Investing

Cathie Wood is defending her underperforming ARK Innovation exchange-traded fund following a rocky stretch.
Shares of the technology fund have lost nearly two-thirds of their value from their Covid-19 pandemic heyday.

Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest, speaks during an interview on CNBC on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Feb. 27, 2023.
Brendan McDermid | Reuters

Cathie Wood is defending her underperforming ARK Innovation exchange-traded fund following a rocky stretch.
“We have a volatile fund,” she told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Friday. “We should not be a huge slice of any portfolio. We are more of a satellite strategy now, although we think this is the way the world is going.”

Shares of the technology fund have lost nearly two-thirds of their value from their Covid-19 pandemic heyday, when market excitement and the meme stock craze drove shares to nearly $160 and led the fund to more than double in 2020, soaring 149%.
Since then, the fund has underperformed, fueling skepticism over the Ark Invest CEO’s investment strategies. Shares are up 2.8% this year, far behind the S&P 500’s 24% gain, and over the past three years have lost about 23% annually, according to FactSet data.
Wood acknowledged that several “interesting behaviors” during the pandemic sent ARKK shares higher, but asserted that many of the technologies and research underpinning her firm’s investments are “much more advanced.”
She called out the multiomics life sciences and health-care sectors as the biggest drag on the fund. This should change as new genome therapy editing companies such as Intellia Therapeutics emerge as providing alternative disease-curing methods.
“We think we’re a very good complement to the broad-based benchmarks out there, because we don’t look anything like them,” she said of her fund. “And truth will win out.” More

The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage in the U.S. slightly dipped to 6.78% for the week ending Nov. 14, barely changed from 6.79% a week prior, according to Freddie Mac data via the Federal Reserve.
That stabilization may be a good sign for the housing market.
“When rates are moving around a lot, it makes a lot of uncertainty in the market,” said Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist and vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors. 

Pekic | E+ | Getty Images

Mortgage rates seem to have steadied. That may be a good sign for the market, experts say.
The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage in the U.S. slightly dipped to 6.78% for the week ending Nov. 14, barely changed from 6.79% a week prior, according to Freddie Mac data via the Federal Reserve.

“Even though it’s higher than it has been over the course of several weeks, it’s probably good news for homebuyers,” said Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist and vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors. 

“When rates are moving around a lot, it makes a lot of uncertainty in the market,” Lautz said. 
Mortgage rates declined this fall in anticipation of the first interest rate cut since March 2020. But then borrowing costs jumped again this month as the bond market reacted to Donald Trump’s election win.
While the president-elect has talked about bringing mortgage rates down, presidents do not control borrowing costs for home loans, experts say.
Instead, mortgage rates closely track Treasury yields and are partially affected by what happens with the federal funds rate.

“They foresee inflationary policies, whether it’s tariffs or greater government spending, the tax bill … they’re pricing in more inflation,” said James Tobin, president and CEO of the National Association of Home Builders. “As the bond market reacts, mortgage rates are going to react to that, too.”
More from Personal Finance:What Trump’s presidency could mean for the housing marketCredit card debt hits record $1.17 trillionHere’s the inflation breakdown for October 2024
Less volatility can be a good sign, said Chen Zhao, chief economist at Redfin, an online real estate brokerage.
“High volatility by itself actually pushes mortgage rates even higher above treasury yields,” Zhao said. “More stable rates also means that homebuyers don’t have to worry during their home search about what their budget allows for changing.”
Trump’s team did not respond to a request for comment.

Don’t expect ‘huge swings’ on mortgage rates

Election uncertainty contributed to an upward swing in mortgage rates during October. Then rates went up even more last week as the stock market and yields reacted to the election results.
The 10-year Treasury yield jumped 15 basis points on Nov. 6, closing to trade at 4.43%, hitting its highest level since July, as investors bet a Trump presidency would increase economic growth, along with fiscal spending. The yield on the 2-year Treasury was up by 0.073 basis point to 4.276% that day, reaching its highest level since July 31.
But now that we have a president-elect, mortgage rates are expected to gradually come down over time, Lautz said.
From a monetary policy standpoint, future rate cuts are up in the air. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said Thursday that strong U.S. economic growth will allow policymakers to take their time in deciding how far and how fast to lower interest rates.
If the Fed continues to ease the federal funds rate, it could provide indirect downward pressure on mortgage rates, according to NAHB chief economist Robert Dietz.
“However, improved growth expectations would lead to higher rates, as would larger government deficits,” he said.
Experts say that mortgage rates might head into a “bumpy” or “volatile” path over the next year.
“I don’t think that there’s going to be any huge swings down into the 5% range,” Lautz said. “Our expectation is that rates are going to be in the 6% range as we move into 2025,” she said.

How buyers, sellers and homeowners can benefit

Rates that are trending lower can present an opportunity for buyers who have been house hunting for a while, especially as the winter season kicks in. Competition tends to slow down in the winter months in part because homebuyers with children are in the middle of the school year and reluctant to move, Lautz said. 

Our expectation is that rates are going to be in the 6% range as we move into 2025.

Jessica Lautz
Jessica Lautz, deputy chief economist and vice president of research at the National Association of Realtors

Current homeowners can also make the most of lower rates.
For example, if you bought your home around this time last year, when mortgage rates peaked at around 8%, you might benefit from a mortgage refinance, Lautz said. 
It “makes sense” to consider a refinance if rates have fallen one to two points since you took out the loan, Jeff Ostrowski, a housing expert at Bankrate.com, told CNBC after the Fed’s first rate cut this fall.
Remember that a loan refinance isn’t free; you may incur associated costs such as closing costs, an appraisal and title insurance. While the total cost will depend on your area, a refinance is going to cost between 2% and 6% of the loan amount, Jacob Channel, an economist at LendingTree, said at that time.
If you’re pondering on whether to refi or not, look at what’s going on with rates, reach out to lenders and see if refinancing makes sense for you, experts say.

Homeowners have earned record home equity. U.S. homeowners with mortgages have a net homeowner equity of over $17.6 trillion in the second quarter of 2024, according to CoreLogic. Home equity increased in the second quarter of this year by $1.3 trillion, an 8.0% growth from a year prior.
If you’re looking to sell your current home, you may be able to counteract slightly high borrowing costs on your next property by placing a larger down payment, Lautz said. More

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the opening bell on November 13, 2024, in New York City. 
Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

Stocks @ Night is a daily newsletter delivered after hours, giving you a first look at tomorrow and last look at today. Sign up for free to receive it directly in your inbox.
Here’s what CNBC TV’s producers were watching as the postelection rally waned, and what’s on the radar for the next session.

Vaccines

After President-elect Donald Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, concerns began to swirl about how he’ll deal with vaccinations.
Moderna slid 5.6% Thursday. The stock is 75% from the May high and is down 27% in November.
Pfizer was down 2.6% Thursday. The stock is 17.5% from the July high.
AstraZeneca fell slightly on Thursday. The stock is now 26% from the 52-week high. Shares are down 8.6% in November.
Merck was flat during the session, but the stock is 27% from the June high.
The SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI) dropped 3%. It is 8% from the high it reached earlier this week.  

Stock chart icon

SPDR S&P Biotech ETF (XBI) in 2024

CNBC will have several big guests on ‘Squawk Box’ Friday morning

Home Depot CEO Ted Decker will be on “Squawk Box” in the 8 a.m. hour, Eastern. The stock is 4% from the mid-October high.
Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood will also be on “Squawk Box” in the 8 a.m. hour. The ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) fell about 3.5% Thursday. It is up 17% in November, and it’s up 12% since the election.
Investor Ron Baron of Baron Capital is on in the 7 a.m. hour. Among other successes, he was an early backer of electric vehicle giant Tesla. Shares dropped 5.8% on Thursday. Tesla has fallen 13% since hitting a high Nov. 11. It is still up about 25% in November.

Electric vehicles

Stock chart icon

Rivian Automotive shares in 2024

Alibaba

13F filings

Different people have varying feelings about the value of 13F filings, in which big investors reveal their stakes from the previous quarter. Sometimes they’re dated. Sometimes they’re not.
I think they’re kind of neat-o. They provide insight into what these investors — some of whom are the best of our time — are doing.
David Tepper’s Appaloosa Management was buying shares of Chinese companies PDD and JD.com. You might remember that he told CNBC viewers to buy Chinese stocks and ETFs on Sept. 26. 
PDD Holdings owns online marketplace Temu. The stock is 32% from the May high and down nearly 18% in a month. JD.com is 30% from the October high. Shares are down about 18% in November. 
Appaloosa doubled its stake in Lyft. The stock is up 38% in November… 14% from the March high.
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway bought more than 1.2 million shares of Domino’s Pizza. The stock is down 5% in four days. The stock is up roughly 6% in 2024, and it’s 20% from the April high.

Stock chart icon

Domino’s Pizza in 2024

Intuitive Machines

CNBC TV’s Morgan Brennan did some out of this world reporting on this space stock Thursday.
The company reported a big earnings jump Thursday morning, showing revenue was up 360%.
Brennan reports this is another commercial space company that could benefit from the new administration which could be aggressive on the next frontier.
The ticker is LUNR. The stock took off like a rocket early this morning, hitting a new high. However, it fell back to Earth quickly, losing 13% on the day.
Intuitive Machines is up 31% so far in November and 185% in three months.
Redwire is another space company on Brennan’s radar. The stock is up about 14% in four days and has almost doubled in three months. 

Retail sales

New numbers are due Friday at 8:30 a.m. Analysts are looking for a slight uptick.
The SPDR S&P Retail ETF (XRT) is up 6% in November.
It hit a high on Tuesday.
Revolve is the top performer in the sector in November. I’m told by someone a lot more fashion-forward than I am (which is a low bar) that it’s like an online department store.
Grocery Outlet is up around 27% in November.
Warby Parker is up 26% in November.
The biggest losers are Groupon, American Eagle and Five Below.

Boeing’s CEO hits the 100-day mark

A lot has happened since Kelly Ortberg took the helm at Boeing, including a strike and a resolution of that labor dispute.
Since early August, the stock is down 15%.
Boeing is 48% from the December 2023 high. The stock is down 9% in four days. More

Prices have declined for many consumer items over the past year, a dynamic known as deflation.
Largely, that’s been for physical goods — such as new cars, appliances and consumer electronics — as pandemic-era supply-and-demand contortions return to normal, economists said.

97 | E+ | Getty Images

As inflation has throttled back from pandemic-era highs, consumers have seen prices decline outright for many household items.
This dynamic, known as deflation, generally doesn’t occur on a broad, sustained scale in the U.S. economy: With limited exceptions, businesses are generally loath to lower prices once they’ve increased, economists said.

But prices in some pockets of the economy, largely for physical goods — from new cars to appliances, sporting goods, consumer electronics and certain apparel — have deflated over the past year, according to the consumer price index.

“We are seeing [deflation] to some extent,” said Stephen Brown, deputy chief North America economist at Capital Economics.
Largely, prices have pulled back as pandemic-era contortions in supply-and-demand dynamics unwind, economists said. The U.S. dollar has also been relatively strong against major global currencies, making it cheaper to import goods from overseas.
But supply chains have “normalized” and deflation has “moderated to a pretty significant degree” as a result, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s.

Where there has been deflation

Prices among all physical goods are down 1% since October 2023, according to CPI data. This figure is for “core” goods, a measure that strips out volatile food and energy commodities, the prices of which can be volatile.

More from Personal Finance:Credit card debt hits record $1.17 trillionHere’s a key move for investors to reduce future crypto taxesThe best ways to save money this holiday season
Appliances were roughly 2% cheaper in October than they were a year ago, for example, according to the CPI.
Annual prices have also declined for clocks, lamps and decorative items, down about 3%; dishes and flatware, down 7%; women’s outerwear, down 6%; children’s apparel, down 1%; toys, down 3%; pet products, down 1%; and new cars, down 2%.

Prices for some categories — such as furniture and bedding, men’s clothing, cosmetics, and used cars and trucks — are down from October 2023, but they’ve rebounded somewhat in recent months, according to CPI data.
That said, used cars and trucks should see a resumption of deflation since “wholesale prices have fallen recently, and supply and demand continues to improve in the sector,” Bank of America economists wrote Monday in a research note.

Energy prices and electronics

Gasoline prices are also “way down,” Zandi said.
They’ve declined more than 12% in the past year, according to CPI data. Drivers paid $3.05 a gallon, on average, at the pump as of Nov. 11, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Consumers “could get more relief there because global oil prices are soft,” Zandi said.
That softness may be in anticipation of President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed policies around China, said Zandi. Those may include tariffs of at least 60% on goods imported from China, a nation with a huge appetite for oil. If Trump’s policies were to negatively affect the Chinese economy, they’d also likely dampen China’s oil demand.

Other energy commodities refined from oil have also seen huge price declines. Fuel oil prices, for example, are down over 20% in the past year, a trend that should contribute to lower prices elsewhere, such as for airfare, economists said.
Food prices are also generally underpinned by their own unique supply-and-demand dynamics, economists said. Bacon, turkey and snacks are about 4% cheaper than they were a year ago, for example.
Lower energy prices can also take pressure off food prices, as it costs less to transport and distribute food to grocery store shelves.

Consumer electronics have also seen big price declines: Computers, video equipment and smartphones are respectively 5%, 10% and 9% cheaper than they were a year ago, according to CPI data.
But consumers might not experience those lower prices at the store. They may exist only on paper.
That’s due to how the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures inflation for certain consumer goods, such as electronics, economists said.
Technology continually improves, meaning consumers get more for their money. The bureau treats those quality improvements as a price decline, giving the illusion of falling prices on paper. More

In “All The Presidents’ Money,” author Megan Gorman takes readers into a side of U.S. presidents that is often overlooked: how they were with their own money.
“Calvin Coolidge was incredibly frugal,” Gorman said, while “the biggest spender of them all was Thomas Jefferson.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1848/1879. Artist George Peter Alexander Healy.
Heritage Images | Hulton Fine Art Collection | Getty Images

Before becoming president, ‘they are just like us’

Arrows pointing outwards

Courtesy: Megan Gorman

Annie Nova: How much do presidents actually manage their own money? I imagine they outsource much of that strategizing and effort.
Megan Gorman: Well, up until most of them become president, they are just like us. They are managing their budgets and trying to grow assets. But what was striking in looking at their finances across different eras is that a lot of the same issues that we struggle with today, are ones that Americans have always struggled with.

The difference is that in many ways it is much harder today to achieve the American Dream. 
After all, Richard Nixon was able to go to college in 1930 for $230 a year. That’s around $8,000 in today’s dollars. And, in 1886, Grover Cleveland could buy a home on 26 and ¼ acres about three miles north of the White House for $21,500, the equivalent of $700,000 today.

‘Money caused and causes anxiety for everyone’

AN: Who was the most frugal president?
MG: Calvin Coolidge was incredibly frugal. He would have told you he was “thrifty.” Part of this comes from advice he received from his father growing up: that it was important to save and allow money to compound. Even when he was in the White House, the head housekeeper complained that he was always poking his head in to check on the cost of food being purchased.
The one that surprises most people was that John F. Kennedy was pretty frugal as well. Just because he came from money didn’t mean he wasn’t keeping an eye on the bottom line. Throughout his life, friends noted that he was “tight with a buck” and monitored costs.
AN: Was there a president who overspent?
MG: The biggest spender of them all was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had very nice taste, and that taste was enhanced from his time in France. If there was ever a dinner party you wanted to attend, it was Jefferson’s. Even up to the time he passed away, he was still trying to buy wine on credit.
Interestingly enough, given the debt he had when he was dying — more than $2 million in today’s numbers, he was clever in that he made sure in his estate plan that assets passed to his daughter and son-in-law could not be attached by creditors.

Megan Gorman, author of All The Presidents’ Money.
Photo: Marc Cartwright

AN: For whom did money cause the most anxiety?
MG: Money caused and causes anxiety for everyone. That being said, some handled it better than others. 
For instance, Ronald Reagan used budgeting as a mechanism to manage emotion when it came to money. This is no surprise given that he grew up in a financially unstable household with an alcoholic father. The Reagans would at times have to leave town in the middle of the night to get away from their landlord as they didn’t have the money to pay rent. As Reagan got older, he found that having a budget and sticking to it allowed him to manage his financial anxiety.

Early experiences informed money habits

AN: Who had the most financial struggles before becoming president?
MG: Harry Truman is one that easily comes to mind. Truman spent the first four decades of his life going through a lot of financial volatility. From his father losing all their money so he couldn’t go to college, to Truman having a series of unsuccessful business ventures including a zinc mine, an oil well and the famous haberdashery, he really struggled. 
But it wasn’t until he was in the presidency that he was able to save his salary along with a special stipend he received for two years that was tax-free. At the time of his death, he was worth $750,000, or $8 million today.

AN: How did a president’s childhood experiences impact their financial behavior?
MG: The best example would have to be Herbert Hoover.
Hoover’s story could have gone completely wrong for him. He lost both of his parents by the age of 9. He and his siblings are split up among different family members but they share the same financial guardian. So from an early age, Hoover is required to budget and submit his expenses to this guardian.
As he becomes a teenager, he takes on bookkeeping for his uncle’s business and really learns to be a “financial apprentice.” The budgeting and bookkeeping have such an impact on his financial skills that he becomes the treasurer of his class at Stanford. 
He just keeps building on his skill set again and again. That skill set would grow him great wealth — and allow him to do a lot of charitable work over his lifetime.

Money opps in post-presidential life

AN: Did presidents change their financial habits after their time in the White House?
MG: Before Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, previous presidents went back to practicing law, wrote a book or died. But Ford changed that.
He built a substantial speaking career and served on corporate boards. At the time he did this, it was seen as a big risk. In fact, Carter made it clear when he left the presidency, he wasn’t going to take the same path as Ford.
Today post-presidential life has continued to evolve. Bill Clinton is still an in-demand speaker and the Obamas are building a media brand.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Family caregiving had a “political moment” this election cycle, according to AARP.
President-elect Donald Trump touted a caregiver tax credit during his campaign.
Here’s what experts are saying about Trump’s proposal.

JGI/Tom Grill | Tetra images | Getty Images

At a recent campaign rally, President-elect Donald Trump promised new financial help for family caregivers.
“I will support a tax credit for family caregivers who take care of a parent or a loved one,” Trump said during an October speech at New York’s Madison Square Garden.

“It’s about time that they were recognized, right?” he said. “They add so much to our country and are never spoken of ever, ever, ever, but they’re going to be spoken of now.”
Trump has not elaborated on the details of that tax credit, and his team did not respond to requests for comment. He has also promised other tax breaks, including eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, tips and overtime and a deduction for auto loan interest payments.
“It definitely adds up to big net tax cut,” Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said of the president-elect’s tax proposals.

Family caregiving has a ‘political moment’

Family caregiving had a “bit of a political moment” this election cycle, with both presidential candidates addressing the topic, Nancy LeaMond, chief advocacy and engagement officer at AARP, said during a webinar Monday hosted by the organization, which represents people ages 50 and up.
About 48 million Americans help take care of aging parents, spouses or other loved ones, according to AARP. And about 78% of those caregivers have paid for care-related expenses out of their own pockets. On average, that adds up to about $7,200 per year.

“This adds to the economic strain they feel and anxiety about their long-term financial security,” LeaMond said. “They’re cutting back on personal spending, dipping into their savings and reducing what they’re saving for their own retirement.”
A record number of Americans are expected to turn 65 in the coming years. However, the share of potential caregivers is projected to shrink versus the number of older adults who may need long-term care, according to AARP.

No one policy will be a ‘silver bullet,’ expert says

To enact a caregiver tax credit, Trump will need Congress’ support.
A bipartisan bill — the Credit for Caring Act — proposes a credit of up to $5,000 per tax year to help caregivers cover long-term care costs. Under the terms of the proposal, the credit would cover 30% of expenses exceeding $2,000. To be eligible, caregivers would need to have more than $7,500 in income and be paying for long-term care for a spouse or other dependent.
“We will urge new leadership in Congress and the White House to take it up and pass it,” LeaMond said.
Some states have already taken up the issue, she said. Oklahoma and Nebraska recently passed their own caregiver tax credits, while Maryland has created a caregiver expense grant program.
An October AARP survey found about 90% of Americans ages 50 and over support a federal tax credit for eligible family caregivers. Earlier this year, a national poll from Bipartisan Policy Center Action found 82% of registered voters support caregiver tax credits.
More from Personal Finance:What Trump’s presidency could mean for the housing marketTrump’s win may put popular student loan forgiveness program at riskWhat the Fed’s latest interest rate cut means for your money
The federal caregiving tax credit proposal provides a “key opportunity” to include family caregivers in upcoming federal tax policy discussions, said Jason Resendez, president and CEO at the National Alliance for Caregiving.
However, no one policy is going to be a “silver bullet” to alleviate the burden of caregiving, he said.
“We can’t lose sight of the bigger and larger-scale investments that we need,” Resendez said, including stronger home and community-based supports, paid family and medical leave and additional long-term services and supports.
As lawmakers consider tax policy proposals, they may adjust the parameters to limit how much Trump’s proposed tax breaks may cost, Watson said.
“Step one is to figure out amongst Congress what their tolerance is for any debt increase,” Watson said. More

Certain rules that reduce pensioners’ Social Security benefits have been in place for decades.
House lawmakers voted to approve a bill that would nix those rules.
Critics say more comprehensive Social Security reform should be prioritized instead.

Maskot | Getty Images

A bipartisan bill to change Social Security benefit rules for pensioners passed in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, with 327 lawmakers voting to support the measure.
Now, the proposal heads to the Senate, where the chamber’s version of the bill has 62 co-sponsors, “surpassing the majority needed to pass the bill on the U.S. Senate floor and send it to the president’s desk to be signed into law,” Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Garret Graves, R-La., co-leaders of the bill, said in a joint statement.

The proposal — called the Social Security Fairness Act — would repeal rules that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pension benefits from state or local governments.
It would eliminate the windfall elimination provision, or WEP, that reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who worked in jobs where they did not pay Social Security payroll taxes and now receive pension or disability benefits from those employers. About 3% of all Social Security beneficiaries — about 2.1 million people — were affected by the WEP as of December 2023, according to the Congressional Research Service.
More from Personal Finance:What Trump’s presidency could mean for the housing marketTrump’s win may put popular student loan forgiveness program at riskWhat the Fed’s latest interest rate cut means for your money
The bill would also eliminate the government pension offset, or GPO, which reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows and widowers who also receive pension checks. As of December, about 1% of all Social Security beneficiaries — or 745,679 individuals — were affected by the GPO, according to the Congressional Research Service.
These rules, which have been in effect for decades, reduce the incomes of certain retired police officers, teachers, firefighters and other public servants, Graves said during a speech Tuesday on the House floor.

“This has been 40 years of treating people differently, discriminating against a certain set of workers,” Graves said.
“They’re not people that are overpaid; they’re not people that are underworked,” he said.

Supporters call bill a ‘step in the right direction’

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare said the House vote on the Social Security Fairness Act is a “step in the right direction” and a “bipartisan victory for public sector employees and their families.”
“We have long advocated for the repeal of the WEP and GPO provisions, though we would have preferred that Congress take up the more comprehensive improvements in Rep. John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act,” Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said in a statement.
Larson’s proposal, which has 188 House co-sponsors, would also repeal the WEP and GPO, while also implementing other temporary benefit increases. To help pay for those changes, it would require people with more than $400,000 in income to pay more Social Security payroll taxes.

On Tuesday, Larson voted against the Social Security Fairness Act, as well as another bill, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act. The latter bill would use a new formula for Social Security retirement and disability benefits for pensioners rather than eliminate the WEP. It would not change the GPO.
The bill, which was proposed by Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, failed when it was brought up for a vote.
“I could not vote for the bills on the floor tonight because they are not paid for and therefore put Americans’ hard-earned benefits at risk,” Larson said in a statement. “It would hurt most deeply the five million of our fellow Americans who receive below poverty checks, and almost half of all Social Security recipients who rely on their earned benefits for the majority of their income.”

Critics say the bill will weaken Social Security

The Social Security Fairness Act would add an estimated $196 billion to deficits over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. It would also move Social Security’s trust fund depletion dates closer by an estimated six months, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
“The long-term solvency of Social Security is an issue that Congress must address,” Spanberger said on the House floor on Tuesday.
“But that is a separate issue from allowing Americans who did their part, who contributed their earnings, for them to retire with dignity,” she said.
However, critics say Social Security’s funding woes should be a priority for Congress now. The program’s actuaries project the trust fund used to pay retirement benefits may be depleted in 2033, at which point 79% of benefits will be payable.
“This is not the right policy,” said Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute. “It’s what special interests were pushing, and politicians are responsive to their demands.”

Though the alternative bill proposed by Arrington would not address the GPO, it would provide a “fairer formula” for the WEP, Boccia said. However, broader changes are needed to shore up the program’s finances.
“We should reform Social Security so that it provides basic income security to the most vulnerable Americans in old age without adding to the debt or tax burden that younger workers face,” Boccia said. More

Thirty percent of federal student loan borrowers say they’ve gone without food or medicine due to their monthly bills, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finds.
In addition to skipping necessities, 38% of people with federal student loans said they carried credit card debt that they wouldn’t have otherwise, the bureau found.
Around 44% of borrowers said their education debt delayed when they could by a home, and 26% said the debt pushed back when they’d start a family.
“It’s clear that many borrowers are struggling with repayment,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra.

A student student sits in a lecture hall while class is being dismissed at the University of Texas at Austin on February 22, 2024 in Austin, Texas.
Brandon Bell | Getty Images

Nearly a third, 30%, of federal student loan borrowers say they’ve gone without food or medicine because of their monthly bills.
That grim finding comes from a new survey by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, conducted between October 2023 and January 2024, and including more than 3,000 responses from people with an active or recently active student loan account.

The bureau sought to gauge more broadly how tens of millions with education debt fared when their bills resumed in September 2023 after the Covid-era pause on the payments expired.
More from Personal Finance:28% of credit card users are paying off last year’s holiday debtHoliday shoppers plan to spend more while taking on debt2 in 5 cardholders have maxed out a credit card or come close
In addition to skipping necessities, 38% of borrowers said they carried credit card debt they wouldn’t have otherwise, the bureau found. Around 44% of borrowers said their education debt delayed when they could by a home, and 26% said the debt pushed back when they’d start a family.
“It’s clear that many borrowers are struggling with repayment,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement.
Outstanding education debt in the U.S. exceeds $1.6 trillion, according to a 2022 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Nearly 43 million people — or 1 in 6 adult Americans — carry student loans, the report said.

An end to Biden-era student loan aid

The CFPB report, released in the final months of President Joe Biden’s tenure, is likely aimed at making the case that the Biden administration’s relief measures for student loan borrowers were and continue to be needed.
Biden has forgiven more federal student loan debt than any other president.
Since he took office, the Education Department has canceled the student loans of roughly 5 million people, totaling more than $175 billion in relief. It has done so mostly by improving existing student loan relief programs that had long been plagued by problems.
Surveyed borrowers who have had their debt forgiven say they were able to make numerous positive changes in their lives, the CFPB report found. Nearly half, 45%, of those borrowers saved more than they could have otherwise. Another 9% of borrowers changed jobs or started a business, and 19% said they sought medical treatment after their debt was excused.
President-elect Donald Trump is a vocal critic of student loan forgiveness policies, calling them “vile” and “not even legal.” Experts anticipate Trump will abandon most of the Biden administration’s efforts to deliver deeper student loan cancellation.

Republicans have framed Biden’s student loan relief efforts as a handout to those who are already financially comfortable.
“Forgiving student debt is a massive windfall to the rich,” Vice President-elect JD Vance of Ohio, a Yale Law School graduate, wrote on X in April 2022.
“Republicans must fight this with every ounce of our energy and power,” he wrote.
However, the median household income for people who received student loan forgiveness was between $50,000 and $65,000, the CFPB found. For comparison, the median household income in the U.S. is more than $80,000.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More