Latest Sectors News

Everybody is clueless, and when you are clueless, you are scared.  View More

We are fixated on two problems: the price of oil and the frailty of our banking system. We are catastrophizing at a pace I have rarely seen, accelerated by negative commentators who are rarely proven right but are always given the microphone — either because they are super-rich or because they are super-short. Too cavalier? I wish it were. The oil situation is so fluid that it's difficult to opine today and have it hold up overnight. But the banking issue is more static and lends itself to more-than-momentary analysis. So let's leave the oil story to the crush of events, and instead address the dangers to the system posed by private equity and private credit. Where does it stand in the pantheon of crises? Is it the global economic crisis of 2007-2009, or something lesser, such as the Long-Term Capital Management collapse of 1998, or the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s? Or has there never been anything like what's occurring now, and it's therefore difficult to analogize to anything? The inability to understand the crisis and the fear it engenders makes it hard to grasp the real concerns here and magnifies them to the point where it feels like one of those earlier ones. Many are too young to remember the S & L crisis, but it was very hard to grasp at first, before we realized that crooks had gamed the system until it almost brought it down. Spoiler alert: I am going to spend the rest of this piece arguing that it is none of those three, just a difficult-to-understand tale made worse by the arrogance of several of the perpetrators, and the desire among a host of commentators to analogize to canaries in coal mines at a drop of a problematic hat. One of the most unnerving things that almost instantly happens when you try to analyze how much trouble we are really in is that we don't know how much money is actually at stake in private equity and private credit; how big is the problem? These days, people throw around the trillion-dollar amount pretty easily. I have heard that there could be anywhere between $1.8 and $3 trillion "involved," and that makes "the problem" as big as the systemic collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, AIG, and Lehman Brothers during the 2007-2009 crisis. I struggle with how to arrive at these amounts, or how the media seems to arrive at them with such certainty. Further, I recognize that I don't know how much leverage there is in private equity and private credit. Lehman at its height — or nadir — was levered more than 30 to one. This fact, and not its "size" as judged by its capital or market cap, is what mattered. Do I know, for example, how much Blue Owl Capital, an alternative asset manager, is levered? How about private equity giant Blackstone ? Do I really know anything about other big players like Apollo Global Management and Ares ? Are we talking about gigantic amounts of private equity debt bundled into bonds? Are we talking about investors who borrowed money to buy these bonds and now find themselves underwater? The answer is that we have no idea what we are talking about, which is why the fear keeps building. Everybody is clueless, and when you are clueless, you are scared. We are all scared. Here's what we do know: just like in the 2007-2009 crisis, the companies we regard as "in trouble" are all publicly traded. Their common stocks' prices can inform us of the depth of the problem. For example, we may fret about their burgeoning yields amid declining stock prices. For example, Blue Owl's common stock yields 10%. Ares yields 5%, while Blackstone yields 5.58%. You could easily argue that something is very wrong when you see those oversized yields. But all of these companies, including Blue Owl, can pay dividends. Plus, the common stocks of KKR, which yields 0.86%, and Apollo Global, at 1.95%, show you that these private equity firms aren't necessarily known for big payouts anyway. The stocks have been tremendous victims of this moment: Blue Owl fell 40% so far this year, Apollo slipped 27%, Ares fell 27%, Blackstone lost 30%, and KKR decreased 32%. Those declines have been bandied about endlessly. Again, though, those declines are not dispositive of anything but fear. It is not as if things are going badly by the moment, and the stocks reflect those woes. The stocks reflect fear, not substance. The actual portfolios these companies have, at least to the naked eye, seem palatable if not outright positive. Unlike in 2008, when many mortgages were fraudulent, and many others had little money down, these assets have real value. They just lack a price. And they lack a price because their managers seem reluctant to set one, because the only way to get a price is to come to the market with the goods. The private equity companies seem to have stopped doing one of their primary jobs: ringing the register and taking a profit after fixing up a company that they took private. Wasn't that what these companies were expected to do? How we got here This point is very important and often overlooked. Many of the problems we face in private credit and private equity stem from suboptimal portfolio management. The role of these companies had been pretty specific: buy publicly traded but undervalued companies, improve them, and then take them public again at higher prices than they paid to take them private, often having extracted additional wealth along the way. Wasn't that the m.o.? In the last few years, however, many private equity companies felt that their portfolio companies weren't getting their due in the public markets. So they decided to keep them, nurture them, and own them rather than sell them in the public markets. They, somewhat brazenly, have been insisting that they will make more money that way. I remember when I first heard they were doing this, I said to myself, wait a second, this isn't right. These private equity companies just seem unwilling to accept the market's judgment, one that says they paid too much or they didn't judge the ultimate outcome effectively. It is an oddity. The firms may think their portfolio companies aren't getting their due. Yet, I agree with former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein that we have had the greatest, most fecund moment in the history of all capital markets, and yet these private equity firms haven't been able to unload their portfolio companies at big profits? If they can't sell into this all-time-high market, when can they? Sure, they might want to hold on to all that they own, but it would be prudent to unload much more merchandise than they seem to be trying to sell, if they are trying to sell at all. It's vexing. Perhaps the market only has eyes for unindebted tech and health-care companies? Maybe the portfolio companies are in out-of-favor sectors with low price-to-earnings ratios? Or maybe these private equity firms misjudged the market's appetite for companies with heavy debt in industries that aren't as well-liked as they were when they were bought. In other words, these firms made misjudgments that caused them to own rather than rent their portfolio companies. They are, alas, stuck with them and are now making excuses for their misjudgments. That, and not anything else you have heard, is where the dilemma of the moment lies. If the private equity firms were a little less greedy and brought some of their portfolio companies public at prices that are good value for buyers and not a disaster for themselves, a lot of their problems would go away. Maybe I am too optimistic as I write this, but if these companies were to take some hits in the IPO market and accept that they aren't going to make as big a profit as they thought, then they — and we — wouldn't be in this jam. That's the hope. And that is why the situation isn't as dire or existential as you might think. The vast majority of the portfolio companies for all of these firms are in reasonable shape. Most of their companies could come public, just not at prices that please the managers. Now, remember we are dealing with two strains of pain here: equity and debt. The portfolio companies are almost entirely current on their debts. That's great news for the private credit firms. It doesn't mean all that much for the private equity firms because, as you can imagine, just because you own a company that can pay its bills doesn't mean you have a company that would make for a terrific IPO. Strike two So, if these companies can pay their bills and can ultimately go public, what's the big deal? Simple: the portfolio management process went awry a second time. It wasn't enough that these private equity firms universally embraced the concept of owning and not renting. They also decided, in a remarkable groupthink, that they would massively overweight enterprise software companies. Why not? For years, the biggest gains in the stock market came from enterprise software companies, starting with Microsoft a half-century ago. So why not go all in on enterprise software? Make it a big percentage, perhaps as much as 40%, of their funds? When I pore over what they own, I come up with that percentage, thereabouts. I would argue that the most successful private equity firm of our time may be Thoma Bravo, a privately held firm with $160 billion under management. Its forte is precisely what is most hated in the market right now: identifying undervalued enterprise software companies, including some considered pre-AI, that can be transformed into AI powerhouses if given time, without public glare. When you look at the portfolios of the private credit firms, you see Thoma Bravo stuff all over the place. I greatly respect this firm, as do others. Maybe that's why you never hear, out loud, the obvious indictment: "I can't believe how much Thoma Bravo these firms have." They are too good to slam. But in an atmosphere of hysteria over AI and how destructive it can be, having a lot of Thoma Bravo assets in any form — debt, senior debt, equity — it's a kiss of death. And who owns the most Thoma Bravo paper in all its different forms? Blue Owl. By far. Blue Owl is a major debt holder in Thoma Bravo deals. I could argue that Blue Owl is being sunk by Thoma Bravo deals, even as the deals are doing incredibly well. It doesn't matter, though, does it? Isn't ServiceNow doing incredibly well? Is Adobe all that bad? How come Thoma Bravo isn't being sunk by these deals and Blue Owl is? Thoma Bravo, by all rights and circumstances, is still regarded as the premier acquirer of software companies. Not only that, but if you look at the companies, once acquired, they are often improved rapidly. Case in point: Anaplan, a software company purchased by Thoma Bravo for $10.4 billion in June of 2022. You often hear about this company being at the center, ground zero of the problem of private credit. That's because it wasn't known to be an AI-enabled company, and therefore, we can only conclude that this accounting and planning company is being eaten alive by artificial intelligence. Blue Owl was the administrative agent and lead arranger of the Anaplan Deal. It took down a huge slug of Anaplan debt. They are very exposed. That said, Blue Owl does have many investments. We don't know how much of their portfolio is Anaplan. Probably no more than 2-3%. But having any Anaplan right now is considered toxic, a scarlet letter of investing. Anaplan is private, so we don't know how it is really doing. But by all accounts, it is doing very, very well. In fact, it is doing much, much better than when it was public. How is that possible? Go to its website. You will see a company that is all-in on AI and has fundamentally changed since it went private. It is not hype. All the articles that I can find about this company indicate that it is in much better shape. In fact, I believe that if Anaplan were to go public right now, it might be an outstanding IPO. If that happened, many of the headline-risk problems we see every day in the private credit segment of the industry would disappear. One deal, done right, would make us all feel very different about this crisis. It would certainly do a lot to change the narrative. Yet no one is talking about that happening. Now here's where it gets tricky. It's not just the portfolio companies that are worrisome. It's the vehicles that own the debt. Everyone in the financial industry always wants to be able to sell to everyone. If you run a finance company and are only allowed to sell to institutions, you feel hemmed in. Why can't you sell to individuals? Why does the government care? Why do they need protection? That's been the attitude of almost every company in the financial business, from banks to private equity to hedge funds. They want to "democratize" their offerings, allowing them for all. The private credit firms have been very successful at democratization. It's not cynical. There have been some terrific investments in private credit that I argued should be made available to individuals. This isn't all a sucker's game. It just seems like it now. A liquidity issue But there was one aspect of private credit that does seem, in retrospect, not nefarious, but certainly greedy. The private credit firms were not offering as much liquidity to individuals as they might have expected or needed. Institutions don't mind being locked up for years and years. Individuals do. Most individuals expect instant liquidity because they are used to it. They can sell stocks immediately. They can sell bonds immediately. They can sell stock mutual funds and bond mutual funds instantly. So why can't they sell their shares in private credit packages instantly? Because they gave up that right when they decided to invest in private credit. Now, maybe individuals didn't realize they gave up that right when they invested. Maybe they didn't realize how important that right is. Maybe they didn't get compensated enough for giving up that right. In that sense, the sponsors were greedy. The individuals seemed to think these were just like mutual funds. Plus, they thought there was some sort of hardship redemption exemption they could rely upon to get their money out in an emergency. Let's bring us up to the present day. These private equity funds are now under siege from investors seeking their money back, largely because they believe the enterprise software portion of the funds they are in is going bad. They see publicly traded enterprise software stocks like Adobe , ServiceNow , Workday , and Salesforce underperforming, so they think privately held companies must be doing poorly, which means their debt must be doing really poorly. The upside of owning a pile of worrisome debt is not so hot. So, why not redeem? Why not get out before AI destroys their investment? Right now, there is a bit of a stalemate. The investors want out in increasing numbers. The private credit companies don't have to let them out. But they feel responsible, so they come up with creative ways to meet redemptions. Redemptions at Blackstone were met, in part, by Blackstone employees who actually paid them out. Blue Owl closed its traditional redemption door but sold some loans at or near par to three institutions at arm's length and to an insurance company in which it held an interest, and gave every investor some money. It was novel. The company thought it was elegant. In the end, Blue Owl outsmarted itself and came off as arrogant, devious, rich parvenu bankers. Harsh? Of course. Blue Owl and the rest, though, know that there is no legal expectation of being paid. They can't be forced to pay. These firms seem to have the right to cap exemptions, or even not offer them at all, if they don't want to, because they believe that redemptions hurt those who remain by forcing sales. We could agree that redemptions can force the sale of illiquid bonds that yield a subpar return compared with holding the debt. Some could argue that the debt will never be paid because of what AI will do. I think that's a stretch, though. So we find ourselves in the fix we are in right now with the redeemers creating a self-fulfilling tsunami of endless panic. Each time we hear about another fund turning down redeemers, we know that the next one will be worse, and the one after that even worse. None of these firms seems to be able to get ahead of the grim reaper of redemptions. None seems to sell off some debt and keep some of the interest in a rainy-day fund. None seems to be able to explain what they heck is happening internally that they could get so hung. It just makes you feel even more frightened. What a nightmare. All is based on individual investors' emotions and the illiquidity of their investments. The stories you read right now make it sound like there are hundreds of funds out there that are underwater and aren't letting investors out. There are also publicly traded companies called business development companies (BDCs) that have the same sort of investments that seem as sloppy and ill-conceived as we now think of these private credit funds. At least they can be sold, even though you would likely take a big loss if you did. The press also makes it sound as if many major banks are involved in loans to many enterprise software companies that are now going bad because of AI. It's a ludicrous charge. There are very few banks that operate in this world, and most are much more cautious than private equity or credit firms because regulators are tougher and banks are far more fearful of these kinds of loans than their private equity and credit rivals. Now I am not going to dismiss the whole "debacle," which, by the way, is a heck of a lot more descriptively accurate than the word "crisis" when you are describing this liquidity mismatch. It is always worrisome when you hear that individuals can't redeem something that is their own. It reminds us of those dark moments when money funds couldn't be redeemed in 2007 and 2008. Those were precursors to disaster because the underlying assets were much worse than they seemed. But this is definitely not like that. The private credit funds that people want their money out of were never meant to provide that level of liquidity, hence why a Blue Owl executive could seem almost puzzled that investors were upset with its faux redemption plan. We wouldn't even know there was a problem, or we would accept it, if these funds were like hedge funds, where you are often tied up for long investment periods. That's not the case. We do know, and because we do know, we assume the worst. At this very moment, we assume the worst about everything. We assume the private equity companies can't bring their portfolio companies to market. We presume that their companies are doing terribly or are about to go broke. We presume that's happening because many of their companies are in the enterprise software space. We presume that their enterprise software companies are being crushed by AI. And we presume that the redemptions can't be met because the loans that they are based on are increasingly in arrears. Very little of that narrative is true. What is true is that the "semi-liquidity " that was promised now looks something like this: when you don't need the money, there is liquidity, and when you do need the money, there isn't liquidity. The investors think they need the money before they get wiped out. They see how badly the business development companies are doing. They see the publicly traded software companies sinking, and they are freaking out. I am sympathetic to their fears. However, they are way overdone. I know there is no such thing as a time-out. You can't tell the market to breathe. But if you could, this problem could be dealt with, or even go away. So my conclusion is this: how can you say that a $2 trillion industry is about to be wiped out by something that simply needs to take a breath? The answer? It isn't about to be wiped out. At this very moment, I would rather be with the employees of Blackstone who got in at what may turn out to be very good prices than with the panicky sellers of the same fund. And I do not and have never liked investing in debt to get a high yield. (I have said this a thousand times in 21 years of "Mad Money.") But how can this situation be so disastrous if time and cooler heads can heal these wounds? How can that bring us down? Only if we really fan the flames of panic can we take down the whole burning coliseum of trapped departing fans. Which brings me full circle. Is it a prelude to another Great Recession? Could it almost bring us down like Long-Term Capital Management, which prompted the Federal Reserve to cut rates, or the S & L crisis, which prompted the feds to create a trust fund to buy real estate assets? Only if you are really in a world where you need ratings so badly that you would sell your soul for them. The real issue here is that we don't have any analogy that fits. The problem is being brought on not by credit woes but by liquidity concerns, and liquidity issues are never as dangerous to the system as credit problems. We can certainly make them out to be, but it would be wrong, especially when you consider how few of the companies we are talking about are really going belly up. Here's what I encourage. It's too early for my more sanguine thesis to play out. I am sure there's another Blue Owl shoe to drop. Maybe a KKR? Maybe someone who put together a BDC will come out and confess how much of an idiot he is? Maybe do it with a bag over his head? But keep in mind that not only is the banking system not going to be brought down by private credit, but, other than Blue Owl, the other firms will soon skate from here. No, don't buy them. But betting against this class of operations right now, right here? Good for down 5%. Maybe 10%. But if an Anaplan comes public and soars, you will wish you had taken the other side of the trade. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.

JD.com is pushing same-day delivery and international brands as a way to help it compete with Amazon. View More

In this article9618-HKJDFollow your favorite stocksCREATE FREE ACCOUNT The JD.com logo is displayed on a smartphone screen in this photo illustration. Jonathan Raa | Nurphoto | Getty Images JD.com launched its long-anticipated European online shopping platform on Monday, as the Chinese e-commerce giant looks to challenge Amazon as well as domestic rivals that have already expanded internationally.Joybuy, JD.com's international online shopping brand, launches in six new markets, including the U.K. and Germany, with the company banking on fast deliveries and high-quality products to get an edge on rivals.While peers like AliExpress and Temu operate an asset-light model and ship goods directly from China, JD.com has its own local warehouses and logistics networks that enable it to minimize delivery times.The approach has been successful in China, where JD has developed an extensive logistics network for super-fast deliveries and established itself as a destination for domestic consumers to buy global brands such as Apple. The Chinese tech giant said customers in Europe can get same-day delivery on orders placed before 11 a.m. For orders over £29 in the U.K., there's no extra cost. Joybuy will also feature brand stores from companies including L'Oréal Paris and De'Longhi. These are effectively a branded space in the Joybuy app where companies can showcase their official goods.JD.com is stepping into a highly-competitive European e-commerce market, which features heavyweights like Amazon, as well as smaller local players and rival services from Alibaba's AliExpress and Temu-owner PDD.Both AliExpress and Temu have sought to bring competitively-priced products to the European market, but have relied on a marketplace model of third-party merchants who sell through their platforms.While Temu and AliExpress have been operating internationally for the past few years, JD is hoping to catch up. Joybuy emphasizes its ownership of much of the inventory that it sells."We're at first party retailer, we're completely different to every other retailer based on our customer proposition," Matthew Nobbs, U.K. managing director of Joybuy, told CNBC in an interview."So we don't do any de minimus business. We're a retailer, first, and foremost for brands, and that's our core.""De minimis” refers to a rule in various countries that gives customs duties exemptions for low-value goods. Delivery speed Nobbs said that Joybuy has been in a "beta" testing phase for more than six months and the platform is now ready for a full launch. While Joybuy is offering free same-day delivery for orders worth over £29, the company has also launched a monthly membership service called JoyPlus. This will cost £3.99 and give users unlimited free delivery. In comparison, Amazon Prime in the U.K. costs £8.99. "Supply chain is the strength of the core of everything that we do," Nobbs said.Same-day delivery will not be available to all customers in countries where Joybuy is launching, but the group plans to expand its warehouse footprint eventually. The Joybuy executive said the company will expand its warehousing presence across the U.K. and other markets "step-by-step." Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Israel says it has killed two senior Iranian intelligence officials as oil loading reportedly resumes in the UAE's Fujairah port following a fire. View More

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz attends a United Nations Security Council meeting, after the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran, at U.N. headquarters in New York City on Feb. 28, 2026.Heather Khalifa | Reuters Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday that President Donald Trump is weighing strikes on oil infrastructure on Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub. "President Trump's not going to take any options off the table," Waltz said on CNN's "State of the Union." Kharg Island has been thrust into the global spotlight because it is regarded as one of Iran's most sensitive economic targets. The terminal accounts for around 90% of the country's crude exports and has a loading capacity of roughly 7 million barrels per day.Trump said on Friday that he directed the U.S. Central Command to carry out a bombing raid on Kharg Island's military targets for the first time but left the oil infrastructure intact. Trump had threatened further strikes on Iran's oil export hub, even as he repeatedly urged allies to deploy warships to help the U.S. secure the Strait of Hormuz."He deliberately hit the military infrastructure only, for now," Waltz said on CNN. "And I would certainly think he would maintain that optionality if he wants to take down their energy infrastructure."Separately, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi took to social media to say his country is "ready to form a committee with the countries of the region to investigate the targets that were attacked" on Kharg Island."Our attacks only target American bases and interests in the region," he wrote. In a Telegram post Sunday, Araghchi said: "We have not targeted any civilian or residential areas in the countries of the region so far," and added, "Occupying Kharg Island would be a bigger mistake than attacking it." Trump calls for help to secure Strait of Hormuz The Trump administration reportedly may soon announce that a coalition of countries have agreed to join together to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday, citing U.S. officials. It is unclear, however, whether such an operation would start during or after the war.Still, a number of countries have responded tepidly to Trump's repeated calls for other nations to send military ships to the Gulf to help the U.S. secure the strait.In a Truth Social post on Saturday, the president wrote, "Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area." Trump later in the day demanded in a separate post that countries that rely on the strait for their energy supply assist in the U.S. and Israeli military operations in the region.South Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Sunday that it "takes note" of the president's comments and that it would "closely coordinate and carefully review" the situation. The Korea International Trade Association said it gets around 70% of its crude oil and 20% of its liquified natural gas from the Middle East.Comments by Germany's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul on ARD television on Sunday indicated his country won't participate in a Strait of Hormuz mission, for now."Will we soon be an active part of this conflict? No," he said adding that "we will only get security for the Strait of Hormuz … if there is a negotiated solution."Britain responded that it is 'intensively' looking at how to help secure the strait. Asked whether Britain is considering sending minesweepers or mine-hunting drones to the strategic waterway to help shipping return to normal, U.K. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told Sky News: "We are talking to our allies."Miliband told the BBC that "any options that can help to get the strait reopened are being looked at." He added: "We don't want a nuclear Iran but ending this conflict is the best and surest way to get the strait reopened."In Japan, it is speculated that Trump will ask the U.S. ally to send warships when Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi meets with him on Thursday at the White House. Tankers sail in the Gulf, near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from northern Ras al-Khaimah, near the border with Oman’s Musandam governance, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in United Arab Emirates, March 11, 2026.Stringer | Reuters IRGC vows to end 'child-killer' Netanyahu Tehran on Sunday promised to kill Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the U.S.-Israel war on Iran continued to threaten oil supplies in the Gulf."IRGC vows to pursue and kill 'child-killer' Netanyahu if he is still alive," Iran's IRNA news agency said in a post on X, referring to the country's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Rumors that the Israeli leader was dead circulated over the weekend, prompting his office to issue a statement calling the reports "fake."Israel in return targeted key members of Iran's leadership over the weekend.The Israel Defense Forces said they had "eliminated" two senior Iranian intelligence officials of the "Khatam al-Anbiya" Emergency Command.Late on Saturday, the IDF said in a post on X that it had struck the primary research center of the Iranian Space Agency and an aerial defense system production factory.Iran continued to retaliate against targets around the region. Israeli emergency services reported a "recent missile barrage" fired at central Israel, but said there were no known injuries. Read more U.S.-Iran war newsFCC chair slams broadcasters after Trump disputes reports on Iran-damaged U.S. tankersAnalysis: It will take a military breakthrough in Iran to lower oil pricesTrump says he thinks Putin is helping IranWhat happens if the U.S. pushes to seize Iran's 'oil lifeline': Kharg IslandPete Hegseth on Strait of Hormuz: 'Don't need to worry about it'U.S. ‘misadventure’ in Iran has no clear exit strategy, Russia’s UK ambassador saysMany Dubai expats fled as Iran war escalated. Those who stayed say life is ‘functioning but tense’Four crew killed in U.S. refueling plane that crashed in Iraq, Pentagon saysStrait of Hormuz must remain closed as ‘tool to pressure enemy,’ Iran’s new supreme leader saysU.S. forces sink 16 Iranian minelayers as reports say Tehran is mining the Strait of HormuzIran sends millions of oil barrels to China through Strait of Hormuz even as war chokes waterwayPrediction markets face questions amid Iran war, nuclear detonation wagersRussia told Trump it has not shared intelligence with Iran during war, Witkoff saysOil falls even after Energy secretary wrongly claims Navy escorted tanker through Strait of HormuzStrait of Hormuz will partially reopen in 2-3 weeks: David RocheThe Iran war threatens LPG supply. India's restaurants are in troubleIran defends strikes on Gulf neighbors — but they say trust is brokenWhy China can withstand oil's surge past $100 more easily than other countriesTrump says oil price surge is a 'small price to pay' for defeating IranPRO: Oil price surge could boost these Chinese stocks, Goldman says Rising oil prices may continue The war has effectively choked off energy supplies moving through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. About 20% of the world's oil and gas typically passes through the maritime corridor. On Friday, Brent crude oil futures closed above $100 per barrel for the second straight day, and the global oil benchmark has surged more than 40% since the war in Iran began. Oil prices ​could extend gains at Monday's ​open as the Iran war enters a third week, but the Trump administration continued to downplay the spike in prices as a short-term issue."I think that this conflict will certainly come to the end in the next few weeks — could be sooner than that," U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "But the conflict will come to the end in the next few weeks, and we'll see a rebound in supplies and a pushing down in prices after that."Wright caused confusion and roiled the markets on Tuesday after incorrectly claiming in a post on X that the U.S. Navy has successfully escorted an oil tanker through the strait. watch nowVIDEO3:5203:52Fmr. Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta: Surprised U.S. had 'no plan' to deal with closure of Strait of HormuzClosing Bell: Overtime Brent and U.S. crude futures have already spiked sharply, rattling global markets. Both contracts have surged more than 40% so far this month to their highest levels since 2022 after the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran ‌brought shipping to a near-halt through the Strait of Hormuz.Oil-loading operations in the United Arab Emirates' port of Fujairah resumed on Sunday according to media reports, after being interrupted a day earlier due to a fire caused by falling debris from an intercepted drone.A spokesperson for Abu Dhabi's state oil giant, ADNOC, which operates in Fujairah, directed CNBC to the Fujairah Media Office, which did not immediately respond to emailed requests for comment.Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency said Sunday that emergency stocks of oil "will soon start flowing to global markets."The IEA also updated last week's announcement of 400 million barrels to nearly 412 million. Member countries in Asia plan to release stocks "immediately," it said, and reserves from Europe and the Americas will be released "from the end of March." Major sporting events canceled The impact of the war has not only severely disrupted air travel but it is now also affecting major sporting events in the Gulf region due to safety concerns.Formula 1 said on Saturday it has canceled the upcoming Grand Prix races in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia scheduled for April."While alternatives were considered, no substitutions will be made in April," Formula 1 said in a post on X.And the "Finalissima" match between Spain and Argentina that was scheduled to be held in Qatar on March 27 has been cancelled, the UEFA said in a statement on Sunday."It is a source of great disappointment to UEFA and the organisers that circumstances and timing have denied the teams of the chance to compete for this prestigious prize in Qatar," UEFA said in a statement.The contest between Spain and Argentina was scheduled to be held at Doha's Lusail Stadium, where soccer fans would have had the opportunity to watch Lionel Messi go head-to-head with Lamine Yamal.— Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Carr on Saturday blasted broadcasters shortly after President Donald Trump called reports that Iran struck five U.S. tanker planes "fake news."  View More

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr testifies during the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing titled "Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission," in Rayburn building on Wednesday, January 14, 2026. Tom Williams | Cq-roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has drawn fierce backlash from Democratic lawmakers and free speech advocates for threatening to revoke broadcasters' licenses over their coverage of the war in Iran. Carr on Saturday blasted broadcasters shortly after President Donald Trump called reports that Iran struck five U.S. tanker planes "fake news." In a post on X, Carr warned that broadcasters will lose their licenses if they don't "operate in the public interest." "Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions - also known as the fake news - have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up," Carr wrote in the post, which attached Trump's statement on Truth Social earlier Saturday. Democrats said Carr's comments amounted to an authoritarian assault on free speech. "Constitutional law 101: it's illegal for the government to censor free speech it just doesn't like about Trump's Iran war," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wrote Saturday on X. "This threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook.""We aren't on the verge of a totalitarian takeover," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., wrote in a post on X. "WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT."The FCC didn't immediately return a request for comment from CNBC. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that five refueling tankers were struck during an Iranian missile strike on the Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia. In a Truth Social post, Trump called that an "intentionally misleading headline," citing the Journal, The New York Times and what he called other "Lowlife" papers.California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, wrote on X that it would be "flagrantly unconstitutional" for the FCC to pull a broadcast license because it disagreed with coverage of the Iran war. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., agreed, writing that such a move would be "flagrantly anti First Amendment" and "fascist."Even Trump ally Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., voiced his displeasure with Carr's remarks. "I'm a big supporter of the First Amendment, I do not like the heavy hand of government no matter who's wielding it," Johnson said in an interview on Fox News' "The Sunday Briefing." "So no, I'd rather the federal government stay out of the private sector as much as possible."The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group, called the FCC chairman's warning to broadcasters over Iran coverage "outrageous.""When the government demands the press become a state mouthpiece under the threat of punishment, something has gone very wrong," it wrote on X.However Carr, responding to Warren's statements on X, cited a Supreme Court case to suggest the FCC would be well within its First Amendment right to revoke a broadcaster's license if it was deemed not to be in the public interest. "No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because 'the public interest' requires it 'is not a denial of free speech,'" Carr wrote. That quote is a direct citation from a 1969 Supreme Court decision in Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, which in turn had referenced another Supreme Court case, National Broadcasting Co. v. United States in 1943. Sen. Warren's press office didn't return a request for comment on Carr's rebuttal. Carr's threats over Iran war coverage are far from the first time the Trump administration has gone after media companies for comments the president didn't like.ABC parent Disney brought back "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" after pausing the show indefinitely in September after Carr suggested that local stations risked their licenses over comments by host Kimmel that linked the alleged killer of conservative activist Charlie Kirk to President Donald Trump's MAGA movement.Nexstar Media Group, one of the largest owners of broadcast television stations, and conservative broadcast network Sinclair both temporarily pulled the show from their programming.More recently, ABC's "The View" came under pressure after Carr said the show was under investigation for not providing equal time to opposing candidates after it hosted Democratic Senate James Talarico of Texas. CBS star Stephen Colbert was also told by his network that he couldn't air an interview with Talarico out of concern the Trump administration would consider it a violation. Colbert instead did the interview and posted it on YouTube, where FCC rules don't apply.On Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at a Pentagon briefing that he was looking forward to cable giant CNN being controlled by Paramount Skydance's billionaire owner David Ellison, hinting that the news network's reporting may change now that the company has agreed to acquire CNN parent Warner Bros Discovery. "The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better," he said. While Trump and Carr continue to threaten media companies with losing their broadcast licenses due to what they call unfair coverage, these licenses only apply to local TV broadcasters. Cable networks like CNN, streaming services and print publications are not affected. Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

View More

Iran is looking to test a state that has positioned itself as the Gulf's safest bridge between East and West — and the future of the region. View More

A plume of smoke rises from the port of Jebel Ali following a reported Iranian strike in Dubai on March 1, 2026. Fadel Senna | Afp | Getty Images At least 11 countries have come under attack from Iran in retaliation for ongoing U.S. and Israeli strikes, but no country, other than Israel, has been hit harder than the Emirates.The UAE says it has intercepted over 90% of incoming missile and drone threats from Iran. As of March 12, the 13th day of the war, official tallies from the UAE's Ministry of Defense show air defenses intercepted 268 ballistic missiles, 15 cruise missiles and 1,514 drones, with six fatalities and 131 injuries reported. The amount of firepower being sent to the Emirates is significantly higher than that of its Gulf neighbors and almost as much as Israel, which has faced more than 1,000 missiles and drones in the last two weeks from Iran. Strikes on neighboring Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain all remain in the hundreds. Despite the interceptions, Iran's strikes have significantly impacted life across the Emirates. Residents in Dubai and Abu Dhabi frequently hear loud explosions overhead due to daily interceptions, and missile alarms ring out on phones at all hours. Airports in both Dubai and Abu Dhabi, residential buildings, hotels in both Emirates, Dubai's International Financial Center, Jebel Ali Port and the U.S. consulate in Dubai have all been targeted, despite the Iranian government telling CNBC its attacks on Gulf neighbors are limited to U.S. bases in the region.For Iran, the UAE is a prime location where strikes can simultaneously pressure Washington, disrupt global energy flows, unsettle international finance and corporates, and generate worldwide attention. Iran can inflict maximum regional and global pain, testing a state that has positioned itself as the Gulf's safest bridge between East and West, and the future of the region for finance, logistics, aviation and technology. Strategic alliance The UAE was one of the first places U.S. President Donald Trump visited in his second term last May during a trip to the Gulf states. The U.S. had already designated the country as a major defense partner in 2024, deepening coordination on not only defense but also artificial intelligence technology and investment. The partnership leaves little doubt about where the UAE stands when it comes to regional security. On March 7, the Al Dhafra Air Base was targeted by Iranian drone and missile strikes.The base, located around 32 km (20 miles) south of the UAE capital of Abu Dhabi, hosts America's 380th Air Expeditionary Wing alongside French forces. It serves as a key regional hub for air operations and intelligence gathering, and is home to some 3,500 U.S. troops. Read more U.S.-Iran war newsFCC chair slams broadcasters after Trump disputes reports on Iran-damaged U.S. tankersAnalysis: It will take a military breakthrough in Iran to lower oil pricesTrump says he thinks Putin is helping IranWhat happens if the U.S. pushes to seize Iran's 'oil lifeline': Kharg IslandPete Hegseth on Strait of Hormuz: 'Don't need to worry about it'U.S. ‘misadventure’ in Iran has no clear exit strategy, Russia’s UK ambassador saysMany Dubai expats fled as Iran war escalated. Those who stayed say life is ‘functioning but tense’Four crew killed in U.S. refueling plane that crashed in Iraq, Pentagon saysStrait of Hormuz must remain closed as ‘tool to pressure enemy,’ Iran’s new supreme leader saysU.S. forces sink 16 Iranian minelayers as reports say Tehran is mining the Strait of HormuzIran sends millions of oil barrels to China through Strait of Hormuz even as war chokes waterwayPrediction markets face questions amid Iran war, nuclear detonation wagersRussia told Trump it has not shared intelligence with Iran during war, Witkoff saysOil falls even after Energy secretary wrongly claims Navy escorted tanker through Strait of HormuzStrait of Hormuz will partially reopen in 2-3 weeks: David RocheThe Iran war threatens LPG supply. India's restaurants are in troubleIran defends strikes on Gulf neighbors — but they say trust is brokenWhy China can withstand oil's surge past $100 more easily than other countriesTrump says oil price surge is a 'small price to pay' for defeating IranPRO: Oil price surge could boost these Chinese stocks, Goldman says "There is no good answer as (to) why the UAE had been targeted more heavily than any other country in the neighborhood," Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an Emirati academic and political scientist, told CNBC on Sunday. The real story, he added, is "how well the UAE managed to defend itself against these daily missiles and drones going into its third week, it seems the country has been preparing itself for this kind of attack all along." The Iranian regime claimed they were targeting only U.S. bases in the region, before they began hitting civilian infrastructure and U.S. financial institutions in the region.Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has demanded the closure of U.S. bases in the Gulf. Iran's new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has also said these bases must be closed or they will be "attacked." 'No respect for progress' The UAE has long prided itself on being a nation of tolerance.While many locals are deeply religious, they welcome foreigners with open arms. About 90% of the country's nearly 11 million residents are expats.The UAE's reputation of being open, affluent, and socially flexible by regional standards is more progressive than many of its neighbors, including Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where alcohol is banned and women's clothing is still a subject of great concern. watch nowVIDEO1:4301:43Emaar Founder: Iran's attack will only strengthen UAEAccess Middle East "This is the global business hub, it's a reflection of what life should be, and what success should be, what prosperity should be, what positivity should be, it's this place," Mohamed Alabbar, founder of Emaar Properties, told CNBC's Dan Murphy in Dubai when asked why the UAE has been such a target for Iranian strikes. Despite government efforts to maintain a sense of "business as usual," several major international banks pulled employees from their Dubai offices this week, as Iran said it would target economic centers and U.S.-linked financial institutions across the Middle East.Two consecutive strikes from Iran last week targeted Dubai's International Financial Center. Dubai's media office confirmed the incidents but said no injuries had occurred.Banks and American firms based in the financial center allowed their staff to work from home at the beginning of the war, but many have ordered it following last week's attacks. Both Abu Dhabi and Dubai are home to tech giants' regional hubs, and many are specifically named by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as targets, including Alphabet's Google, Oracle and IBM. Energy infrastructure The UAE is also hoping to position itself as a major hub for AI as the region looks to diversify its economy away from oil. Questions have been raised about the attractiveness of the region as a location for Big Tech investments after Iran targeted an Amazon data center in the country, disrupting cloud services. Abu Dhabi National Oil Company's Ruwais refinery, the largest in the Middle East, was shut as a precaution after a drone strike caused a fire, while operators in Fujairah temporarily suspended some terminal activity amid hostilities. watch nowVIDEO3:4603:46The Middle East was the next frontier for AI. Then war broke out.Tech Iran is hoping to sow chaos over regional supply chains and with the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupt energy exports from major producers in the Gulf. The targeting of energy infrastructure isn't new. Abu Dhabi was targeted by the Houthis in 2019, but this direct hit to Ruwais shows the Islamic Republic's diversion from hitting targets linked solely to the U.S.  Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

We tend to leave out the "messy middle" when we tell stories, says Alexis Redding, a developmental psychologist at Harvard. But "there's a better way to help." View More

Anyone who's spent time around Gen Z — or watched news stories about them — has heard the stereotypes: They are more anxious, fragile, and coddled than previous generations. As a developmental psychologist at Harvard, I study the experience of growing up across generations and I've heard every variation on this theme. To be sure, Gen Z is struggling: Research shows that they're more likely to report mental health challenges and face greater obstacles to job security than previous generations. But I've also documented how narratives about generational differences can be wildly exaggerated. While conducting research with my co-author Nancy Hill, we studied interviews with college students from the class of 1975. We then re-interviewed those participants, now in their seventies. What we discovered stunned us.  Fifty years later, they remembered triumphal narratives of their experiences navigating college and career. They told stories about the certainty they felt in their choice of profession. They described how they navigated obstacles with confidence and recalled the warmth of friendship and community they felt when they struggled. But listening to the tapes, it turns out that, at the time, they felt just as uncertain and lonely as students today. This gap between our memory of lived events and reality is a predictable human phenomenon. According to the peak-end rule, we recall the most emotionally intense moments and the endings of experiences, while the messy middle fades.Forgetting the messy middle — the hard, confusing parts of our experiences — isn't a problem in itself. It becomes an issue when we leave out the parts young people most need to hear. Each time we tell these incomplete stories, we risk building barriers, leaving them thinking: I guess I'm the only one struggling. Everyone else had it figured out.There's a better way to help when we're talking with young people. Try these four things:  1. Resist the 'kids these days' framing It's tempting to say: "Why can't they just figure it out? I did!" Instead, ask yourself: How did I feel the first time I met a roadblock — before I had it all figured out? What was it like to fail for the first time? The first heartbreak or rejection letter lands harder when you don't have the lived experience to put it into a broader context.By tapping into the emotion of those experiences, you can enter the conversation with empathy instead of judgement. 2. Listen more, talk less  Don't assume that your outcome or your uncertainties mirror those of the Gen Zer you're talking to. Ask questions before you jump in with advice. Probe for emotional details of what they are going through by asking: "What are you most worried about?" Help them identify the emotions behind those concerns, like embarrassment over failure, fear of the future, or grief over the loss of what they had hoped for. Then give them the space to process those feelings. Each of those emotions calls for a very different kind of response, and you can meet them where they are by allowing them to frame the conversation.   3. Share your current challenges  It's tempting to tell stories about the past when we want to help inspire young people. But we can also connect with them based on our current experiences. Rather than telling a story from when you were their age, lean into stories about the present day.Share a more recent challenge at home or work that relates to what they're experiencing and how you're thinking about solving it. It's helpful for them to see the emotion of a puzzle still in process and to know that you can relate to what they're going through.  4. Remember the messy middle  If you do have a good example to share from the past, you can overcome the peak-end framing so that it can genuinely help. Before sharing your own story about the class you barely passed in college or the job you had your heart set on that didn't work out, take some time to think back and tap back into the emotions you felt. Lead with that part of the experience to connect with what young people are feeling in the moment. You can still tell them how everything worked out in the end, if that's the case, but make sure your story doesn't make the answer seem quick and easy — since it's unlikely to have been either. By sharing a more authentic version of our own stories, we're far more likely to build connections with young people and help them develop the skills they need to overcome obstacles on their own journeys. In fact, that's the part young people most need to hear when they're struggling and doing the hard work of trying to figure things out.Alexis Redding is a developmental psychologist and leading expert on young adulthood. She is faculty member at the Harvard Graduate School of Education where she runs the Transition to Adulthood Lab and is the Faculty Director of the Mental Health in Higher Education program. She is coauthor of "The End of Adolescence" and the editor of "Mental Health in College." Want to give your kids the ultimate advantage? Sign up for CNBC's new online course, How to Raise Financially Smart Kids. Learn how to build healthy financial habits today to set your children up for greater success in the future. Take control of your money with CNBC Select CNBC Select is editorially independent and may earn a commission from affiliate partners on links.Six ways to file your taxes for freeWhat is a good monthly retirement income in 2026?How to buy gold from CostcoHere are 5 grocery rewards cards to beat inflationThe 6 best personal loans of February 2026

Since 2019, average residential rents in leading markets have risen by approximately 25–30%, largely driven by employment-led demand View More

Gigi Gonzalez moved from Chicago to Valencia, Spain, in 2025. It's transformed her work-life balance, finances and more. View More

Gigi Gonzalez has a new rule for herself: She doesn't work Fridays."Fridays are my errand day," says Gonzalez, 36. "That's when I go to the dentist. That's when I take my dog to the groomer [or] when I get my nails done."For the rest of the workweek, Gonzalez keeps her schedule tight, working Monday through Thursday from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.That wasn't the case one year ago, when Gonzalez says she logged a more traditional 40 hours of work a week as her own boss running The First Gen Mentor, where she's a financial educator, content creator and author.It's not that she's landed a sudden windfall or considerably increased her rates. Rather, Gonzalez moved from Chicago to Valencia, Spain, with her husband in May 2025. Since then, her personal expenses have gone down enough to make a 16-hour workweek possible. The move has transformed her work-life balance, her finances and her outlook on a long-term future abroad. Saving $40,000 to start a business and move abroad Gonzalez's journey abroad kicked off in 2019. One day, she was discussing her financial services job at a high-school career day and advised students to study abroad if possible, something she regretted not doing herself.After repeating her regret through seven different presentations that day, Gonzalez decided it wasn't too late for her to live abroad as an adult. She says she spent the next two years saving about $20,000 with the goal of taking a year-long sabbatical from work. The Covid-19 pandemic upended her plans, so in April 2021 Gonzalez says she used her savings to launch her own business, The First Gen Mentor, where she offers financial education to first-generation students and young professionals of color. A few years into being her own boss, Gonzalez realized she could do her job from around the world, and she revived her plan to move overseas.After some research, she and her husband set their sights on Spain, where Gonzalez can apply for citizenship after two years of residency through her Mexican citizenship. (She currently holds dual citizenship in the U.S. and Mexico, where her parents were born.) Gigi Gonzalez decided in 2019 that it wasn't too late to live abroad as an adult. She spent years planning and moved to Spain in 2025.Courtesy of subject Spanish was Gonzalez's first language, so there wouldn't be a major language barrier. Plus, Spain launched its digital nomad visa in late 2023, which allows foreign freelancers, remote workers and self-employed business owners to live in the country while earning money from overseas.From July 2024 to April 2025, the couple saved over $20,000 to move abroad by selling their furniture and focusing on values-based spending. "It didn't feel like deprivation; it felt like I was budgeting towards a greater purpose of moving abroad," says Gonzalez, who is a financial advocate for Intuit.She also limited her impulsive spending. That meant no new furniture, plants or clothes. "Basically, anything I couldn't pack in three suitcases [wasn't] going to make the cut," she says.Gonzalez got her digital nomad visa in April 2025 and added her husband as a dependent; he works in operations for an international company and secured a transfer to their Spanish subsidiary. Gonzalez's visa gives her three years of residency, during which she says she plans to apply for citizenship in Spain. Semi-retiring with a 16-hour workweek Gonzalez says her cost of living in Spain is much lower than it was in the U.S., which means she can work less, typically 16 but sometimes up to 20 hours per week, and still live comfortably.As a result, she says her sense of work-life balance has "completely transformed." She can enjoy the luxury of a slow morning, starting with breakfast, exercise, self-care and lunch before logging on at 2 p.m. when her U.S.-based clients are starting their days.Gonzalez says some early and aggressive investments are also paying off. During the pandemic, Gonzalez says she invested up to 35% of her income into her retirement accounts. It was enough to hit a number where she'll be able to stop working and live off the distributions from her portfolio in retirement. Gonzalez currently has over $220,000 stashed for retirement."That means that I have enough in my investments now that I don't have to add more money," Gonzalez says, "and I can still retire at the traditional age of 65 without adding another dollar, just by letting compound interest do its magic." I don't think twice about going to the doctor for something because there's no copays; it's already paid for.Gigi Gonzalez With her retirement income taken care of, Gonzalez says she only has to work enough now to support her everyday spending. "If one day I want to stop [running my business] and just go be a barista or a waitress, I can do that, because I just need to pay for my current expenses," she says. "I don't need to earn more to put towards retirement."Gonzalez hopes to stay in Spain long-term and says retirement is even more within reach given its lower expenses, especially around medical care. That being said, she says her newfound sense of work-life balance and a slower pace of living don't make her dread working a few more decades."I'm not rushing to retire because I'm semi-retired," she says. What's cheaper and what's more expensive Gonzalez says her personal expenses have gone down since moving abroad. Rent for her and her husband's downtown Chicago apartment was $3,700 for a two-bedroom, two-bathroom unit; meanwhile, in Valencia the couple pays 1,900 euros (roughly $2,200 USD) for a two-bedroom, one-and-a-half bathroom apartment.Health insurance is another huge difference. In the U.S., Gonzalez says she and her husband paid more than $400 per month for employer-sponsored coverage with a high-deductible plan; in Valencia, their private health care is about $200 per month with no copays or deductibles."It's really shocking as an American," she says. "I don't think twice about going to the doctor for something because there's no copays; it's already paid for." Gigi Gonzalez says Spain's lower cost of living allows her to work around 16 to 20 hours per week.Courtesy of subject Not all of Gonzalez's expenses are lower these days. Doing business in two countries is pricey.Gonzalez says she employs a U.S.-based tax team to keep her LLC active and in compliance; her digital nomad visa also requires that she registers her business in Spain, so she has a Spanish tax team to help with that. Given the added complexities of her business since moving, Gonzalez's $350 monthly tax help has doubled to nearly $700 a month. "It was a big learning curve in the beginning, but I've adjusted," she says. Her best advice to people who want to move abroad Gonzalez says that when she told friends and family about her plans to move abroad, many of them didn't realize how long she'd been planning for it."A lot of people see [others] living their best life in Europe, and then they look into the process, they get overwhelmed, and they don't do it," Gonzalez says. She recommends people really explore why they want to move abroad. Then, "create the systems and change their money mindset to be able to meet those goals."Gonzalez says her big moments of inspiration came from that high-school career day, but also when binging "House Hunters International" episodes or traveling abroad and wishing she could stay longer. It was enough motivation go keep her going through researching, saving up for and adjusting to her new life overseas."This is definitely one of the things for me, if I would have been on my deathbed, I would regret never experiencing life abroad," she adds. "You get one life. Live it right."Conversions from euros to USD were done using the OANDA conversion rate of 1 euro to $1.16 USD on March 9, 2026.Want to improve your communication, confidence and success at work? Take CNBC's new online course, Master Your Body Language To Boost Your Influence. Take control of your money with CNBC Select CNBC Select is editorially independent and may earn a commission from affiliate partners on links.Six ways to file your taxes for freeWhat is a good monthly retirement income in 2026?How to buy gold from CostcoHere are 5 grocery rewards cards to beat inflationThe 6 best personal loans of February 2026 VIDEO9:0309:03I was laid off 10 months ago—here's how I still pay my $2,800 mortgageMillennial Money

Keeping inflation under control becomes a critical task for central banks. View More

The ECB has announced it will be hiking rates in July and September to counter record inflation.Daniel Roland | Afp | Getty Images U.S. political strategist James Carville famously said he would like to be reincarnated as the bond market because "you can intimidate everyone." So when bond yields start signaling a problem, the whole market listens.The escalatory rhetoric around the war in the Middle East has led to what Deutsche Bank is calling "the most hawkish central bank pricing of the year so far for both the [European Central Bank] and the Fed." Last week, sovereign bonds sold off across the board, with Europe as the epicenter. 10 year bunds hit their highest level since October 2023, while France's 10 year OAT yield rose to highs not seen since the European debt crisis of 2011. U.K. gilts followed the same path, with the 10-year yield reaching its highest level in at least six months, driving markets to price in an 82% probability of a Bank of England rate hike this year. That's right — a hike!Across the Atlantic, predictions for the Federal Reserve's ability to cut rates has dropped dramatically, with just 20 basis points of cuts priced in by the end of the year. That means — that for the first time — a 2026 rate cut from the Fed is now no longer fully priced in, according to Deutsche Bank. Altaf Kassam from State Street Investment Management told CNBC that "central banks can look through temporary energy shocks, but persistent inflation risks will delay easing," adding that in the event of an extreme shock, there could be a renewed tightening bias. First up, the Fed President Donald Trump has renewed his attacks on the Federal Reserve, taking to Truth Social to ask, "Where is the Federal Reserve Chairman, Jerome "Too Late" Powell, today? He should be dropping Interest Rates, IMMEDIATELY." However, in recent days traders have abandoned hope of easing from the Fed, with reducing odds of a cut this year. EY-Parthenon Chief Economist Gregory Daco said in a recent note that there is now an elevated chance that Powell "could continue leading the FOMC even after May", due to the current market conditions. The Fed begins its two-day meeting on Tuesday. A livestream shows Jerome Powell, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, speaking after a Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, US, on Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026. Michael Nagle | Bloomberg | Getty Images Wait and see for the ECB? ECB President Christine Lagarde said the European economy was in a better position to absorb an inflation shock, telling France 2: "We will do all that is necessary to ensure inflation is under control." Analysts are less convinced, with BNP Paribas saying the uncertainty around Iran will "rattle the ECB's 'good place' narrative." The consensus expectation is for the central bank to hold rates on Thursday, however, in a recent interview with Bloomberg, Governing Council member Peter Kazimir suggested policymakers could opt for hike rates sooner than expected. watch nowVIDEO8:2708:27Europe 'did not prepare itself' for another energy shock: EconomistSquawk Box Europe Keep it boring, BOE The Bank of England is expected to keep interest rates on hold at 3.75% when it meets on Thursday. In a recent note, Oxford Economics outlined a worst-case scenario where oil rises to $140 a barrel, which could drive inflation much higher and send the U.K. economy into a mild recession. A person shields themselves from the rain while walking near the Bank of England building on the day the Monetary Policy Committee lowered interest rates, in London, Britain, Dec.18, 2025. Toby Melville | Reuters Global Central Bank meetings this week Monday: Reserve Bank of Australia Day 1Tuesday: Reserve Bank of Australia Day 2, Federal Reserve FOMC Day 1Wednesday: Federal Reserve FOMC Day 2, Bank of CanadaThursday: Bank of England, European Central Bank, Swiss National Bank, Sweden's Riksbank Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.