In Uncertain Times, Ask These Questions Before You Make a Decision
is the founder and CEO of Decisive, a decision sciences company using her AREA Method decision-making system for individuals, companies, and nonprofits looking to solve complex problems. Decisive offers digital tools and in-person training, workshops, coaching and consulting. Cheryl is a long-time educator teaching at Columbia Business School and Cornell and has won several journalism awards for her investigative news stories. She's authored two books on complex problem solving, Problem Solved for personal and professional decisions, and Investing In Financial Research about business, financial, and investment decisions. Her new book, Problem Solver, is about the psychology of personal decision-making and Problem Solver Profiles. For more information please watch Cheryl's TED talk and visit areamethod.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Suze Orman Was Asked Where's The Best Place To Invest $150,000 For Retirement — But She Warns That Question Could Get You Ripped Off
You come into a chunk of money — maybe it's a bonus, an inheritance, or finally cashing out of something that actually worked. You're feeling hopeful, maybe even a little proud, and you do what responsible people do: you start thinking about how to grow it for retirement. The logical next step? You walk into a financial advisor's office and ask, "What should I do with $150,000?" Big mistake, according to Suze Orman. Don't Miss: Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Hasbro, MGM, and Skechers trust this AI marketing firm — "This is a dangerous question," Orman warned during an episode of her podcast when a listener named Cheryl posed exactly that. "Let's say it wasn't me that you're writing into," she said. "Let's say you just came into $150,000 and you walk into some financial advisor's office... and the person says to you, 'What can I do for you?' And you say, 'I have $150,000. How should I invest it?'" That, Orman says, is how people get taken for a ride. "If they tell you immediately, 'Oh great. You should buy this. You should do an annuity, you should do that' — all things that probably will make that advisor a lot of money in commission — you are setting yourself up to really possibly be taken advantage of." Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . In other words, the problem isn't the question itself — it's how incomplete it is. Orman explained that before anyone gives you investment advice, they should know the full picture of your financial life. "You need to tell me... how old are you? Do you have any debt? Are you healthy? Do you own a home? Do you have a mortgage on that home? What is the interest rate on that mortgage? Is your job secure? Do you have a will? Do you have a trust? Do you need a new car?" Without that context, she says, "Never just ask anybody, 'What should I do with $150,000?'"Instead, she urges people to think about the basics first. If you have high-interest credit card debt? Pay it off. Still carrying a mortgage into your sixties? That might be the smarter use of your windfall. "Let's possibly pay off the mortgage on that home," she said. "Oh, you have $30,000 of credit card debt? Let's pay off the credit card debt. Oh, you need a new car? Whatever it may be." Orman's message isn't to scare people out of investing — it's to remind them that good advice is personal, and any one-size-fits-all answer is a red flag. So if you find yourself with a windfall to grow, take a breath before diving into stocks, annuities, or whatever hot thing your buddy at the gym swears by. Figure out your priorities. Ask the right questions. And make sure whoever you're asking takes the time to ask you a few back. Read Next:'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. Image: Shutterstock Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Suze Orman Was Asked Where's The Best Place To Invest $150,000 For Retirement — But She Warns That Question Could Get You Ripped Off originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
6 days ago
- New York Post
Target CEO blames lousy earnings on anti-woke ‘headwinds' — and Wall Street is chuckling
Investors and traders got a good laugh last week when Target's CEO Brian Cornell suggested that a lousy quarter was partly the result of a consumer backlash against the retailer for rolling back its DEI efforts, On The Money has learned. DEI, or Diversity Equity and Inclusion, is a management philosophy that says pure merit-based hiring is overrated. Instead, companies must tailor their workforces to match an intersectional matrix — skills be damned. DEI also holds sway over ads, marketing and other corporate functions. Under Cornell, Target went all in on DEI, most infamously in its Pride celebrations, a corporate marketing and sales effort that targeted the LBGTQ+ community. Nothing wrong with that – unless you do it in a way that spoils the shopping experience of most of your customers. Target CEO Brian Cornell suggested that a lousy quarter was partly the result of a consumer backlash against the retailer for rolling back its DEI efforts. Jack Forbes / NY Post Design Those are mainly working class people who just want to buy Target's low-priced goods and didn't want the company to proselytize to them about gender fluidity – particularly when they show up to a store with their kids. As I wrote in my book 'Go Woke Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America,' Target and Cornell were on the cutting edge of the woke movement and took it to disastrous extremes. Google the product known as the 'tuck-friendly bathing suit' and you will get the full story so I don't have to recite the gory details. In 2023, a full-on customer revolt ensued, and let's say Target never recovered. Earlier in the year, Target took note and began to unwind some of its DEI policies. Gone also were the flamboyant Pride displays. DEI in hiring was rolled back after the courts ruled that discriminating based on race is illegal, and the Trump administration announced it will enforce these edicts. Now, if Cornell is to be believed, Target is suffering from what might best be described as a counter-customer revolt. Our very own Rev. Al Sharpton believes DEI is a civil right, and recently said he would support a boycott of Target stores. Rev. Al Sharpton recently said he would support a boycott of Target stores. Getty Images Target's latest quarterly earnings of $1.30 a share and revenue drop to $23.8 billion both missed estimates – and by a lot. All this and the impact of the Trump tariff increases hasn't totally settled in. Cornell's explanation to investors for all of the above: Ending DEI and becoming less political represented a 'headwind.' That's why investors and traders who spoke to On The Money are getting a chuckle out of Cornell's rationalization. It makes no sense because Target has been flailing for a while, mostly after it went all in on woke. As my pal the 'Sarge,' the veteran trader and investor Stephen Guilfoyle, wrote in The 'For Target, this was the third quarter in five that the firm failed to both meet Wall Street's projections for adjusted profitability and Wall Street's expectations for total revenue generation. Going further back, Target has failed to meet earnings expectations for six of the past 13 quarters.' On The Money asked a Target rep how Cornell could be so sure DEI headwinds, and not management ineptitude (analysts say its stores are in need of a massive upgrade), are to blame for the lousy first-quarter results. We will let you know what they say when (if) they get back to us.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: Target learns that bowing to anti-DEI backers can be costly, a lesson for those bowing to Trump
Has any American company run away from a public commitment faster than Target? In an Aug. 19, 2020, conference call, Target Chief Executive Brian Cornell forthrightly put his company in the forefront of the quest for racial and ethnic justice. George Floyd had been murdered by Police Officer Derek Chauvin, abetted by several other officers in Minneapolis, Target's home city, only about three months earlier. Calls for recognition of the racism exposed by the killing were still reverberating nationwide. "Our team is passionately demanding equity and justice for our Black colleagues and guests," Cornell said. "We are united in that passion and committed ... to playing an active role in addressing the persistent racial injustices that have sparked protests around the world." If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written. Federal Judge Beryl Howell He said Target would put its influence to work "to determine actions and resources that will move us towards a more inclusive, equitable and just society." The company ultimately committed to increase the racial diversity of its workforce and to spend billions of dollars with Black-owned suppliers. How times change. This January, Target backed down. On Jan. 24 — just four days after President Trump launched his second term with a flurry of antidiversity executive orders — Target announced it was "concluding our three-year diversity, equity and inclusion goals" and its "Racial Equity Action and Change initiatives." (REACH was an initiative Cornell had announced in that 2020 call.) The company also said it was withdrawing from "all external diversity-focused surveys," including a widely followed Corporate Equality index sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, which tracks corporate policies on LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion. And it said it was "evolving" its "supplier diversity team to "supplier engagement." Target may have thought it was tacking toward consumer preferences, or that DEI was a craze that had faded out. Read more: Hiltzik: Columbia University's capitulation to Trump puts academic freedom at risk coast to coast But here's the punch line: Target's sales have cratered, at least in part because consumers were angry about its reversals. The company's management has been a little vague about the impact of all this. At a May 21 conference call with Wall Street analysts following its release of earnings for the first quarter ended March 31, Cornell alluded to the backlash without going into detail. He attributed the company's ugly performance — comparable-store sales down by 5.7% from a year earlier — to several factors, including "the reaction to the updates we shared ... in January." That was an obvious allusion to the dropping of DEI initiatives. But Cornell said "we can't reliably estimate the impact of each [factor] separately." It's true that Target, like other big retailers, has had disappointing sales recently. In the last quarter, most have attributed any sales slump to consumer uncertainty about Trump's confusing tariff pronouncements. But the fact that Cornell felt obligated to mention the consumer reaction to Target's altered diversity policies is notable, and appears to be unique in the retail industry. I asked Target for further comment on the issue but received no reply. But since Target had given its commitment to diversity a central role in its corporate persona, it's proper to take a closer look — not only at the company's experience, but also the course of corporate antidiscrimination policies more generally. It's also worth noting that Target isn't the first institution to discover that abandoning principle isn't a sure path to material success or public esteem. That's been the experience of big law firms and major universities that kowtowed to Trump in his anti-DEI drive this year. Several major firms that were threatened with or hit with White House sanctions made deals with Trump that included confessing to misbehavior that may not even have occurred and committing to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of pro bono work that may be dictated by Trump — a departure from pro bono tradition, which typically means providing underserved groups or individuals with free legal representation. Read more: Hiltzik: Business leaders bow to anti-DEI activists — except at Costco The firms may have thought that meeting Trump's terms would be the best way to keep clients who might have been rattled by Trump's attacks on their lawyers. As it happens, some clients have fled anyway, possibly concluding that big firms that won't fight Trump might not defend them aggressively against other adversaries. Some also have lost lawyers, dismayed by the pusillanimous behavior of their leaders. It turns out that law firms that have steadfastly rejected Trump's threats have been winning in their lawsuits against the White House's allegedly illegal and unconstitutional threats and sanctions. Federal judges have granted the firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey temporary restraining orders against Trump's sanctions. Federal Judge Beryl Howell of Washington, D.C., ruled Trump's executive order targeting the firm Perkins Coie unconstitutional and granted the firm summary judgment against the government. Howell went further, taking a swipe at the firms that had capitulated to Trump. "If the founding history of this country is any guide," she wrote, "those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written." Universities such as Columbia are also discovering that the Trump administration has trouble taking "yes" for an answer. Columbia publicly bent its knee to Trump in March, but that didn't save it from being hit with more sanctions from the White House last week over its supposed violations of civil rights law through purported "deliberate indifference" toward harassment of Jewish students. That brings us to the capitulation of American corporations to the partisan, ideological assault on diversity, equity and inclusion, and specifically to the fix Target is in. Read more: Hiltzik: Right-wing culture warriors say wokeness is dead. They can't even define it I've written before about how corporate America is a thin reed to lean on as a counterforce to assaults from the political right wing on voting rights, women's access to reproductive healthcare and democracy itself. Many companies that once expressed a commitment to end or at least review their contributions to the 147 Republicans who voted against certifying the 2020 election soon resumed their contributions. Some made similar promises to oppose state laws restricting abortion or voting rights, or talked openly about reducing their activities in states enacting such measures. For the most part, these pledges have been all talk, no action. When Republicans campaigned against "woke" policies or DEI — an abbreviation that had the virtue for the GOP of being vague enough to serve as an all-purpose slogan for conservatives — Walmart, Ford, Anheuser-Busch and John Deere, among other companies, rolled back their initiatives. One of the exceptions to take a strong stand on behalf of DEI is Costco Wholesale. In a response to a shareholder resolution proposed by the right-wing National Center for Public Policy Research insinuating that Costco's DEI program 'holds litigation, reputational and financial risks to the Company,' Costco management reiterated its commitment to DEI. 'Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all. We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed.' The anti-DEI resolution was rejected by 98% of shareholders voting. Target seemed well placed to be another exception. It's one of America's biggest retailers, with more than $100 billion in annual sales. Early in 2023, Cornell boasted that 'our long-standing commitment to diversity, and equity, and inclusion ... has fueled much of our growth over the last nine years.' In 2022, in fact, Target published a scorecard of its DEI progress—a 33% increase in corporate officers of color, 62% increase in promotions for people of color, spending of $1.78 billion with "diverse suppliers," and so on. "We are never done," it pledged. About two weeks after Cornell's 2023 boast, the company capitulated to what I labeled a "braying mob of anti-LGBTQ+ reactionaries" that had targeted Target during Pride Month, a celebration of LGBTQ+ communities every June. Read more: Hiltzik: Right-wing hatemongers count on the cowardice of companies such as Target Even though the company's stores had featured Pride-related merchandise for years, in 2023 it told personnel in many stores to reduce or even eliminate their Pride-themed displays or move the merchandise to less conspicuous sections of the stores. Some LGBTQ+ designers reported that their products have been taken off the shelves. This year's retreat from DEI policies is merely a continuation of that craven approach. It has supplanted its straightforward commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, as Cornell expressed it in 2020, with a steamy helping of corporate-speak mush. "Belonging for all is an essential part of our team and culture, helping fuel consumer relevance and business results," the company said in a publicly issued "fact sheet" in January. "We aim to create joyful experiences through an assortment of products and services that help all guests feel seen and celebrated, increasing relevance with consumers... . We build deep and lasting relationships with the communities we serve, driving impact, economic vitality and connection that fuels loyalty." The communities most affected by the pullback didn't buy into these vague promises. Black pastors and others launched boycotts of the company; judging from Cornell's pained observation to the Wall Street analysts last week, the boycotts may have had an effect. Whether Target continues to see a slide in sales because of customer discontent isn't clear at this moment, and it's certainly possible that consumer concerns about Trump's tariffs and their consequent upward pressure on prices will wreak the most damage. But this is a lesson on the shallowness of corporate character. Trump, it has become evident, is himself all talk, no action. He doesn't have the legal power to end DEI initiatives at private businesses, and the cadre of followers who respond to his culture warfare may be nowhere as large as they think they are. But that only makes the faintheartedness of corporate America all the more dispiriting. Get the latest from Michael HiltzikCommentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
