How to Get Off the Investing Sidelines - Your Money Briefing
A turbulent spring in the stock market spooked some investors — and now, they're struggling to get back in . Host Julia Carpenter talks with WSJ's The Intelligent Investor columnist Jason Zweig about how these same folks can reshape their investing strategy with some much-needed historical perspective.
Full Transcript
This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Julia Carpenter: Here's Your Money Briefing for Friday, June 6th. I'm Julia Carpenter for The Wall Street Journal. What do you think the opposite of FOMO or the fear of missing out is? FOGI. The fear of getting in, and FOGI is all too common among investors these days.
Jason Zweig: When people sense a high level of uncertainty in the market, it makes these kinds of decisions more complicated, because often, people are making these judgments partly based on what their peers are doing. And if all your peers are doing is expressing confusion and watching the headlines nonstop, it can be hard to figure out what to do.
Julia Carpenter: After such an up and down few months in the stock market, spooked investors know they're probably playing it a little too safe, but what's the first step to jumping back in the fray? We'll talk with WSJ's The Intelligent Investor columnist, Jason Zweig, about how to conquer FOGI and maybe even how to use it to your advantage. That's after the break. Investors haven't had a quiet 2025. After the Trump Administration's tariff plan sent the market into a tailspin earlier this spring, some investors decided to pull out rather than play ball, and others had taken a step back even earlier. But now the market seas have calmed. So how do you get back in? Wall Street Journal's The Intelligent Investor columnist, Jason Zweig, joins me to talk more. Jason, one of your readers, Michael McCowin, wrote to you and coined this new term: FOGI. Or fear of getting in. How did he arrive at this FOGI place?
Jason Zweig: Well, he would say a couple of things. First of all, he got old, and he became a FOGI, an old FOGI. And secondly, he has pretty strong views. He's fortunate. He's a former professional investor. He has plenty of assets to see him through. He's 86, and he feels that the potential upside from staying in the market at this point is not as great as the potential downside of staying in and perhaps losing a lot of his money without time to recover.
Julia Carpenter: And after such a turbulent period in markets, you talk to some investors who say they think they should be more fully invested, but they still are in that place that Michael is in, that sort of FOGI place. Why do you think so many investors feel this way?
Jason Zweig: Uncertainty is always high except at total market turning points, like say, 2020 or in 1987. And when people sense a high level of uncertainty in the market, it makes these kinds of decisions more complicated, because often, people are making these judgments partly based on what their peers are doing. And if all your peers are doing is expressing confusion and watching the headlines non-stop, it can be hard to figure out what to do.
Julia Carpenter: FOGI is contagious.
Jason Zweig: Yeah, it absolutely is.
Julia Carpenter: And your column, which is linked in our show notes, does such a great job of giving us some much-needed historical perspective. How do the last few market cycles fit into the big picture of the last 80 years in markets?
Jason Zweig: The key thing to put in perspective as an investor is that, the long run, tells us unambiguously that you should be rewarded for sticking with U.S. stocks if you can stick with them long enough. We've had over 60 instances of stocks losing 5% or more. We've had a couple dozen corrections where they went down 10 or 20%. And, just in the past few years, we've had two severe bear markets where stocks lost 20% or more. And, over time, the markets have always overcome that and delivered ample returns for people who could stick with it. However, it's not a guarantee. And, ultimately, if you try to force yourself to be the kind of investor you're not, you might end up worse off. People who really feel they need to sleep well at night should listen to that intuition, because if you compel yourself against your own gut to stick with the market during times that look tough, when times that actually feel tough come along, you may get shaken out. So, having a little bit higher allocation to cash or bonds might not be a bad thing for someone who is inclined to get spooked out of the market.
Julia Carpenter: I wanted to ask you about a hindsight bias. What is it, and how should we be thinking about it as investors?
Jason Zweig: Hindsight bias is a fallacy of human reasoning. It essentially trains us to think, after the fact, that what did happen is what we predicted would happen. And just think about presidential elections, for example. People say things like, "Oh, I knew all along it would be a landslide," or, "I knew all along it would be close." But if you go back and look at what they actually were saying before the election, they weren't saying that. And the advantage of what's just happened, particularly in April and the rebound in May, is that it's so fresh in all of our minds, that it's kind of hard to lie to ourselves. And it gives us a great opportunity to look back and say, "What was I actually saying and thinking? Oh, I was actually saying and thinking this was almost the end of the world, and it's turned out not to be, at least so far. So maybe the lesson I should learn is not to be so certain about my forecasts."
Julia Carpenter: So thinking about investors like Michael, what would you tell them to consider as they weigh their options and try to conquer this fear of getting in?
Jason Zweig: I like to say, if you must panic, panic slowly, panic gradually. Maybe take one percentage point of your allocation to stocks and reduce that each month. And, within a retirement account, where you don't have immediate tax consequences, you can do that quite easily. And making gradual change, first of all, will make you feel better, because you'll feel you're responding to the thing you're afraid of. But more importantly, it prevents you from overreacting to a fear you feel that ultimately doesn't turn out to be actual.
Julia Carpenter: And just to emphasize to those who are still sort of spooked, Jason, managing investments is just one part of an overall financial plan, but it's an important one nonetheless. I wonder what would you say to someone about using the market to build wealth and this sense of security?
Jason Zweig: So, the thing to keep in mind is that, while there are no guarantees, and it is not actually true that if you hold stocks long enough you're guaranteed to outperform all other assets, it's a bet about probabilities. It's highly likely that you will do extremely well if you hold stocks for the long term. And the fact that the probability isn't a hundred percent, I don't think should really discourage you from doing it. Just as it can rain on a day when the forecast is 100% sunshine, stocks can disappoint people who hold them for decades at a time, but in the long run, it is a very high probability bet. And putting most of your money in stocks, particularly when you're young and your labor income gives you a hedge against fluctuations in the value of your stock portfolio, is a good idea. It's the best bet for long-term investing, even if it's not quite a certain bet.
Julia Carpenter: That's Jason Zweig, columnist for WSJ's: The Intelligent Investor. And that's it for Your Money Briefing. Tomorrow we'll have our weekly markets wrap up, What's News and markets, and then we'll be back on Monday. This episode was produced by Ariana Aspuru. I'm your host, Julia Carpenter. Jessica Fenton and Michael LaValle wrote our theme music. Our supervising producer is Melony Roy. Aisha Al-Muslim is our development producer. Scott Saloway and Chris Zinsli are our deputy editors. And Philana Patterson is The Wall Street Journal's head of news audio. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
AI Safety: Beyond AI Hype To Hybrid Intelligence
Autonomous electric cars with artificial intelligence self driving on metropolis road, 3d rendering The artificial intelligence revolution has reached a critical inflection point. While CEOs rush to deploy AI agents and boast about automation gains, a sobering reality check is emerging from boardrooms worldwide: ChatGPT 4o has 61% hallucinations according to simple QA developed by OpenAI, and even the most advanced AI systems fail basic reliability tests with alarming frequency. In a recent OpEd Dario Amodei, Anthropic's CEO, called for regulating AI arguing that voluntary safety measures are insufficient. Meanwhile, companies like Klarna — once poster children for AI-first customer service — are quietly reversing course on their AI agent-only approach, and rehiring human representatives. These aren't isolated incidents; they're the cusp of the iceberg signaling a fundamental misalignment between AI hype and AI reality. Today's AI safety landscape resembles a high-stakes experiment conducted without a safety net. Three competing governance models have emerged: the EU's risk-based regulatory approach, the US's innovation-first decentralized framework, and China's state-led centralized model. Yet none adequately addresses the core challenge facing business leaders: how to harness AI's transformative potential while managing its probabilistic unpredictability. The stakes couldn't be higher. Four out of five finance chiefs consider AI "mission-critical," while 71% of technology leaders don't trust their organizations to manage future AI risks effectively. This paradox — simultaneous dependence and distrust — creates a dangerous cognitive dissonance in corporate decision-making. AI hallucinations remain a persistent and worsening challenge in 2025, where artificial intelligence systems confidently generate false or misleading information that appears credible but lacks factual basis. Recent data reveals the scale of this problem: in just the first quarter of 2025, close to 13,000 AI-generated articles were removed from online platforms due to hallucinated content, while OpenAI's latest reasoning systems show hallucination rates reaching 33% for their o3 model and a staggering 48% for o4-mini when answering questions about public figures 48% error rate. The legal sector has been particularly affected, with more than 30 instances documented in May 2025 of lawyers using evidence that featured AI hallucinations. These fabrications span across domains, from journalism where ChatGPT falsely attributed 76% of quotes from popular journalism sites to healthcare where AI models might misdiagnose medical conditions. The phenomenon has become so problematic that 39% of AI-powered customer service bots were pulled back or reworked due to hallucination-related errors highlighting the urgent need for better verification systems and user awareness when interacting with AI-generated content. The future requires a more nuanced and holistic approach than the traditional either-or perspective. Forward-thinking organizations are abandoning the binary choice between human-only and AI-only approaches. Instead, they're embracing hybrid intelligence — deliberately designed human-machine collaboration that leverages each party's strengths while compensating for their respective weaknesses. Mixus, which went public in June 2025, exemplifies this shift. Rather than replacing humans with autonomous agents, their platform creates "colleague-in-the-loop" systems where AI handles routine processing while humans provide verification at critical decision points. This approach acknowledges a fundamental truth that the autonomous AI evangelists ignore: AI without natural intelligence is like building a Porsche and giving it to people without a driver's license. The autonomous vehicle industry learned this lesson the hard way. After years of promising fully self-driving cars, manufacturers now integrate human oversight into every system. The most successful deployments combine AI's computational power with human judgment, creating resilient systems that gracefully handle edge cases and unexpected scenarios. LawZero is another initiative in this direction, which seeks to promote scientist AI as a safer, more secure alternative to many of the commercial AI systems being developed and released today. Scientist AI is non-agentic, meaning it doesn't have agency or work autonomously, but instead behaves in response to human input and goals. The underpinning belief is that AI should be cultivated as a global public good — developed and used safely towards human flourishing. It should be prosocial. While media attention focuses on AI hallucinations, business leaders face more immediate threats. Agency decay — the gradual erosion of human decision-making capabilities — poses a systemic risk as employees become overly dependent on AI recommendations. Mass persuasion capabilities enable sophisticated social engineering attacks. Market concentration in AI infrastructure creates single points of failure that could cripple entire industries. 47% of business leaders consider people using AI without proper oversight as one of the biggest fears in deploying AI in their organization. This fear is well-founded. Organizations implementing AI without proper governance frameworks risk not just operational failures, but legal liability, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational damage. Double literacy — investing in both human literacy (a holistic understanding of self and society) and algorithmic literacy — emerges as our most practical defense against AI-related risks. While waiting for coherent regulatory frameworks, organizations must build internal capabilities that enable safe AI deployment. Human literacy encompasses emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning — uniquely human capabilities that become more valuable, not less, in an AI-augmented world. Algorithmic literacy involves understanding how AI systems work, their limitations, and appropriate use cases. Together, these competencies create the foundation for responsible AI adoption. In healthcare, hybrid systems have begun to revolutionize patient care by enabling practitioners to spend more time in direct patient care while AI handles routine tasks, improving care outcomes and reducing burnout. Some leaders in the business world are also embracing the hybrid paradigm, with companies incorporating AI agents as coworkers gaining competitive advantages in productivity, innovation, and cost efficiency. Practical Implementation: The A-Frame Approach If you are a business reader and leader, you can start building AI safety capabilities in-house, today using the A-Frame methodology – 4 interconnected practices that create accountability without stifling innovation: Awareness requires mapping both AI capabilities and failure modes across technical, social, and legal dimensions. You cannot manage what you don't understand. This means conducting thorough risk assessments, stress-testing systems before deployment, and maintaining current knowledge of AI limitations. Appreciation involves recognizing that AI accountability operates across multiple levels simultaneously. Individual users, organizational policies, regulatory requirements, and global standards all influence outcomes. Effective AI governance requires coordinated action across all these levels, not isolated interventions. Acceptance means acknowledging that zero-failure AI systems are mythical. Instead of pursuing impossible perfection, organizations should design for resilience — systems that degrade gracefully under stress and recover quickly from failures. This includes maintaining human oversight capabilities, establishing clear escalation procedures, and planning for AI system downtime. Accountability demands clear ownership structures defined before deployment, not after failure. This means assigning specific individuals responsibility for AI outcomes, establishing measurable performance indicators, and creating transparent decision-making processes that can withstand regulatory scrutiny. The AI safety challenge isn't primarily technical — it's organizational and cultural. Companies that successfully navigate this transition will combine ambitious AI adoption with disciplined safety practices. They'll invest in double literacy programs, design hybrid intelligence systems, and implement the A-Frame methodology as standard practice. The alternative — rushing headlong into AI deployment without adequate safeguards — risks not just individual corporate failure, but systemic damage to AI's long-term potential. As the autonomous vehicle industry learned, premature promises of full automation can trigger public backlash that delays beneficial innovation by years or decades. Business leaders face a choice: they can wait for regulators to impose AI safety requirements from above, or they can proactively build safety capabilities that become competitive advantages. Organizations that choose the latter approach — investing in hybrid intelligence and double literacy today — will be best positioned to thrive in an AI-integrated future while avoiding the pitfalls that inevitably accompany revolutionary technology transitions. The future belongs not to companies that achieve perfect AI automation, but to those that master the art of human-AI collaboration. In a world of probabilistic machines, our most valuable asset remains deterministic human judgment — enhanced, not replaced, by artificial intelligence.


Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Stablecoins Are Changing Global Finance
Stable Coin. Stablecoins Cryptocurrencies Stable Market Price Value Coin Currency. The U.S. Senate has taken a major step toward regulating stablecoins by advancing the GENIUS Act—a bill that could reshape the digital finance landscape. Still under discussion, the legislation proposes strict reserve and transparency rules for issuers and signals growing government interest in crypto oversight. Stablecoins are crypto tokens that are typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. They allow users to transact within blockchain ecosystems without the volatility of traditional cryptocurrencies. Today, two clear leaders dominate the market. Yet, while Washington begins drafting policy, stablecoins have already found product-market fit in places far beyond Capitol Hill. The global use of stablecoins is growing steadily, regardless of whether the market is in a bull or bear phase. In Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and among crypto-native startups, they've quietly emerged as a preferred tool for payments, payroll, and preserving value in unstable economies. So what does this bottom-up adoption mean for the future of global finance? Are stablecoins here to stay, or will they be replaced by Central Bank Digital Currencies? And if they are here to stay, how to ride this trend? According to DefiLlama, the current market capitalization of stablecoins is around $250 billion, which is still a small share of the global M2 money supply, approximately 1%. In other words, we're still early. To understand where the growth might come from, it's worth examining what stablecoins are used for—and why they've become so popular. Stablecoins market capitalization. The first is USDT (Tether), the largest stablecoin by market capitalization. Interestingly, Tether has also emerged as one of the most financially efficient companies in the world on a per-employee basis. According to a tweet published by Avichal Garg, co-founder of Electric Capital, the company generated an estimated $85.6 million in profit per employee in 2024: Profit per Employee (USD) vs. Company The second major player is USDC, issued by U.S.-regulated firm Circle. The company went public on June 5, under the ticker CRCL, with its stock surging over 200% on its first day of trading—pushing its market capitalization above $20 billion, according to Barron's. These two companies currently dominate the stablecoin space. Others worth mentioning include: • USDS (formerly DAI), which started as a decentralized stablecoin but has become only partially decentralized due to its large holdings of U.S. Treasuries and USDC. • USD1, a politically charged entrant tied to Donald Trump's network, which has generated some discomfort among Democratic lawmakers. Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.), the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, voiced strong objections during a joint hearing on digital assets, stating: 'I object to this joint hearing because of the corruption of the President of the United States and his ownership of crypto and his oversight of all of the agencies.' Stablecoins are enjoying instant product-market fit: everyone needs access to crypto dollars — a version of the U.S. dollar that can be easily converted back to fiat, yet offers several advantages over traditional USD. While much of the attention on stablecoins focuses on regulation and market cap, their real momentum comes from how they're being used: The most obvious example of stablecoin usage is international payments. Sending U.S. dollars across borders with the traditional banking system typically involves SWIFT. Banks charge between $5 and $50 per transaction, often around $20, regardless of the transfer amount. That means sending $1,000 could cost users up to 2–5% in fees. In addition, the SWIFT transfers can take several business days to settle. Compared to transferring the same amount via stablecoins, even in the worst case, fees might only be a few dollars, and the transaction typically settles within minutes. That's at least 10 times cheaper and potentially 100 times faster. There's also another major benefit: users avoid capital controls, currency conversion hurdles, and heavy compliance bottlenecks, particularly relevant when sending money from or to countries with restrictive financial systems. The second use case — using stablecoins as a means of payment — is less advanced, largely due to regulatory inertia. Governments generally want citizens to transact in their local currencies, and stablecoins challenge that sovereignty. The lack of clarity discourages businesses from accepting them, especially given the lingering memory of Operation Choke Point, when certain industries were unofficially cut off from banking services. Despite the current U.S. administration's relatively crypto-friendly stance, the stablecoin bill GENIUS Act has yet to pass through Congress. This uncertainty keeps most merchants and payment providers on the sidelines. Once clear legislation is enacted, trust in stablecoins like USDT and USDC will likely surge. As for CBDCs, a concept that is often met with skepticism in the cryptocurrency community, the need for a government-backed digital dollar seems increasingly unnecessary. According to U.S. Treasury International Capital data, Tether's treasury holdings alone rival those of sovereign investors like Germany or Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Circle's portfolio is comparable to that of Thailand or Sweden. With such significant exposure to U.S. debt and growing political opposition to CBDCs—including campaign promises from Donald Trump to block their development—stablecoins may have already secured their place as the preferred digital dollar infrastructure in the United States. The third major use case—decentralized finance —is where stablecoins are already thriving. They serve as the foundational currency for DeFi applications, enabling lending, borrowing, swapping, yield farming, and more—all without centralized intermediaries. The functionality mirrors traditional finance but with key advantages: it's global, permissionless, and often more efficient. According to Dune Analytics data in the DeFi Report 2024–2025 , approximately 151 million wallet addresses interacted with DeFi protocols in 2024. While this figure likely includes duplicates, it provides a useful upper bound for estimating user activity. By comparison, World Bank data from 2021 shows that 4.6 to 4.9 billion people used traditional banking services globally. This also underscores the early stage of adoption of DeFi. But, once frameworks are established, DeFi usage could accelerate rapidly. Following these three cases, it's fair to say that stablecoins are here to stay. And this may only be the beginning: as crypto infrastructure intersects with artificial intelligence, stablecoins could enable AI agents to transact autonomously, unlocking programmable, real-time finance. So, how can investors position themselves to benefit from this trend? There are many ways, some of them look obvious, like buying CRCL as it has become a public company, or investing in Coinbase stocks (COIN), a company which is steadily growing its own layer two DeFi ecosystem. Some are more complicated, like finding companies to invest in that adopt stablecoins in their operations — for payments, payroll, or international transfers — and which are likely to scale faster than their peers, thanks to lower costs and global reach. Check Stripe, PayPal, and Deel as examples. On the decentralized side, assuming a favorable regulatory framework materializes, in a next way of adoption, DeFi applications could rapidly pull users away from traditional banks. In that case, there is significant upside in owning tokens or equity in platforms like Uniswap, Aave, or even Hyperliquid — all of which are well-positioned to become foundational players in the next generation of financial infrastructure. Derivative DEX trading volumes. But don't forget the risks to watch. Transformation won't come without resistance. The banking lobby remains one of the most powerful political forces in the world, and it's unlikely to welcome a shift toward 'magic internet money' without a fight. Regulatory headwinds, political gridlock, and coordinated opposition from legacy institutions are all real risks investors should keep in mind. But we know that fortune, at least in markets driven by emerging technologies, often favors the brave.


Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Maryland will save $326M by moving state workers to downtown Baltimore
In the midst of a budget crisis, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore's administration in January went searching for modest savings in unusual places. They found barely used phone lines that could be disconnected. The state could cut back on buying new cars and service its existing vehicle fleet less often. Laptops for state workers could be standardized to make sure that agencies weren't overpaying. And nine state-owned buildings that had fallen into disrepair could be abandoned in favor of commercial leases.