There’s a reason financial experts often encourage retirees to delay claiming Social Security if they can afford to wait. Waiting to file for benefits could boost your monthly checks for life.
You can claim Social Security at any age once you turn 62. If you wait until full retirement age, which is 67 if you were born in 1960 or later, you’ll get your monthly benefits without a reduction.
Image source: Getty Images.
However, if you delay Social Security past full retirement age, your benefits get boosted 8% for every year you wait, until you turn 70. That boost then stays in effect for the rest of your life.
But a larger monthly check isn’t the only upside of waiting. There’s another key perk that many retirees overlook.
Bigger Social Security checks lead to larger COLAs
Each year, Social Security benefits are eligible for a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA. The purpose of COLAs is to help benefits keep up with inflation.
But COLAs aren’t flat dollar amounts. Rather, they’re percentage-based. This year, for example, Social Security benefits rose 2.8%.
What this means is that the larger your monthly benefits are to begin with, the more valuable every single COLA that comes through should be for you. So if you delay Social Security, you can set yourself up with not just larger benefits, but larger raises from year to year.
For example, say you’re entitled to $2,000 a month in Social Security at 67. If you wait until age 70 to file for benefits, you’ll get $2,480 a month instead.
Now, let’s say there’s a 3% COLA the following year. For a $2,000 benefit, you’re looking at a $60 raise. For a $2,480 benefit, you’re looking at an extra $74.40.
That gap may not sound like much initially. But over time, larger COLAs could help your financial situation immensely.
Lock in that stronger inflation protection
The value of larger Social Security COLAs can become more evident during periods of rampant inflation. While current inflation levels aren’t dreadful, a few years back, they were huge.
Larger COLAs could give you more spending leeway during times when costs are rising rapidly. So it pays to consider this peripheral benefit of delaying your Social Security claim.
Of course, delaying Social Security isn’t right for everyone. If you have health issues that are likely to shorten your lifespan, an earlier claim could be a better financial choice. If you’re unable to work and need money, you may not be able to wait until 70 to sign up for Social Security.
But if you have the option to wait and it makes sense for your financial situation, the combination of larger monthly checks and bigger lifetime COLAs could give you a serious long-term advantage.
Germany’s second-largest lender, Commerzbank, has announced a significant workforce reduction of up to 3,000 positions as it accelerates efforts to strengthen its financial performance and maintain its independence amid mounting pressure from an Italian rival. The move forms part of a broader overhaul designed to deliver sharper profitability while embracing emerging technologies, including a substantial commitment to artificial intelligence.
The job reductions represent the latest phase in a series of efficiency drives. Earlier this decade, the Frankfurt-based bank already eliminated around 10,000 roles—roughly one-third of its domestic workforce—and followed up last year with plans for nearly 4,000 more cuts.
Commerzbank currently employs about 40,000 staff members globally, with roughly 25,000 based in Germany.
Management has stressed that the latest reductions will be handled responsibly, with some new hires expected in areas focused on operational improvements. In parallel, the bank intends to allocate €600 million toward artificial intelligence initiatives between 2026 and 2030.
Executives anticipate this technology push will generate annual cost savings of around €500 million by the end of the decade, potentially influencing future hiring decisions as AI capabilities evolve.
These steps coincide with upward revisions to the bank’s medium-term financial goals. Commerzbank now projects revenue of €15 billion in 2028, an increase from its previous forecast of €14.2 billion.
It also aims for a net profit of €4.6 billion that year, up from the earlier target of €4.2 billion. Additional improvements include a better cost-to-income ratio—targeted at 46 percent in 2028 and 41 percent by 2030—and a net return on equity approaching 17 percent by 2028.
For the current year, the lender has lifted its expected net result to €3.4 billion. The changes come alongside €450 million in anticipated restructuring expenses tied to the workforce adjustments.
The timing of the announcement underscores Commerzbank’s determination to chart its own course.
Italy’s UniCredit, which has built a stake of nearly 30 percent and become the bank’s largest shareholder, formally launched a hostile takeover bid valued at approximately €35-37 billion earlier this week.
That offer sits below current market valuations and has drawn sharp criticism from Commerzbank’s leadership.
Chief Executive Bettina Orlopp highlighted fundamental differences in strategic vision, describing UniCredit’s approach as vague and reliant on narratives that undermine the German bank’s achievements. UniCredit’s own restructuring blueprint had envisioned far deeper cuts—potentially 7,000 positions across the combined entity.
The proposed merger has sparked intense debate in Germany, where Commerzbank plays a vital role financing the country’s influential small- and medium-sized enterprises.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz publicly rejected the bid, labeling it aggressive and damaging to trust. Berlin retains a roughly 12 percent ownership stake from the 2008 financial crisis bailout, and some officials have floated ideas for increasing that holding to safeguard national interests.
Union representatives have voiced similar concerns, warning that foreign control could jeopardize thousands more jobs. Commerzbank’s first-quarter results provided a positive backdrop for the strategy shift.
Net profit climbed 9.5 percent to €913 million, surpassing analyst expectations and driven by disciplined cost management and strong commission income amid volatile markets. By demonstrating stronger standalone prospects through technology investment and leaner operations, the bank hopes to persuade shareholders that independence remains the superior path forward in an era of cross-border banking consolidation.
A Morningstar DBRS report says medium-sized banks and credit unions are expanding into areas like wealth management, payments and credit cards as lower interest rates and economic uncertainty pressure traditional lending income.
📘 International Finance Final Revision | TYBMS SEM VI | Part 2 | 100% Exam Focus | Dr. Mihir Shah
Prepare for your TYBMS SEM VI International Finance exam with this complete final revision lecture by Dr. Mihir Shah. This video is specially designed for last-minute preparation, covering important concepts, expected questions, and key topics frequently asked in University exams (2019–2025 pattern).
🎯 This session includes:
• Concept clarity in simple language
• Most important theory for exams
• Frequently asked university questions
• Quick revision for maximum marks
• Focus on scoring topics
• Exam-oriented explanation
• Time-saving preparation strategy
📊 Perfect for 1-day revision, night before exam, or concept strengthening.
👨🏫 Ideal for students of:
• TYBMS SEM VI
• BMS Finance specialization
• University of Mumbai students
• Students preparing for internal & final exams
📌 Study smart, revise fast, and score high with this 100% exam-focused revision series.
📚 Topics Covered in Part 1 (based on syllabus):
• Foreign Exchange Market – Meaning & Features
• Exchange Rate Determination
• Balance of Payments
• International Monetary System
• Purchasing Power Parity Theory
• Interest Rate Parity Theory
• Types of Exchange Rate Systems
• Spot vs Forward Market
• Direct & Indirect Quotes
👍 Benefits of this video:
✔ Quick revision before exam
✔ Covers important theoretical concepts
✔ Based on previous year question papers
✔ Helps in scoring high marks
✔ Easy explanation for fast understanding
📢 Watch full playlist for complete revision of International Finance (TYBMS SEM VI)
🔔 Subscribe for more exam-oriented lectures
📤 Share with friends preparing for TYBMS exams
The dream Wall Street REITs had of owning vast swathes of purposely built single-family rental communities, stretching as far as the eye could see, has hit a snag. A new “seven-year sell-off” rule has many people wondering if the build-to-rent (BTR) phenomenon is over before it really began.
A provision in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act would force institutional investors to sell newly built rental homes seven years after construction. Industry groups, such as members of the Build America Caucus, fear that it could stop new build-to-rent projects and ripple through the housing ecosystem, affecting both Wall Street titans and mom-and-pop investors.
What the Seven-Year Sell-Off Rule Does
At the center of the debate is Section 901 of the Senate’s 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which passed the Senate in March and is now awaiting reconciliation with a different House version. The bill targets institutional landlords who own at least 350 single-family homes, capping their ability to acquire more properties by requiring them to sell newly built rental units to individual buyers after seven years or face penalties, theNew York Times reports.
“It is as if the bill views renters as [being] not deserving of a single-family lifestyle,” Ryan Smidt, chief executive of Clay Residential, a Houston builder of single-family rental communities in Texas, told the Times.
Why Wall Street Is Fuming
The build-to-rent phenomenon has taken shape over the last few years, with major REITs such as Blackstone, Invitation Homes, and Pretium Partners pulling back from investing in individual single-family homes in favor of new communities, which they could better manage and control.
“We think we’re really in the early stages of what could be a pretty significant, almost new asset class,” AvalonBay chief investment officer Matt Birenbaum told theWall Street Journal in 2024.
The housing crisis, however, has changed the game, as the government seeks ways to increase inventory and homeownership. Jim Baker, executive director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, a watchdog organization focused on the impact of institutional investors, told the Times:
“Build to rent is essentially homebuilders switching their construction from building homes for people to building homes for large institutional investors. It puts homeownership further out of reach for individuals, [denying them an opportunity] for building wealth for themselves, their families, and their children.”
Big investors are fuming over the new provision. “If this bill passes as is, I can’t really grow,” Richard Ross, chief executive of Quinn Residences, which owns about 5,300 single-family houses in rental communities across the Southeast, told the Times.
Why Lawmakers Turned Their Attention to Built-To-Rent Communities
Wall Street started investing heavily in single-family real estate after the 2008 financial crash, helping save thousands of homes from being abandoned when homeowners could no longer afford to live in them.
The purchases were made primarily in the Sunbelt, and they have continued to buy there. Although Wall Street owns only about 3% of single-family homes nationally, in certain cities, such as Atlanta, Phoenix, and Jacksonville, it owns 15%-30%.
Unsurprisingly, it’s also here that most BTR communities are based, which has amplified local concerns about pricing and competition with first-time homebuyers. This tallies with a recent NAR report showing that the share of first-time homebuyers fell to the lowest level on record this year.
The Backlash
Although the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act was bipartisan, it’s not just Republicans who are against the seven-year sell-off requirement. Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, called the particular mandate “bizarre,” suggesting that it unfairly punishes those who want to build housing to replace aging rental stock. Commercial real estate groups have also urged Congress to remove the provision while maintaining restrictions on the purchase of existing homes.
A report from John Burns Research and Consulting said the new provision would have the opposite effect of what it was intended to achieve, theWall Street Journal reported. “The capital devoted to rental development will have to look for opportunities elsewhere,” the report said. “We believe the number of new homes constructed in America will be less.”
Adrianne Todman, chief executive of the National Rental Home Council, which represents institutional homebuyers, shared the report’s sentiments, saying in the Journal: “In a housing supply bill, this is an anti-housing supply policy.”
The Takeaway for Small Investors
This provision only affects institutional investors with over 350 units, meaning smaller investors are safe. In fact, the lack of rental competition will likely spark optimism among active investors buying single-family homes, especially in Sunbelt markets where BTR construction was most robust.
There’s no doubt that living in a shiny, new amenity-filled BTR community has its pros and cons. One drawback is the rental price, which is generally far higher than that of a comparable-sized single-family home.
If Wall Street decides against the BTR strategy entirely, it will further stymie the need for additional housing, playing into the hands of landlords who currently own sizable portfolios or those seeking to expand their holdings.
Final Thoughts
Such is the blowback from institutional investors that this provision is by no means a done deal. Realtor.com reports that 76 House members have already warned Speaker Mike Johnson that the provision could shrink housing supply if not carefully implemented, so this will probably not be the last word. Expect carve-outs and adjustments.
Forcing tenants out and developers to sell their rentals will not be easy. Investors will also want to ascertain what the stipulation for the sell-off actually entails. Could there be an opportunity for investors to buy these homes, make cosmetic upgrades, and sell if the market is conducive? Will renting any sections of these homes through STR sites—with the owner-occupant present—be allowed?
Did you know that a BiggerPockets Pro membership comes with over $5,000 in potential annual savings through Pro Perks, including discounts on property management, banking, renovation supplies, and investor loans and insurance. Become a Pro today!
A year after followers of President Donald Trump put down $100 deposits for a Trump-branded gold phone, not one has shipped, and a recent change in the fine print has some worried they may never arrive.
Last month, the company behind Trump Mobile, T1 Mobile LLC, quietly updated its preorder terms and conditions to clarify that it “does not guarantee that a Device will be produced or made available for purchase.”
“A preorder deposit provides only a conditional opportunity if Trump Mobile later elects, in its sole discretion, to offer the Device for sale,” the most recent terms, dated April 6, read.
Purchasers like tech content creator Carter Ryan, who goes by CarterPCs online, were quick to call out the company’s vague language.
“I’m paying $100 for the chance to maybe give you more money in the future, if you decide to make the product that I’m paying for in the first place?” he said in a post on TikTok.
T1 Mobile and the Trump Organization did not immediately respond to Fortune‘s request for comment. A spokesperson for the White House referred any inquiries to the Trump Organization.
The terms change comes as the $500 phone, dubbed the “T1,” has had its release pushed back several times. The phone was first set to ship to depositors in August 2025. The launch was then pushed to November, then December. At the end of last year, customer service representatives for the company told Fortune the phone would arrive in “mid to late January,” and that it was delayed because of the government shutdown at the time.
There is currently no release date for the phone on the Trump Mobile website, although the Verge reported last month that the company moved closer to release by getting its PTCRB certification, which is a requirement for any phone that aims to launch in the U.S. and utilize major networks. The phone has also reportedly received authorization from the Federal Communications Commission, the outlet reported.
The “T1” Trump phone, whose gold shell bears an American flag and the name “Trump Mobile,” has been redesigned three times. The device will run on the Android operating system and feature a 6.78-inch AMOLED screen, a 50-megapixel front and back camera, and both a fingerprint sensor and “AI face unlock,” according to the Trump Mobile website.
The phone, which was originally advertised as being made in America, will now be “designed with American values in mind,” the website states. While the Trump phone remains unreleased, Trump Mobile is selling refurbished Samsung phones and iPhones that connect to its network and its so-called 47 Plan—a $47.45-per-month service that pays homage to Trump’s distinction as both the 45th and 47th president.
Applebee’s is bringing back its All You Can Eat for $15.99 promotion.
Applebee’s guests get an endless rotation of three proteins, Boneless Wings, Riblets, and Double Crunch Shrimp served with classic fries on every plate. Best of all, guests don’t need to settle for just one protein and flavor the entire night they can mix and match until they’re satisfied.
The endless options include:
Boneless Wings: Crispy, juicy, and tossed in one of six signature sauces, ranging from tangy Classic Buffalo to a sweet-and-spicy Hot Honey Glaze.
Riblets: Tender, bone-in pork, slow-cooked and slathered in delicious sauces like Honey BBQ or Sweet Asian Chile.
Double Crunch Shrimp: A heaping portion of perfectly golden-fried shrimp, delivering a satisfying crunch in every bite.
The US Navy said it plans to buy at least 15 new battleships endorsed by President Donald Trump over the next 30 years, according to its new shipbuilding plan, marking a deeper commitment than previously revealed to what could be the costliest warship ever produced.
The Navy had previously said it would purchase three of the so-called Trump-class battleships, with the first arriving in 2036. But the Navy now projects buying more than a dozen of the vessels through 2055, the service said in a congressionally mandated, long-range plan released on Monday.
The new Trump battleships — unveiled and personally approved by the president — could cost at least $14.5 billion apiece given a five-year Navy budget plan requests $43.5 billion for the first three vessels. That would make them even costlier than the $13 billion USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, the most expensive US warship. The lead vessel of a new class of warships has historically cost much more than planned.
While Trump previously said the Navy aims to build as many as 25 battleships, the Navy plan represents an authoritative assessment that has gone through the service’s formal requirements process.
Still, the ship-buying is no sure thing. The Navy’s 30-year plans are generally seen as aspirational documents, with this plan containing no clear figures for the cost of a 15-ship fleet. And Trump’s planned 44% boost for the Pentagon’s $1.5 trillion 2027 budget is likely to meet significant pushback in Congress.
“All items beyond” the Navy’s current five-year plan to 2031 “are under review by the Administration,” according to a footnote in the document.
The Trump-class battleship program is so attached to the current president — and so costly — that it’s also likely to be one of the top defense programs targeted for cancellation if Republicans lose the House of Representatives in November midterm elections. The long-term program is even more at risk if a Democrat is elected president in 2028.
Trump fired the previous Navy secretary, John Phelan, after the appointee clashed with top leaders at the Pentagon — including over administration efforts to revive US shipbuilding, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private conversations.
“The United States is at a strategic inflection point, and rebuilding American maritime dominance requires urgency, accountability, and sustained commitment,” Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, who replaced Phelan, said in a statement on Monday as the plan was released.
The first Trump battleship due in 2036 is currently expected to be delivered roughly eight years after it’s contracted. The second and third deliveries are envisioned in 2038 and 2039, with the fourth and fifth ships expected in 2041 and 2043.
Overall, the Navy projects it will have 299 battle ships in its fleet by 2031, well short of the service’s own requirement of 355 ships, according to the newly released plan. That’s up from 291 ships today.
“This is a persistent problem and one that is not just industrial,” according to the Navy plan. “It is structural and the result of how we buy, how we plan, and how we manage risk in Navy acquisition.”
There’s a pattern I’ve noticed after years of conversations with physicians building lives beyond medicine.
It usually comes up quietly. In a mastermind group. At a conference after the presentations end. Over dinner when the conversation finally gets honest.
A physician who has, by every reasonable measure, done everything right. Good income. Stable career. Family. The house they worked toward. The title they chased. And somewhere underneath all of it, a feeling they can’t quite name and aren’t sure they’re allowed to have.
They’re not miserable. They’re not failing. They just expected to feel something that never arrived.
If you’ve been there, or you’re there right now, this isn’t a character flaw. There’s actually a name for it. And understanding it might be the most practical thing you do this year.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Any investment involves risk, and you should consult your financial advisor, attorney, or CPA before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The author and associated entities disclaim any liability for loss incurred as a result of the use of this material or its content.
If you’ve been circling ideas but still feel stuck, you’re not alone.
PIMDCON, the #1 Real Estate & Entrepreneurship Conference for Physicians, is where doctors finally stop spinning their wheels.
Leave with a plan and the confidence to move.
LEARN MORE ABOUT PIMDCON
The Arrival Fallacy and Why Physicians Are Especially Vulnerable to It
The Arrival Fallacy is a well-documented psychological pattern: the belief that reaching a particular goal will produce a sustained feeling of happiness or satisfaction.
It almost never does. Not in the way people expect.
For physicians, this is compounded by something specific to how we trained. Medicine gave us a pipeline. A clear, structured sequence of milestones, each one meaningful, each one tied to a real feeling of progress. Get into med school. Match into the right program. Survive residency. Land the job. Make partner.
That sequence did something important beyond building credentials. It gave us structure. It gave us forward motion. It gave us, every few years, a legitimate reason to feel like we were getting somewhere.
And then it ends.
I know this personally. When I made partner, I was proud. I had worked nights and weekends for years. I’d missed things with my family. I told myself it was temporary, that once I got there the effort would translate into something different. More control. More say. A different relationship with the work.
That’s not what happened.
What was promised didn’t materialize. And I remember sitting with a quiet thought I didn’t say out loud to anyone: is this it? Is this what I was building toward?
That question is more common among high-achieving physicians than most people admit. And the typical response, reach for a higher income target, a new role, a bigger number, doesn’t address what’s actually going on.
Why More Money Doesn’t Fix It
Let’s be direct about this, because the financial advice world often isn’t.
More income is not a neutral intervention. It comes with tradeoffs. And for physicians experiencing this particular kind of dissatisfaction, those tradeoffs often make things worse before they make them better.
Here’s why.
The problem is usually not financial.
What most physicians describe in this place, and I hear versions of it constantly in our community, comes down to three things: loss of autonomy, narrowed identity, and time going somewhere they didn’t choose.
They feel like they have less control over how they practice than they expected to have by now. They feel like their identity has compressed into a single role. And they feel, at some level, that time is passing without much input from them.
A higher income doesn’t address any of those things. It doesn’t buy back autonomy inside a system designed to limit it. It doesn’t expand an identity that medicine has been narrowing for decades. And it almost always requires more of the time that already feels like the problem.
The income milestone feels like the obvious lever because it’s the most measurable thing in the picture. But measurable isn’t the same as relevant.
Lifestyle has a way of catching up.
The income goes up. The overhead tends to follow. A bigger house, private school tuition, the level of vacation that now feels like a baseline. The floor shifts upward.
This isn’t a moral failing. It’s a predictable pattern. But it means the distance between where you are and where you’d have real options doesn’t close as expected. It adjusts to the new normal. And the next number becomes the target.
I’ve watched this happen to physicians I respect. I’ve felt versions of it myself. You hit the goal, reset it higher almost automatically, and at some point start to wonder whether chasing the number is the point of the game or just a way of avoiding a harder question.
The deeper issue is the loss of the chase itself.
This is the part that doesn’t get said clearly enough.
Physicians are people who spent ten, fifteen, twenty years in relentless forward motion. The pursuit was structural. It was identity. There was always a next level, always a meaningful target, always a reason to push.
And at some point, the checklist is done.
The feeling that follows isn’t failure. It’s disorientation. It’s what happens to a high-achieving person who has run out of the kind of pursuit that shaped their entire adult life. Nobody in medical training prepares you for what it feels like to arrive.
The guilt that often accompanies this, the sense that you have no right to feel unsatisfied given everything you have, is misdirected. It’s not ingratitude. It’s a signal that the old game is over, and you haven’t defined the next one yet.
Subscribe to receive the 7 Steps you can follow to achieve Financial Freedom
If financial freedom is your goal, there’s no better time to get started than right now.
Unlock actionable steps that you can take every day to fine-tune your goals, discover your interests, and avoid costly mistakes on your financial freedom journey.
What to Actually Do With This
The instinct to solve it financially is understandable. It’s also a category error.
This isn’t primarily a money problem. It’s a freedom problem. And freedom, in a real sense, isn’t about a number. It’s about decoupling.
When your income is no longer entirely dependent on you showing up to a clinical setting, something changes. You start to have genuine options. You can practice differently. You can say no to things that aren’t working and mean it. You can stay in medicine because you want to, not because you have no alternative.
That shift, from having to work to choosing to work, is where the feeling most people are chasing actually lives.
I didn’t fully understand this until I started building alongside medicine rather than looking for something to replace it. Passive income from real estate wasn’t interesting to me because of the income. It was interesting because of what it changed about my relationship with my clinical work. Once I didn’t need the shift the same way, I practiced differently. I made different decisions. I stopped feeling trapped.
A lot of physicians in our community describe a similar inflection point. They came in thinking they were solving a financial problem. What they actually solved was a freedom problem.
The path there isn’t fast. And it isn’t simple. But the starting point isn’t a higher income target.The starting point is an honest question: what would have to be true for this next chapter to feel like something I actually designed, rather than something I fell into?
A Place to Start
If this resonated, the question worth sitting with is simple enough.
What does the next chapter look like if you actually choose it?
Not optimize. Not earn your way into. Actually choose.
That question is harder to answer than it sounds. It requires you to stop running the old game long enough to ask whether the old game is even the right one anymore.
That’s where the real work starts.
Want to hear more on this? I covered it in depth on Episode 315 of the Passive Income MD podcast. You can find it wherever you listen.
Disclaimer: I am not a CPA, attorney, or financial advisor. The information in this post is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as tax, legal, or financial advice. Please consult a qualified professional about your specific situation before making any decisions.
Were these helpful in any way? Make sure to sign up for the newsletter and join the Passive Income Docs Facebook Group for more physician-tailored content.
Peter Kim, MD is the founder of Passive Income MD, the creator of Passive Real Estate Academy, and offers weekly education through his Monday podcast, the Passive Income MD Podcast. Join our community at the Passive Income Doc Facebook Group.
