All News (Page 433)

On May 8, Instagram will be able to read your DMs again. Meta is ending support for end-to-end encrypted direct messages — reversing a feature it introduced just two years ago — and reopening the door to automated content scanning, AI-powered moderation, and easier compliance with law enforcement requests. TikTok, meanwhile, confirmed it never offered the protection at all. Together, the moves signal that the era of unconditional privacy promises on social media is over.

In the span of two weeks, two of the world’s largest social media platforms have signaled they are done treating privacy as an unconditional promise. Together, the moves mark a decisive reckoning with what private messaging on social media actually costs—and who pays the price.

A TikTok spokesperson told Fortune that the company’s approach to messaging has not changed. “Direct messages on TikTok are secured using industry-standard encryption in transit and at rest,” the spokesperson said, comparing the technology to what Gmail uses. “People’s messages are private and protected. Access to message content is strictly limited, subject to internal authorization controls, and only available to trained personnel with a demonstrated need to review the information as part of safety investigations, legal compliance, or other limited circumstances.” In other words: not end-to-end encrypted, but far from an open book.

The distinction matters. The TikTok spokesperson said the design is deliberate—and that the lack of end-to-end encryption is itself a safety feature. “Messaging on TikTok is not end-to-end encrypted,” they said. “This helps make our platform undesirable for those who would attempt to share illegal material.” Meta had not yet responded to requests for comments.

When Instagram’s encryption sunsets in two months, Meta will regain the technical ability to scan and act on the content of users’ DMs. Right now, under the opt-in encrypted system, even Meta’s own servers cannot see message content. That changes May 8, reopening the door to automated content moderation, AI-powered scam detection, and easier compliance with law enforcement requests.

End-to-end encryption isn’t keeping people safe

Brian Long, CEO and co-founder of Adaptive Security, a firm that trains organizations to defend against AI-powered attacks, including deepfakes and voice cloning, says the calculus both companies are making reflects a necessary course correction. “It’s a challenging place, because on the one side, I think a lot of these companies have leaned into privacy,” Long told Fortune. “But on the other hand, it’s also led bad actors to do anything from run scams in the background to attack consumers. What they’re recognizing is that as great as it sounds for everything to be encrypted, it’s giving a lot of runway to bad actors.”

The regulatory pressure is accelerating that shift. The Take It Down Act, signed into law last year, requires platforms to remove non-consensual intimate imagery—including AI-generated deepfakes—within 48 hours of a valid request, with enforcement beginning May 19, just eleven days after Instagram’s encryption cutoff. Long said that end-to-end encryption had made that kind of compliance nearly impossible. “If it’s all encrypted and they can’t see the messages, it gets harder for them to actually police those actions,” he said. “They’re going to be accountable under the law.”

Beyond legal deadlines, Long argues that internal safety teams and not law enforcement are the first and most important line of defense, and encryption had effectively neutralized them. “The safety team can jump in and flag messages to the consumer before they fall for a scam,” he said. “When everything is protected by encryption, the safety team really can’t do anything. A lot of this stuff should be handled by the company before it hits law enforcement. Otherwise, law enforcement would just be completely overwhelmed.”

Last year, over a million seniors fell victim to fraud, costing them more than $81 billion in estimated losses, according to an FTC report. AI-powered attacks, from deepfakes, voice cloning, and year-long romance scams, are growing at an estimated 17 times year over year. “The scale of the attacks, especially on alternate messaging channels, is something we’re hearing consistently from customers,” Long said. “Those channels where you had encryption historically were particularly ripe for this issue.”

For privacy advocates, lifting encryption is still a serious concession, and one that opens user data to platform surveillance alongside the safety benefits. But for scam prevention professionals, it’s the right call. “I think companies are recognizing there are some potential serious downsides to privacy,” Long said. “At the end of the day, this correction is probably needed in order to stop more of the bad actors. And if privacy is the biggest priority, there are applications available that people can go use.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Amazon said Tuesday that it has started offering faster U.S. deliveries of selected products for a fee, including pantry staples, clothing, over-the-counter medications, cleaning supplies and electronics.

The e-commerce colossus said customers in more than 2,000 cities, towns and suburban areas can now choose to have orders from its speedy-shipment inventory of 90,000 items delivered in three hours. The charge is $4.99 for Amazon Prime members and $14.99 for nonmembers.

One-hour delivery slots are available in hundreds of places, including major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, and smaller cities such as Des Moines, Iowa and Boise, Idaho, the company said. Prime members will get charged $9.99 for the service, which costs nonmembers $19.99, Amazon said

The Seattle-based company said it started testing the express delivery service late last year and expanding it this month.

“We saw an opportunity to use our unique operational expertise and delivery network to help make customers’ lives a little easier while unlocking even more value for Prime members,” Udit Madan, senior vice president of worldwide operations at Amazon, said in a statement.

Amazon launched its Prime program in 2005, offering members free two-day delivery on a selection of 1 million items, primarily DVDs, CDs, and books. Prime members now have access to over 300 million items across 35 categories, and tens of millions of products are available for free same-day or next day deliveries.

The company has used robotics and artificial intelligence technology to speed up order fulfillment. Regionalizing its U.S. delivery network into eight areas also has helped reduce delivery times, Amazon said.

Amazon is testing an ultra-fast service for deliveries in 30 minutes or less. Amazon Now is available in various cities in India, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates and is being tested in several communities in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, according to the company.

Rival retailer Walmart has focused on faster deliveries too. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based company says it offers same-day deliveries in under three hours to 95% of the U.S. population, compared to 76% three years ago.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Twice on Monday, President Donald Trump said he’d wrangled a confession of sorts from an Oval Office predecessor who he said had expressed regret in a private conversation about not attacking Iran the way Trump has been doing for more than two weeks.

But there’s just a little problem: Representatives for the four living former presidents — three Democrats and one Republican — said none have been in touch with Trump recently.

Trump declined to name the former president when reporters asked who it was, saying he didn’t want to “embarrass him.”

The Republican president first told the story during extended remarks about the Iran war as he opened a meeting of the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center. Trump is chairman of the board and held the meeting at the White House.

He repeated that Iran had been a threat to the United States for decades but said he is the only president who had the courage to do something about it.

“Look, for 47 years, no president was willing to do what I’m doing, and they should have done it a long time ago,” he said. “It would have been a lot easier. There’s no president that wanted to do it.

“And yet every president knew. I’ve spoken to a certain president, who I like, actually, a past president, a former president. He said, ‘I wish I did it, I wish I did,’ but they didn’t do it. I’m doing it,” Trump continued.

Asked which former president he’d spoken to, Trump said: “I can’t tell you that. I don’t want to embarrass him. It would be very bad for his career, even though he’s got no career.”

Representatives for each of former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden said they had not spoken with Trump recently. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the former presidents’ private conversations.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment after being informed that none of the former presidents said he had spoken with Trump recently.

Trump and all four past presidents were last together in the same space for his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025 — well before the war.

He has been extremely critical of Biden and Obama, often saying Biden is the “worst president in the history of our country” and accusing Obama of negotiating a “horrible deal” with Iran over its nuclear weapons. Trump withdrew the U.S. from that agreement the first time he was president.

But the Republican recently offered sympathetic comments about Clinton, saying it “bothers” him that the former president had been called to give a deposition to Congress about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“I liked Bill Clinton. I still like Bill Clinton,” Trump said in a Feb. 4 interview with NBC News. “I liked his behavior toward me. I thought he got me, he understood me.”

Trump repeated his story about discussing Iran with a former president later Monday in the Oval Office, where he announced that Vice President JD Vance will lead a task force that was created to eliminate fraud in federal benefit programs.

“Was it George W. Bush?” a reporter asked.

“No,” Trump said.

“Was it Bill Clinton?” the reporter asked.

Trump said: “I don’t want to say. I don’t want to say,” then added that “it’s somebody that happens to like me. And I like that person, who’s a smart person. But that person said, ‘I wish I did it,’ OK, but I don’t want to get into who, OK. I don’t want to get them into trouble.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Good morning. Could the next generation of tech giants fit in a single office?

In the coming years, some of the most valuable companies in the world will have “sub-100 employees,” Daniel Nadler, the founder and CEO of OpenEvidence, predicted during a panel session at Nvidia’s GTC 2026 summit on Monday. “I think the world’s not prepared for that,” Nadler said.

OpenEvidence is an AI‑powered medical information and clinical decision support company used by physicians. In January, the startup closed a $250 million Series D funding round, co‑led by Thrive Capital and DST Global, which doubled its valuation to approximately $12 billion.

“Take OpenEvidence, we have sub-100 employees, yet 300 million Americans will be treated this year by a doctor who used OpenEvidence in the loop,” Nadler said. Each employee in his company is indirectly supporting millions of patients, he estimated.

“The scale is unfathomable, and that’s directly a result of what Jensen and Nvidia, and these tools and the people who develop on top of that technology have enabled as the new starting point,” he said, adding, “I think the world economy—and certainly the tech economy—is going to look unrecognizable.”

Leaders across tech are beginning to echo the idea that companies could be built and run by smaller teams. For example, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has emphasized that AI acts as a collaborator that lets individuals and small teams achieve results that once required much larger organizations, amplifying productivity and creativity. Block recently announced it would cut 40% of the fintech company’s headcount because of gains in AI. The decision was part of a longer transformation, Block CFO and COO Amrita Ahuja recently told me. “This is a two-year journey for us,” she said. “This was not an overnight decision.”

The rise of ultra-efficient, AI-driven teams could require a fundamental restructuring of the workforce, according to new research from McKinsey. To capture the full value of AI, organizations need to go beyond “a piecemeal approach, and push for a double transformation—both technical and organizational—that includes reimagining how work gets done across functions and workflows,” according to the report. It will likely take a lot of work and preparation, along with training and upskilling for employees whose roles may be redefined.

While AI can dramatically increase productivity, fully realizing its potential is a complex and demanding challenge for companies of all sizes.

Sheryl Estrada
sheryl.estrada@fortune.com

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Oil has cleared $100 a barrel and could be on its way to $150.

The Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes — has effectively closed to tanker traffic amid the escalating U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. Once again, the global economy is discovering the same uncomfortable truth: Modern energy security depends on supply chains that can break overnight.

The pattern is all too familiar. A geopolitical shock hits the global oil supply chain, and prices surge. It happened in the 1970s, in 1990, in 2003. It’s happening now.

The modern energy system was built around a simple assumption: Fuel is produced in a few places and consumed everywhere else. Oil is extracted in one region, refined in another, and shipped thousands of miles through pipelines, canals, and maritime chokepoints before reaching the end user. 

When that chain works, it is remarkably efficient. When it breaks, the effects ripple globally almost overnight. Japan imports roughly 90 percent of its oil from the Middle East. Bangladesh has called for fuel rationing. South Korea has capped gasoline prices for the first time since the Asian financial crisis.

The issue isn’t just oil supply. It’s the structure of the system itself. The world runs on a centralized fuel production model designed for the industrial geography of the 20th century — a handful of massive refineries producing enormous volumes of fuel that must then move through fragile global logistics networks to reach markets. That model made strategic sense when control over oil reserves meant control over energy. But it also created a system where a single blocked canal, damaged refinery, or closed shipping lane can disrupt entire economies.

Today, an alternative is beginning to emerge. Across defense programs, industrial research labs, and energy startups, a new class of fuel systems is being developed that can produce synthetic fuels locally using carbon dioxide, hydrogen, and electricity — manufacturing fuel where it is needed rather than shipping it thousands of miles. The idea sounds radical. In reality, it reflects a broader shift already underway: from centralized production to distributed systems. Solar power decentralized electricity generation. Data centers decentralized computing. A similar shift may now be underway in fuel.

The scale of the system being disrupted is enormous. The world consumes roughly 100 million barrels of oil per day, supporting a multi-trillion-dollar refining, shipping, and storage network built around centralized infrastructure. Even a modest shift toward localized production would represent one of the largest industrial transitions in modern energy history. The rapid expansion of AI infrastructure is already reshaping global energy demand — data centers could consume nearly 1,000 terawatt-hours of electricity annually by 2030, roughly equivalent to Japan’s total electricity consumption — making energy systems that can generate power and manufacture fuel locally increasingly strategically valuable.

The economics of that shift become clearest in environments where traditional logistics break down. In remote or contested regions, the fully delivered cost of diesel or jet fuel can reach $100 to $400 per gallon once transport, protection, and storage are factored in. Military planners have long understood that moving fuel is often more expensive — and more dangerous — than producing it. The Pentagon has identified on-site fuel production as a strategic priority, funding development of deployable systems capable of generating jet fuel or diesel directly in the field. Similar efforts are emerging across Europe and Asia.

Critics are quick to point out that synthetic fuels cost more than conventional ones — and they’re right, for now. But that comparison ignores the full cost of the existing system, including the geopolitical risk premiums embedded in global oil supply chains. One common objection is that synthetic fuel production requires a fully built-out green hydrogen ecosystem before it’s viable. It doesn’t. Production can start today using available feedstocks and gets cleaner as inputs improve.

Every generation experiences its own oil shock. Each time, governments scramble to stabilize supply while markets absorb the economic impact. What’s different today is that the technology to change the structure of the system is beginning to exist. 

Energy security has historically meant securing access to oil reserves. In the next era, it may mean something different: the ability to produce fuel wherever it is needed, using whatever resources are available. 

The nations and industries that develop that capability first will hold a different kind of strategic advantage. They won’t need to control the oil. They’ll simply be able to make the fuel.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

If you were to ask a regular consumer what a barrel of crude oil costs, they likely wouldn’t know the exact figure. Ask them how much it takes to fill up their car with a tank of gas, on the other hand, they might remember down to the cent.

The visibility of oil price rises in the mind of U.S. consumers is ultimately the factor that will move the needle on the health of the U.S. economy, warns Wharton’s Professor Jeremy Siegel. Indeed, when consumers begin to raise their price expectations is when Wall Street will really begin to worry.

So far, despite the geopolitical consternation in the Middle East since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran, markets have been volatile but haven’t spiralled too far downward. This is partly because traders, worried about sustained disruption to supply out of the Gulf region, have been betting on hopes that President Trump’s action in Iran will conclude within a matter of weeks.

But the headlines are beginning to trickle into the wallets of U.S. consumers, which is when the knock-on effects of inflation expectations and wage-price spirals (when workers demand higher pay to finance an increased cost of living, pushing up business costs in turn) kick in.

This consumer psychology is the real issue when evaluating the impact of the Middle East conflict, wrote Professor Jeremy Siegel, emeritus professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania and senior economist to WisdomTree. Writing for the financial platform in a note released yesterday, Professor Siegel noted the key issue is not crude oil: “It is gasoline, the most visible price in the economy for consumers, and when that price jumps it hits psychology immediately.”

Already, Western consumers have been urged not to panic-buy gas in a bid to get ahead of rising prices. The U.S., unlike some of its allied nations, sits on healthy oil reserves, giving it a safety net not afforded to many smaller economies. And the White House has confirmed that for a limited period of time, sanctions on Russian oil will be lifted to increase supply into the market.

However, despite the political furore around affordability in the run-up to the mid-terms, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated his department can’t and won’t intervene in certain areas if prices spike too high. He told CNBC this week that rumours the administration may intervene in the futures market or use other mechanisms to bring down prices is mere speculation, adding: “When there’s big dynamic price action, that always happens. We haven’t done that.”

The psychology of consumers is what matters, added Siegel: “Even if the broader economic effect is more balanced than the headlines. Imports are getting cheaper with a stronger dollar, and higher oil is also boosting profits in the energy sector. That is the practical benefit of energy self-sufficiency. The consumer feels the pain first, but the economy has offsets that did not exist to nearly the same degree in earlier oil shocks.”

Uncertainty is on the rise, he continued: “The market ended last week with a more cautious tone as rising oil and the widening Middle East conflict bring a fresh layer of uncertainty. I could see the markets experiencing a 10% correction from the recent highs. We are not anticipating a major decline for the S&P 500, but the mood has clearly changed.”

Consumer impact

If consumers are wondering about a pinch, then so too is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which meets this week. The rate-setting group is widely expected to leave the funds rate unchanged, though dissent is likely to come from the likes of Governors Bowman and Miran.

Indeed, Goldman Sach’s Devid Mericle wrote to clients this week that he expects the FOMC’s statement to say “the war with Iran has increased uncertainty about the outlook and will likely raise inflation and weigh on economic activity in the near term.”

He also noted the Summary of Economic Projections from the Fed for 2026 is likely to change, with GDP marginally down to around 2%, the unemployment rate to nudge higher above 4.5%. and headline inflation to stay above the 2% target.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Good morning. In today’s Fortune:

• There are backchannel talks between U.S. and Iran.
• In the markets, some welcome relief.
• Trump says he wants to ‘take’ Cuba.
• Nvidia’s Jensen Huang crowns himself the ‘token king.’
• Chart: Global equities pummeled by the war.
• Byron Allen is now a streaming mogul—he just took an aggressive stake in Starz.
• Exclusive: How boards lowered the bar for CEO bonuses.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

In 2017, Darian Shirazi and Zach Bratun-Glennon knew they weren’t exactly working on the coolest new thing.  

“I remember going to happy hours with other startup investors and pre-seed founders,” said Shirazi. “I’d say I was at Gradient, and people would say ‘oh, the AI thing. I haven’t done that. Are there AI startups? I certainly don’t see them and AI doesn’t seem that interesting.’” 

Shirazi and Bratun-Glennon, both engineers by background, were there at the very beginning, as Google stood up Gradient in 2017, expressly for the purpose of backing AI companies early. It was one month after Google’s famed “Attention Is All You Need” paper came out. AI, as a technology, was clearly on the precipice of change. But as a business use case, it was niche at best. 

“You really had to be a nerd to actually realize that this was a big deal,” said Shirazi. “Everyone was talking about crypto and ICOs at the time.”

Bratun-Glennon points out that, even though Gradient in some sense came from Google’s C-suite, “it really was a niche idea at that point and didn’t resonate with everyone right away.” LPs outside Google were wary. “I think people thought we sounded like the quantum computing people, and no one wanted to do a dedicated quantum fund,” said Bratun-Glennon, previously corporate development deal lead at Google. 

Much has changed. The AI boom has taken on a cascading life of its own, and now it seems like every firm is AI-focused. With this backdrop, Gradient closed its $220 million fifth fund, the team confirmed exclusively to Fortune. Gradient, which focuses entirely on seed and pre-seed AI companies, has backed Lambda, Oura, Sona, Writer, Airspace Intelligence, and Krea. The firm’s exits include CentML (acquired by Nvidia reportedly worth more than $400 million), Prepared (acquired by Axon), and Streamlit (acquired by Snowflake for a reported $700-$800 million). Gradient declined to disclose previous fund sizes.

“From 2017 to 2021, we saw 100 companies a year that fit our thesis,” said Shirazi. “And post-ChatGPT, we started to see 1,500 to 2,000, which is now consistently the number of companies we see per year.”

In this clamor, Shirazi and Bratun-Glennon have seen their due diligence process change. They’ve increasingly been leaning more on their own engineering abilities, writing code to test that the products prospective founders are bringing to them are actually working. The two also have hesitations about the frenzy. Gradient won’t, for example, fund foundational model contenders, full stop. The mega-seed rounds also give Shirazi serious pause. 

“Large seed rounds that are $100 million-plus or one billion-plus… I’ve never seen a startup raise more than, say, $10 million in a seed round and be successful,” he said. 

Gradient, in this fifth fund, is in some sense starting over: Google will remain a notable LP, but Gradient has taken on outside LPs for the first time, starting with inbound interest from institutions. Shirazi and Bratun-Glennon also now own the management company. The move came, in part, because of inbound demand, but also with a view to the future. 

“I do believe this is the largest platform shift in history, and the biggest value creation event in technology ever,” said Bratun-Glennon. “Is there an intervening two or three year air gap? There’s a risk to that, but on a ten-year horizon it’s an amazing place to be.”

A long way from the Silicon Valley parties, where people wondered whether AI startups even existed.

See you tomorrow,

Allie Garfinkle
X: @agarfinks
Email: alexandra.garfinkle@fortune.com

Submit a deal for the Term Sheet newsletter here.

Joey Abrams curated the deals section of today’s newsletter. Subscribe here.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Equity compensation can help organizations accomplish two goals at once: It not only incentivizes executives to drive long-term business performance but also contributes to a sense of ownership that can enhance employee retention, engagement, and wider company culture. However, the complexity inherent in equity plans can often mean that even experienced leaders may struggle to fully maximize their equity compensation without guidance and support. 

Despite their financial sophistication, many executives lack a formal personal financial plan¹—leaving them less confident and at risk of missing opportunities to better manage their equity awards or achieve personal financial goals. HR and benefits leaders are uniquely positioned to help close this planning gap by embedding tools, targeted guidance, and Financial Advisor access into equity compensation programs. This can help executives make more informed decisions, help boost financial confidence, and ultimately help support both individual and organizational goals.

The Planning Gap: A Hidden Risk in Executive Benefits

Equity compensation, which often includes stock options, restricted stock units, or other equity-based awards, is a powerful tool for aligning the interests of key talent with those of the company. Yet our recent research reveals a surprising disconnect: While executives are often seen as financially savvy, 44% of those participating in their company’s equity compensation plans say they do not have a formal personal financial plan.¹ 

Why does this matter? Our data shows a direct link between planning and confidence: 73% of executives with a formal financial plan feel confident in achieving their financial goals, compared to just 41% of those without one.¹ And even financially savvy executives say they want more guidance—particularly on topics covering investment and wealth management, estate planning and wealth transfer, tax optimization strategies and navigating equity compensation and executive benefits.¹ 

Why Confidence Matters: Linking Planning to Outcomes

Financial confidence is more than a feeling; it can help drive better decisions and, in turn, outcomes. Executives who are confident in their financial trajectory may be more likely to make informed decisions about their equity grants, vesting, and exercises. For example, Morgan Stanley at Work’s State of the Workplace research shows that equity recipients who understand and engage with their equity benefits are more likely to stay with their employer and make more informed financial decisions.² 

For HR and benefits leaders, this means that closing the planning gap isn’t just about offering a perk—it’s about supporting business goals, such as retention and engagement.

HR’s Toolkit: Embedding Planning into Equity Programs

How can HR and benefits teams help move the needle to support their executives in planning with equity compensation? First, know that you’re on the right track: 98% of executives are interested in additional, customized guidance for both equity compensation and personal wealth management.¹ Second, our research points to several actionable strategies:

1. On-Platform Planning Modules: Integrate financial planning tools directly into the equity compensation platform, making it easy for participants to model scenarios, set goals, and track progress.
2. Targeted Nudges at Key Moments: Use data-driven prompts at critical equity events—such as vesting, exercise, or blackout periods—to encourage participants to review or update their plans.
3. Financial Advisor Access: Offer access to dedicated Financial Advisors who can provide personalized guidance, validate participants’ strategies, and help them navigate complex decisions from a more comprehensive financial perspective.
4. KPIs for Success: Track plan adoption rates, participant confidence (via surveys), and the quality of equity-related decisions as key performance indicators.

When individuals receive clear insights that confirm whether they are on track to meet their goals, along with actionable recommendations as needed, it can greatly enhance their confidence in the equity planning process. A supportive, comprehensive approach can be a decisive factor in encouraging engagement and trust in HR-led equity programs. Work with your providers to find the strategy and resources that are the right fit for your organization.

Measuring Impact: From Planning to Performance

To achieve meaningful results, consider tracking how many equity participants create formal financial plans and monitor any changes over time to gauge program effectiveness. Assess confidence levels before and after. 

Evaluate the accuracy and timing of equity-related decisions—grants, vesting, and exercises—to measure the impact of education and planning resources. Analyze retention rates to understand participant engagement and satisfaction. These metrics can help show program value and guide continuous improvements for better support of organizational goals and participant needs.

The financial planning gap among executives creates an opportunity for equity programs to add value and strengthen engagement. In a competitive talent market, closing this gap can help boost financial confidence, drive stronger personal financial outcomes, and position your organizations as an employer of choice.

1. Morgan Stanley at Work. Connecting the Dots for Executives: Insights on the Intersection of Work and Wealth. Nov. 2025.
2. Morgan Stanley at Work. The State of the Workplace  2025 Financial Benefits Study. May 2025.

Employee stock plan solutions are offered by E*TRADE Financial Corporate Services, Inc., Solium Capital LLC, Solium Plan Managers LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”), which are part of Morgan Stanley at Work.

Morgan Stanley at Work services and stock plan accounts are provided by wholly owned subsidiaries of Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley at Work stock plan accounts were previously referred to as Shareworks, StockPlan Connect or E*TRADE stock plan accounts, as applicable.

In connection with stock plan solutions offered by Morgan Stanley at Work, securities products and services are offered by MSSB, Member SIPC. E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley is a registered trademark of MSSB. All entities are separate but affiliated subsidiaries of Morgan Stanley.

Content and services available to non-US participants may be different than those available to US participants.

The laws, regulations, and rulings addressed by the products, services, and publications offered by Morgan Stanley and its affiliates are subject to various interpretations and frequent change. Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do not warrant these products, services, and publications against different interpretations or subsequent changes of laws, regulations, and rulings.

Morgan Stanley and its affiliates do not provide legal, accounting, or tax advice. Always consult your own legal, accounting, and tax advisors. 

© 2026 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Member SIPC.

CRC# 5073104  1/2026

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

PayPal is dramatically expanding the map of countries where users can send and receive its branded stablecoin. As of this month, customers in 70 nations will now be able to hold PYUSD in their PayPal wallets, May Zabaneh, senior vice president and the company’s head of crypto, told Fortune. Those countries—which are a subset of the approximately 200 in which PayPal operates—include Uganda, Colombia, Peru, and new additions in South America, Africa, and Asia. Previously, only customers in the U.S. and U.K. were able to hold the stablecoin.

In addition to being able to send and receive PYUSD, users abroad will also be able to earn rewards on their stablecoin holdings. Existing holders in the U.S. earn 4% annually.

“Now you’re really opening up not only access—especially in places where they need it most— but also cross-border transfers and volume, where the pain is felt so high,” said Zabaneh.

Across borders

Proponents of stablecoins, or cryptocurrencies pegged to real-world assets like the U.S. dollar, have long touted the tokens’ capacity to reduce fees for sending money cross-border. PayPal’s Zabaneh hopes that the expansion of PYUSD abroad will help realize that potential.

Currently, PayPal users in select countries like Peru can only withdraw money from their accounts in their country’s native currency. If a New Yorker sends $10 over PayPal to someone in Lima, for example, the Peruvian user has to pay a cross-border transfer fee and must take out the money in the Peruvian sol. Now, the ability to send and receive PYUSD enables users to keep funds in what are essentially U.S. dollars and reduce transfer fees, said Zabaneh. 

Moreover, some countries like Malawi don’t let users keep money transfers in their PayPal wallets. Once one Malawian sends money over PayPal to another, that cash is immediately sent to the recipient’s bank account. Opening up access to PYUSD lets users keep that money in their PayPal wallets, as opposed to only their bank accounts, added Zabaneh.

“It unlocks a balance-type concept in these accounts and an earnings concept,” she said.

The fintech’s expansion of access to PYUSD comes as PayPal continues to integrate the stablecoin throughout its various business verticals. Customers like YouTube who use the company’s payouts product can choose to receive payments in the stablecoin. PayPal has also experimented with using PYUSD to transfer funds internationally across its different corporate entities. 

Over the past year, the total market capitalization of PayPal’s stablecoin has more than quintupled to $4.1 billion, according to data from CoinGecko. After initially pausing development amid scrutiny from a New York financial regulator of PayPal’s launch partner, the fintech launched the token in the summer of 2023.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio published a dire warning Monday: the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran will be a decisive confrontation over the Strait of Hormuz, and the outcome will determine far more than the price of oil. It will determine whether the American-led global order survives.

“It all comes down to who controls the Strait of Hormuz,” Dalio wrote in a lengthy post on X. If Iran retains the ability to control, or even negotiate over, who passes through the Strait—through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply flows daily—Dalio argues the U.S. will be seen as having lost the war, regardless of how the conflict is resolved.

Dalio compared a potential U.S. failure at Hormuz to Britain’s humiliation during the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis, a moment widely regarded by historians as the end of the British Empire’s global imperialism. He pointed to a pattern he says has repeated across 500 years of history: a rising power challenges the dominant empire over a critical trade route while the world watches, and money and alliances shift fast toward whoever wins.

When that dominant power, the holder of the world’s reserve currency, is “overextended financially,” as Dalio has often argued (including recently in Fortune) and then “reveals its weakness” by losing control over the conflict. “Watch out for allies and creditors losing confidence, the loss of its reserve currency status, the selling of its debt assets, and the weakening of its currency, especially relative to gold,” he wrote. 

The post arrives at a moment of confusion around who has control over the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait has been effectively closed for its third week, though there are signs that a small trickle of vessels getting through. President Trump disparaged American allies throughout the weekend, and then again on Monday afternoon for failing to provide military support to help secure the waterway. He then reversed course and said that the U.S. didn’t “need anybody” and was the strongest country in the world. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that the Strait of Hormuz “is open and only closed to enemies.” Unresolved questions remain on whether Iran mined the Strait, which would be an irreversible escalation if true. 

Dalio framed both sides as locked into a conflict with no diplomatic exit. “While there is talk of ending this war with an agreement, everyone knows that no agreement will resolve this war because agreements are worthless,” he wrote, adding that whatever comes next—whether the U.S. takes control of the strait or leaves it to Iran—”is likely to be the worst phase of the conflict.”

The core problem, Dalio said, is motivational asymmetry. For Iran’s leadership, the war is “existential,” a matter of regime survival, national pride, and religious commitment. For Americans, it’s about gas prices, and for U.S. politicians, it’s about the midterm elections. Dalio was clear over which side that calculus favors in a prolonged fight: “In war, one’s ability to withstand pain is even more important than one’s ability to inflict pain.”

Iran’s strategy, he says, is to inflict that pain for as long as possible, then wait for the U.S. to quit, just as it has done in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  

Trump is now calling on allied nations to join a multinational escort operation through the strait, though for the most part, they haven’t yet been receptive. Dalio says it remains to be seen whether that effort can serve as a potential “solution” to getting the waterway reopened.

“If President Trump demonstrates his and the U.S.’s power to do what he said he would do, which is win this war by having free passage through the Strait of Hormuz and eliminating Iran as a threat to its neighbors and the world, it will greatly bolster confidence in his and the U.S.’s power.”

But if he doesn’t, the ripple effects, on everything from trade flows, to capital markets and the dollar’s reserve currency status, could irreparably damage American hegemony. Tehran has also threatened the dominance of the petrodollar by reportedly agreeing to open the Strait of Hormuz to a limited number of oil tankers that trade in yuan rather than dollars.  

“Both sides know that the final battle, which will make clear which side won and which side lost, still lies ahead,” Dalio wrote.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

America does not look like a nation in fiscal distress—and that’s exactly the problem.

The S&P 500 has more than doubled in the past five years. Unemployment is at a multi-decade low. Social Security checks are going out.

But moments like these can hide deeper vulnerabilities. Rising tensions in the Middle East, including the conflict with Iran, are a reminder of how quickly economic conditions can shift. A disruption to global oil supplies could send energy prices higher, reigniting inflation and pushing interest rates upward. For a country already carrying more than $38 trillion in debt and spending more on interest than on national defense, that kind of shock would put even greater strain on federal finances.

And the underlying trend is already troubling. The national debt is on track to reach levels never seen outside of wartime—projected to climb to roughly 120% of GDP within the next decade. That means that the federal government would owe more than the entire annual output of the US economy.

That trajectory will not trigger an alarm bell overnight. As Ernest Hemingway wrote, bankruptcy happens “gradually and then suddenly.” The same can be true of fiscal decline.

A bipartisan fiscal commission offers a structured, credible forum for lawmakers to put everything on the table and produce a package of reforms capable of stabilizing the nation’s finances before gradual erosion becomes genuine crisis.

The US has over $38 trillion of national debt. We now spend more annually on interest than on the military. The primary trust funds for Social Security and Medicare are also projected to become insolvent within the next seven years, requiring an automatic benefit cut or even more deficit spending to backfill these programs. These pressures will intensify as the population ages, health care costs rise, and economic growth slows.

For American businesses, the looming debt crisis carries tangible, real-world consequences. High levels of government debt require the federal government to spend more on interest payments, leaving fewer resources available for infrastructure, education, national defense, and social programs. If investors begin to view US debt as riskier, interest rates could rise further, increasing borrowing costs for expansion, hiring, and investment.

The U.K. offered a preview. In 2022, Prime Minister Liz Truss announced some of the largest tax cuts in decades primarily financed via deficit spending, financial markets were rattled, causing precipitous declines in the value of the pound and threatening the solvency of British pension funds. Within weeks, the prime minister and the country’s finance head were forced to resign. The U.S. economy is larger and the dollar holds reserve currency status—but the dynamic of confidence lost suddenly after building gradually is the same.

Establishing a bipartisan fiscal commission in Congress to address the debt crisis would not solve the problem overnight, but it could break partisan logjams, focus both political parties on finding a solution, bring bipartisan credibility to reforms, and encourage public awareness and support. It would bring bipartisan credibility to reforms and build the public mandate needed for Congress to act.

The commission’s three primary strategic objectives should be to improve the long-term fiscal condition of the federal government, hold the expected debt-to-GDP ratio to a more sustainable level (such as 100%), and address the long-term solvency of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

For a commission to be successful, everything must be on the table. The commission should undertake a top-to-bottom review of all federal spending and revenue sources. To avoid losing political momentum, the law establishing the commission should include strict timelines and commitments for votes on the House and Senate floor. Following enactment, Congress should adopt strong enforcement mechanisms for future fiscal decisions to avoid altering the new fiscal trajectory.

The American people must understand the stakes. A public education campaign should explain the fiscal crisis, invite broad input, and build the political will needed for Congress to act. This effort should focus especially on groups most vulnerable to a debt crisis—younger generations, low-income communities, and the “sandwich” generation.

The U.S. debt crisis is already here. Forming a bipartisan fiscal commission is an immediate first step in developing a comprehensive plan to address the national debt and forcing action in Congress. Only then can we preserve our national prosperity for future generations.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

For most of modern history, human worth was measured by output — how much you produced, how fast you moved, how efficiently you performed. The modern economy was built on this premise. Factories needed workers who could produce more units. Corporations rewarded leaders who optimized systems. Knowledge work elevated those who could analyze faster and process more. In a world where intelligence and information were scarce, productivity created advantage.

But something fundamental has changed. For the first time in history, we are creating machines that can out-produce us in the very domains where productivity once defined human value. AI can analyze faster, generate more ideas, and process vastly more information than any human mind. According to the World Economic Forum, 85 million jobs may be displaced by AI-driven automation by 2025 — while the skills most in demand are shifting toward judgment, creativity, and leadership.

The age of the “human doing” — the professional defined entirely by cognitive output and execution speed — is ending.

This shift is unsettling for leaders whose identities have been built on cognitive performance — the smartest analyst, the fastest strategist, the most productive executive. When machines can outperform humans at doing, a deeper question emerges: what remains uniquely human? The answer isn’t intelligence, knowledge, or speed. It’s wisdom.

In my book The Last Book Written by a Human, I describe wisdom as something fundamentally different from intelligence. Intelligence processes information. Wisdom integrates experience. Intelligence answers questions. Wisdom knows which questions actually matter. And wisdom cannot be automated. It emerges from lived experience — through reflection, relationships, responsibility, and the slow accumulation of perspective that no dataset can fully replicate.

AI can summarize the world’s knowledge, but it cannot feel the weight of a hard decision, carry responsibility for another human being, or sit with moral tension when the right path isn’t obvious. Those aren’t bugs in the system. They are the very conditions through which wisdom is formed.

Wisdom: The New Competitive Advantage

For business leaders, this shift has enormous implications. For decades, leadership culture rewarded speed and optimization — executives were expected to process massive information and make rapid decisions. But when intelligence becomes automated and abundant, the source of competitive advantage changes. In an era of infinite “doing” generated by algorithms, the most valuable asset on any balance sheet may be the one that can’t be measured: the human capacity for discernment. Intelligence is becoming a commodity. Wisdom remains scarce.

The leaders who thrive in the AI era will not simply be those who understand technology best. They will be the ones who can see clearly amid overwhelming information — who know when to move fast and when to pause, when to optimize and when to protect something more human.

The Wise Leader

If wisdom is the advantage, three qualities will increasingly define effective leadership:

Discernment: The ability to recognize what truly matters amid an explosion of data, predictions, and automated recommendations.

Reflection: The discipline to pause before reacting — to consider long-term consequences instead of chasing short-term optimization.

Human-Centered Judgment: The courage to make decisions based not only on efficiency, but on how those decisions affect human flourishing.

This isn’t abstract philosophy — it has direct implications for how organizations operate. Many companies today run inside a culture of constant reaction: perpetual urgency, relentless optimization, pressure to move faster at every turn. But in a world saturated with intelligence, speed alone is no longer the differentiator. The real advantage may come from building a culture of reflection, where leaders are rewarded not only for rapid execution but for thoughtful judgment. Sometimes the most valuable decision a leader can make is to say no — to resist a short-term optimization that undermines long-term health.

AI as the Catalyst

None of this means AI is the enemy — in fact, it may be the catalyst that forces this evolution.

Artificial intelligence is, in many ways, a mirror reflecting our current state of consciousness. If we feed it our obsession with speed, efficiency, and profit at any cost, it will amplify those instincts. But if we use this technological disruption as an opportunity to rethink leadership — to rediscover discernment, empathy, and reflection — AI could free humans to focus on what we do best.

The irony is that this future may look strangely familiar. Before the industrial age, many cultures understood the difference between knowledge and wisdom — elders were valued not because they could produce more, but because they had lived long enough to see more clearly. Modern economies replaced elders with experts. Now AI is replacing experts, which may finally create space for wisdom to return.

The Return of the Human Being

AI will continue expanding what organizations are capable of, and businesses will still need efficiency, innovation, and execution. But the deeper question leaders must now confront is this: if machines increasingly handle the doing, what is the role of the human being? The answer lies in qualities machines cannot replicate — meaning-making, ethical judgment, empathy, presence, and the ability to hold complexity without rushing to resolution. In other words, the capacity to be fully human.

For centuries, humans have been conditioned to behave like machines — optimizing productivity, minimizing inefficiency, maximizing output. Now that machines are surpassing us at those tasks, we face a profound invitation: to remember what we really are. Not human doings. Human beings. In the age of AI, that distinction may become the most valuable leadership capability of all.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• In today’s CEO Daily: Phil Wahba on Chip Wilson’s fight with the athleisure company he founded
• The big leadership story: Trump’s dealmaking strategy hits a wall in Hormuz
• The markets: Mixed performance across Asia with S&P 500 futures trending slightly down
• Plus: All the news and watercooler chat from Fortune.

Good morning. Good morning. Phil Wahba writing this morning from New York. What’s a company to do when the founder has left—but hasn’t moved on? That’s the plight Lululemon, which reports earnings today after the bell today, finds itself in more than a decade after founder Chip Wilson departed its board. Though his methods have varied—full page newspaper ads berating the board, LinkedIn posts criticizing strategy, open letters to shareholders—Wilson has been adamant that leadership is doing just about everything wrong. I delve into the drama in my latest feature for Fortune. But the question I explore is one familiar to any company with a charismatic and dogged leader who sees the company they founded fumble—and can’t stay away. 

There’s even a name for it, “post-founder syndrome,” in which executives who built highly successful companies criticize successors’ perceived stumbles with an “only I can do this properly” attitude. (See: the founders of Starbucks, Papa John’s Pizza, and Nike.) In his Wall Street Journal ad last autumn, Wilson delivered a rather self-aggrandizing disquisition on why Lululemon had drifted: “A company bereft of a visionary loses its singular voice for product and long term strategy,” he intoned.

Wilson’s latest volley was to launch a proxy war, followed by open letters (many of them) to make his case and convince other shareholders to replace three directors at the next annual meeting. He hopes to reshape Lululemon’s board which he blames for letting the company’s culture of innovation disintegrate. 

Things between Wilson and the company went south after he left the board in 2015 (he stepped down as chairman in 2013 in the wake of comments about women’s bodies construed as fat-shaming, creating one of the biggest crises in the company’s history). However in the first nine years following his departure, Lululemon’s revenue proceeded to triple. (It is expected to report $11 billion a year in revenue for 2025.)

Today, though, he does have a lot of company in feeling Lululemon is adrift: shares have fallen 68% from their all-time high in 2023 as its U.S. sales have slid, raising fears that it hasn’t introduced enough new merchandise or uphold the technical leadership in its activewear, and has lost brand cache to brands like Alo Yoga. And in my reporting I found that like many founders, Wilson still wields enormous influence inside the company, especially with long-time employees who saw first hand how he stoked a culture of excellence and pioneering. 

Last week, Wilson went as far to warn any prospective CEO to beware of a board “that it is not equipped to support a visionary leader and the necessary transformation of the Company.” 

Needless to say the CEO who takes on this job won’t just be dealing with a turnaround and a demanding board, they’ll have to manage a post-founder too. You can read the full story here. 

Contact CEO Daily via Diane Brady at diane.brady@fortune.com

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com