Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is renewing his push for a shorter workweek. Critics warn the 32-hour workweek proposal could come at a steep cost for American workers.

Club for Growth President David McIntosh argues the plan could cost workers jobs and benefits while making life “more unaffordable for Americans.”

McIntosh joined FOX Business’ Stuart Varney on “Varney & Co.” to discuss Sanders’ renewed push for a 32-hour workweek and the potential impact on American workers.

Sanders’ proposal would lower the federal standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours over four years without reducing workers’ pay or benefits, with overtime applying after 32 hours. He has tied the renewed effort to advances in artificial intelligence and argued that workers should share in productivity gains.

BERNIE SANDERS UNVEILS PLAN TO TAKE 50% STAKE IN AI COMPANIES FOR GOVERNMENT WEALTH FUND

McIntosh pushed back, arguing that while AI could boost productivity and wages, mandating a shorter workweek could have unintended consequences for employees.

“AI will make people more productive, and they’ll get paid more, but Bernie’s idea will hurt the very workers he’s trying to help. A lot of people will lose their job, lose their benefits when they implement something like that,” McIntosh said.

DALLAS MAYOR SOUNDS ALARM ON THE ‘GRAVE THREAT’ FACING AMERICA’S CITIES

He also framed the proposal as part of a broader economic agenda he believes could raise costs, criticizing what he called “far-left radical socialist policies” and warning they risk “making life more unaffordable for Americans.”

In an appearance on “The Sunday Briefing,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also discussed the idea of a shorter workweek.

“We believe in the dignity of work. It is a biblical foundation. I can’t imagine a scenario where we’d say, ‘Oh, everyone just stay home a couple more days. We’re only gonna work a couple of days.’ The American dream does not include a four-day work week from my perspective, at least,” Rollins said.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The shifting movie landscape

What are moviegoers watching?

For investors, the biggest challenge in wealth creation may not always be finding an investment that delivers poor returns. It can be the tendency to constantly look for something that has performed better. Radhika Gupta, Managing Director and CEO, Edelweiss Mutual Fund, believes that repeatedly moving money in search of higher returns can make investors lose sight of the financial goals they originally started investing for.

Gupta on social media platform X said that, “Most investors start with an absolute goal. “I need 10% returns.” “I need to retire comfortably.” “I need my money to beat inflation and grow.”…………… The biggest wealth destroyer is often not poor performance. It’s the constant search for better performance. “

Also Read | This 58-year-old invests Rs 50,000 in 8 mutual funds. Expert flags portfolio imbalance, suggests rejig

Gupta said that most investors begin with an absolute goal: they need 10% return, want to retire comfortably and they may want their investments to generate a certain level of returns, beat inflation, build a retirement corpus or accumulate enough money for a specific financial milestone. However, once they start comparing their returns with those of other funds, their expectations can change.

According to Gupta, an investment that was earlier considered good enough can suddenly appear inadequate when a newer or hotter fund delivers higher returns. This can turn an investor’s focus from achieving a financial goal to beating other investments.
Gupta pointed out that the problem begins when absolute performance becomes relative performance. An investor may have a fund that is delivering the returns required to keep the financial goal on track. But if another fund generates significantly higher returns, the investor may feel the need to switch.
This can result in money moving from one fund to another simply because of recent performance. Investors may end up chasing the latest winner without considering whether the fund’s investment strategy, risk level or portfolio is suitable for their own financial goals.
The original goal, however, may not have changed. The amount required for retirement or another financial objective remains the same. What changes is the investor’s perception of what constitutes a satisfactory return.

Gupta believes investors should remember that performance matters, and consistently poor performance should not be ignored. At the same time, unusually high returns should also prompt investors to ask how those returns were generated.

Markets rarely offer a free lunch. Extraordinary returns can come with extraordinary risks, which may be visible through higher volatility or remain hidden until market conditions change.

A fund that has delivered exceptional returns over a particular period may have benefited from a favourable market cycle, a specific sector exposure or an investment style that may not continue to work in the future. Simply moving into such a fund after it has already generated strong returns can expose investors to the risk of entering at the wrong time.

The tendency to chase performance is not limited to investors. Gupta noted that fund managers can also face pressure to keep pace with better-performing peers.

When investors continuously compare funds based on short-term returns, fund managers may feel compelled to take more aggressive positions to remain competitive. This can increase portfolio risks and encourage a broader market tendency to chase recent winners. As a result, the pursuit of higher returns can become self-reinforcing, with investors and fund managers both responding to what has performed well recently.

Also Read | Silver gave 98% returns in 1 year, but investors made just 18%; 56% investments in loss: Report

According to Gupta, the best investment strategy is not necessarily one that produces the highest return every year. Instead, investors should focus on whether their chosen investment approach can help them reach their financial objectives.

This means evaluating a mutual fund based on factors such as investment strategy, risk, consistency, time horizon and suitability for the portfolio rather than simply looking at which fund delivered the highest return in the recent past. Once an appropriate strategy has been identified, investors also need the discipline to stay invested through different market cycles.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)

If you have any mutual fund queries, message ET Mutual Funds on Facebook/Twitter. We will get them answered by our panel of experts. Do share your questions at ETMFqueries@timesinternet.in along with your age, risk profile, and Twitter handle.

BEAVERTON, Ore. — Nike shares slipped again Wednesday, hovering just above a fresh 52-week low as investors treated the sportswear giant’s turnaround as a multiyear project with China still unfinished.

The stock traded at $37.06 around 12:09 p.m. Eastern, down $1.04, or 2.74%. It touched $37.95 on Sept. 3, then closed Sept. 4 at $38.40. The 52-week high is about $77. The November 2021 peak near $179 is now a historical footnote: the shares are down roughly 79% from that high, and the company that once commanded a 50-times earnings multiple now trades in the low-to-mid 20s on underlying profit.

There was no new quarterly print on Wednesday. The tape is still digesting fiscal 2026 results released June 30 for the year ended May 31, and a first-half fiscal 2027 outlook that calls for more sales declines. Broader pressure on discretionary names — oil near $100 a barrel after fighting around the Strait of Hormuz — did not help a brand that sells $150 sneakers.

Fiscal 2026 revenue was $46.4 billion, flat in dollars and down 2% in constant currency. Diluted earnings were $2.10 a share, down 3%. Strip out a one-time tariff recovery and underlying earnings were about $1.58, according to analyses of the company’s own breakout. Net income was $3.1 billion, versus $3.2 billion a year earlier. Nike Direct, the stores-and-apps channel that was supposed to be the future, fell 6% to $17.7 billion. Digital dropped 12%. Wholesale was the relative bright spot. Footwear, still the core, was about $29.5 billion, down 2% in constant currency; units fell 1%. Apparel rose 4% to about $13.4 billion.

The fourth quarter told the same story in sharper type. Revenue was $10.97 billion, down 1% to 4% depending on the comparison, the lowest quarterly haul since early 2022. Greater China sales fell 17% in constant currency. That was better than the 20% drop the company had flagged three months earlier, and worse than the 10% decline in the third quarter. A $986 million tariff-related refund lifted quarterly net income to $1.07 billion and gross margin to 49.2%. Without it, management said margin would have been roughly flat; Reuters put the ex-refund margin near 40.2%.

Chief Executive Elliott Hill did not dress it up. “Overall, the results aren’t there yet,” he said on the post-earnings call. “We know we’re not living up to our full potential.” In March he had already said the turnaround “is taking longer than I would like.”

Chief Financial Officer Matthew Friend was equally plain about the backdrop. “The environment around us continues to be volatile,” he told investors, citing tariff risk, Middle East disruption and weak sentiment tied to high oil prices. Nike guided first-quarter fiscal 2027 revenue down in the low-to-mid single digits, with no currency tailwind, and said the first half of the new year would still shrink. Second-quarter sales were expected to decelerate from the first because of last year’s digital promotions in Europe and the timing of North America wholesale shipments. Gross margin was seen slightly positive in the first quarter as tariff year-over-year comparisons ease. Friend has said the first quarter of fiscal 2027 should be the last in which higher tariffs remain a material margin headwind.

The map of the business is split. North America has been “leading the way,” in Hill’s earlier phrase: wholesale up sharply in some recent periods, running posting multiple quarters of double-digit growth, football contributing. Sportswear and Jordan streetwear — together about half of sales — remain weak, with discounting and a soft order book. Management has said those two lines will stay negative in fiscal 2027, with hope for a better second half. Converse is in a reset. EMEA has dealt with traffic and promotion noise.

China is the structural problem. It is roughly 15% of Nike’s revenue, third after North America and EMEA. Domestic rivals such as Anta and Li Ning have taken share. Sell-through has lagged plans. Nike is cutting shipments to clean a marketplace it flooded in prior years, which makes reported sales look worse before they look better. Friend has said China will take more time. Hill has pointed to more than 5,000 mono-brand stores that need investment and “distinct sport experiences.” Running has grown there even as the total has fallen — a thin green shoot.

Hill’s “Win Now” plan is familiar: fewer promotions, more product distinction, a return to wholesale partners after years of pushing consumers onto Nike.com, and a focus on running and football first. Inventory units have come down. That cleanup costs revenue now so it can stop costing margin later. Competitors Hoka and On did not wait for Nike to finish the clean-out.

Wall Street’s posture matches the chart. Consensus is Hold, with targets clustered in the low $50s — a large percentage gap from $37 that assumes the second half of fiscal 2027 actually inflects. Earnings estimates for fiscal 2027 have been cut because the tariff refund does not repeat; analysts have talked about EPS near $1.71, down almost a fifth.

A $37 stock on a still-profitable $46 billion brand is not a bankruptcy price. It is a price that no longer pays for brand immortality. Every point of China decline and every quarter of Sportswear discounting chips the multiple. Hill has two jobs that pull against each other: keep the marketplace clean, which suppresses sales, and prove the logo still moves product at full price. Wednesday’s 3% dip is not a new thesis. It is the old one, marked to a 52-week low while oil is high and sneakers are optional. The next earnings date will test whether running and North America can outrun China and streetwear. Until they do, $37.06 is what a turnaround looks like when the results, in the chief executive’s words, are not there yet.

Amazon began marketing sterling-denominated bonds for the first time on Wednesday, as major technology companies accelerate fundraising across global currencies to finance heavy investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure.

According to Reuters, citing three banks managing the transaction, Amazon set initial price guidance at around 70 basis points above comparable British government bonds for a three-year tranche.

Read more: Global Market: South Korean shares surge as Samsung, SK Hynix rally on AI optimism

The company also indicated initial spreads of around 90 basis points over UK government bonds for a six-year bond, 105 basis points for a 12-year bond and 110 basis points for a 19-year bond, according to a memo circulated by the banks.

The bond sale is expected to be priced later on Wednesday.

Read more: Global Market: Japan bond yields ease as yen strength tempers BOJ tightening bets
Amazon’s move comes as so-called hyperscalers step up borrowing to fund the rapid expansion of data centres, computing capacity and other infrastructure needed to support the artificial intelligence boom.Reuters reported that major technology companies have increasingly turned to bond markets outside the United States this year, raising funds in currencies including euros, Swiss francs and yen. The strategy allows companies to diversify their sources of financing as spending on AI infrastructure drives their funding requirements higher.

The expansion of AI-related capital expenditure has pushed large technology companies to seek financing on a broader range of debt markets, while investors have gained access to highly rated corporate issuers across multiple currencies.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)