week on caregiving and about 2½ hours more on housework, according to the Pew data.
“Even though there may be more egalitarian marriages, their duties at home have not been equalized,” Fry said. “The gender imbalance in time spent on caregiving persists, even in marriages where wives are the breadwinners.”

The only exception is in marriages where the wife is the sole breadwinner, Pew found: In those marriages, husbands devote more time to caregiving. However, husbands and wives still spend roughly the same amount of time on household chores.
“Even there, it’s still the case that she does an equal amount of housework,” Fry said.
Eve Rodsky, author of “Fair Play,” said “this will not change on its own.”
Although there is no quick fix, there is a solution, she added. “Understand that it’s much more than meets the eye and tell your story,” Rodsky advised.
Francis said she also struggled with this early on in her marriage. “We had to have that conversation,” she said. Together, Francis and her spouse came up with a plan to tackle joint responsibilities at home and cover family expenses equitably. The key, she said, “is to talk about what’s working and what’s not working.” More

If inflation continues to fall at the current rate, the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment for 2024 may be less than 3%, according to The Senior Citizens League.
This year, Social Security beneficiaries saw a record 8.7% bump to their Social Security benefits, the highest in four decades.
To be sure, early estimates for next year’s COLA and Medicare Part B premium may change as the year progresses.

Zamrznutitonovi | Istock | Getty Images

New government inflation data shows inflation is cooling — and that could point to a lower cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for Social Security beneficiaries next year.
The Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, or CPI-U, rose 5% from a year ago and 0.1% in March, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released on Wednesday.

Yet another measure used to calculate the Social Security COLA each year — the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W — rose 4.5% over the last 12 months and 0.3% for the month prior to seasonal adjustment.
More from Personal Finance:Here’s the inflation breakdown for March 2023 — in one chartThis strategy could shave thousands off the cost of collegeWhy travel to Europe is no longer as much of a bargain
If inflation continues to fall at the current rate, the Social Security COLA for 2024 may be less than 3%, according to an unofficial estimate from The Senior Citizens League, a nonpartisan senior group.
To be sure, that is a very early estimate, according to Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare analyst at The Senior Citizens League. Gauging how much the increase for 2024 will be, if there is one, will be clearer toward the second half of the year, she said.
In 2023, Social Security beneficiaries saw an 8.7% bump to their Social Security benefits, a four-decade record prompted by high inflation.

The Social Security Administration recently revised its projections for how long its trust funds can continue to pay full benefits — moving the depletion date one year earlier, to 2034, in part due to the higher COLA. At that point, it is expected 80% of benefits will be payable, unless Congress acts sooner.
“Hopefully we don’t have as large of a COLA because it’s also bad of the trust fund to try to have to keep up with increasing benefits by that much,” said Kelly LaVigne, vice president of consumer insights at Allianz Life.
While a higher cost-of-living adjustment may not be great for Social Security’s trust funds, it does help put more money in beneficiaries’ pockets.
As the rate of inflation subsides, the cost-of-living adjustment may be lower, but grocery bills and other expenses may not eat up as much of retirees’ Social Security checks.

Recouping, regrouping could take some time

Still, it will take time for Social Security beneficiaries to recoup losses incurred from a couple of years of fast-growing inflation that outpaced cost-of-living adjustments.
This year’s 8.7% increase has exceeded the rate of inflation in every month of 2023 so far by an average of 2.6%, according to The Senior Citizens League.
Average benefits have recovered just $179.40 since the start of the year, the research found.

Hopefully we don’t have as large of a COLA.

Kelly LaVigne
vice president of consumer insights at Allianz Life

Yet average benefits fell short of inflation by about $1,054 from January 2021 to December 2022, according to the nonpartisan senior group.
Even so, beneficiaries may not necessarily be catching up this year due to Medicare Part B premiums.
The standard Part B premium is $164.90 this year, down from $170.10 in 2022.
Those premiums, which are typically deducted directly from Social Security checks, are likely completely consuming the extra money beneficiaries have seen from the cost-of-living adjustment so far, according to The Senior Citizens League.

While signs point to a lower Social Security COLA next year, the Medicare Part B premium may be higher. The estimate for 2024 is $174.80, according to the Medicare trustees report released last month.
Experts emphasize those numbers are subject to change.
“We won’t really know 100%” what the Social Security COLA or Medicare Part B premium for 2024 will be until later this year, according to LaVigne. More

After a federal judge in Texas struck down a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, experts say health insurance plans may scale back their preventive care coverage.
People could soon get higher bills for certain cancer screenings and disease-preventing medications.

Sdi Productions | E+ | Getty Images

Tens of millions of Americans could be affected

The ACA’s preventive services mandate covered most people who have private health insurance, either through their employer or from the public exchange, Donovan said.
Around 100 million people with private insurance got preventive care required under the ACA in 2018, one estimate found, making it the provision with the widest reach. Insurers generally must not impose copays or deductibles on the recommended preventive care.
The ruling doesn’t appear to have a direct impact on those covered by Medicaid or Medicare, experts say.

Cancer screenings, heart meds among care at risk

The decision out of Texas means insurers are no longer required to provide free coverage based on recommendations made from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force since 2010.
However, the other two panels that advise the government on preventive care, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Health Resources & Services Administration, may have made similar recommendations that will prevent some kinds of care from losing coverage, Donovan said.

Still, because of the ruling, people in their late 40s may face higher costs for colorectal screenings.
Similarly, certain lung cancer screenings for adults between the ages of 50 and 80 with a history of smoking could be subject to new out-of-pocket costs, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In addition, some medications to prevent heart disease, such as statins, and drugs to lower the risk of breast cancer may also be subject to copays, deductibles and coinsurance now.
Advocates are also concerned that costs will rise for PrEP, a medication highly effective for preventing H.I.V.

Changes unlikely to be immediate

Although the decision is likely to drive up health-care costs for some people, Kosali Simon, professor of health economics at the O’Neill School at Indiana University, said there was little reason for panic just yet.
“Many preventive care services are not covered by this decision,” Simon said.

Insurers are also not likely to make changes to their coverage in the middle of the plan year, she added. That means any reduced coverage might not kick in until 2024. It’s also possible insurers will wait until the legal disputes over the provision are resolved before amending their policies.
Health plans will still be required to ensure no copays for many preventive services, including birth control and mammograms, Simon said. Some states have their own mandates, meanwhile, on free preventive care.

Patients can check in with insurers

Those who are worried about changes to their health-care coverage should call their insurer and ask about any upcoming scheduled appointments, Donovan said.
Whatever you learn, Donovan said, “We recommend going forward with any planned appointments. These preventive services may save your life.” More