Do Companies that Pay Their CEOs One Dollar a Year Perform Better?

by Fred Fuld III

While the “one-dollar CEO” was once a popular trend among Silicon Valley elite (like Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg), it has become a rarer breed in the 2020s. Most CEOs who famously took $1 salaries have either stepped down or shifted their compensation structures.

Steve Jobs is often credited with popularizing the modern “$1 CEO” trend. After rejoining Apple in 1997, he famously took a $1 annual salary for 14 years until his resignation in 2011.

While his salary was a single dollar, his performance—and the stock’s performance—was anything but nominal.

Apple’s Performance Under the $1 Salary (1997–2011)

When Jobs returned, Apple was weeks away from bankruptcy and trading at split-adjusted prices that are today measured in pennies. By the time he stepped down, he had transformed it into the most valuable company in the world.

  • Stock Growth: Apple’s stock (AAPL) grew by approximately 6,700% during his tenure.
  • vs. S&P 500: During that same period, the S&P 500 returned roughly 4.5% per year (heavily suppressed by the Dot-com bubble burst and the 2008 Financial Crisis). Apple averaged a staggering 33.6% annual return.
  • Revenue: Apple’s annual revenue exploded from $7.1 billion in 1997 to $108.2 billion in 2011.

Was he actually only making $1?

While the salary was symbolic, Jobs was compensated in other massive ways that aligned his wealth with the company’s success:

  1. Massive Stock Ownership: Jobs held about 5.5 million shares of Apple. He didn’t sell a single share between 1997 and 2011, meaning his “paycheck” was effectively the billions of dollars in value added to his holdings.
  2. The “Bonus” Jet: In 1999, Apple’s board gave him a $90 million Gulfstream V private jet and reimbursed him for all expenses related to it.
  3. Disney Stock: Jobs was also the largest individual shareholder of Disney (following the sale of Pixar), which paid him millions in dividends annually—far more than any CEO salary could.

The Verdict on the $1 Salary

Jobs is the ultimate success story for this model because his $1 salary signaled a “sink or swim with the shareholders” mentality. He took the dollar when the company was failing to prove his commitment, and he kept it when the company was winning to show that his motivation was the product, not the cash.

Most modern CEOs who try this (as seen in the 2025 performance data) haven’t quite managed to replicate that “Jobs Magic” in terms of raw market outperformance.

However, a few notable examples still exist or have recently committed to this path. Here is how they and their stocks have fared over the last year (ending early 2026) compared to the S&P 500, which returned approximately 16.3% in 2025.


The $1 CEO Club: Performance vs. S&P 500

CompanyCEO2025 Stock Performancevs. S&P 500 (+16.3%)
Tesla (TSLA)Elon Musk+19%Outperformed
Airbnb (ABNB)Brian Chesky~ -5%Underperformed
Yelp (YELP)Jeremy Stoppelman-32%Underperformed
Gloo (GLOO)Scott BeckN/A (New for 2026)N/A

Key Company Breakdowns

  • Tesla (TSLA): Elon Musk remains the most famous member of this group. While his base salary is $0 (or the California minimum wage, which he does not accept), his actual compensation is tied to massive performance-based stock options. In 2025, Tesla’s stock was a roller coaster—dropping significantly in Q1 before rallying on the launch of its robotaxi network to end the year up 19%, slightly beating the broader market.
  • Yelp (YELP): Jeremy Stoppelman has maintained a $1 salary for years. Unfortunately for shareholders, 2025 was a difficult year for Yelp. Despite high gross margins, the stock tumbled 32% over the last year as it struggled with slower customer spending and a transition toward AI-driven local commerce services.
  • Airbnb (ABNB): Brian Chesky famously reduced his salary to $1 during the pandemic. While he receives other forms of compensation (like security and travel), his base remains nominal. The stock saw modest volatility in 2025, ending the year down roughly 5% as the travel sector normalized after the post-pandemic boom.
  • Gloo (GLOO): A newer entry to the list, Gloo announced that its CEO Scott Beck would slash his salary to $1 starting in February 2026 to signal confidence in the company’s “faith-tech” platform despite recent net losses.

Is the “$1 Salary” a Good Sign for Investors?

The data suggests that a $1 salary is not a guarantee of stock success. While it aligns the CEO’s wealth with shareholders, it often indicates that the executive is already a billionaire (like Musk or Chesky) or that the company is going through a “turnaround” phase where cash preservation is critical. In 2025, the $1 CEO group largely underperformed the S&P 500, with Tesla being the lone standout.

Disclosure: Author owns AAPL and TSLA. No investment recommendations are expressed or implied.

Looking at Smart Glasses Stocks: Are These Intelligent Spectacles a Reality?

by Fred Fuld III

Here is a tight, practical breakdown of Google Glass, Snapchat Spectacles, Apple Vision Pro, and Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses: what each does well, where each struggles, and a short list of genuinely useful features none of them reliably offer today.

Quick summary

  • Google Glass (Enterprise Edition 2) — ultra-light, workplace tool for heads-up info and hands-free workflows; limited consumer features and modest display power.
  • Snapchat Spectacles (recent AR models) — focused on AR visuals and social/creative experiences; promising optics but immature battery/software and developer-targeted releases.
  • Apple Vision Pro — highest-end mixed-reality platform: great displays, sensors, and interaction model; very expensive, heavy, and not pocketable.
  • Meta Ray-Ban (Stories / Meta Ray-Ban Smart Glasses) — stylish, socially oriented capture + audio (calls), reasonably discreet; limited AR, short capture use cases, privacy concerns.

Detailed pros & cons

Google Glass (Enterprise Edition 2)

Advantages

  • Extremely lightweight and unobtrusive, suitable for long wear in industrial or medical workflows.
  • Built around enterprise integrations (Android management, video for remote assist, purpose-built apps).

Disadvantages

  • Not intended as a consumer AR/entertainment device — small display resolution and limited FOV compared to modern AR headsets.
  • App ecosystem and polish are oriented to niche enterprise cases, so general consumer value is low.

Best use case: warehouse, manufacturing, remote assistance, hands-free checklists.


Snapchat Spectacles (latest AR Spectacles)

Advantages

  • Designed specifically for rich AR overlays (hand-tracked interactions, virtual objects in space) and social/creative features — strong ambitions for AR experiences.
  • Snap focuses on developer tools and content creation workflows that link to Snapchat’s social platform.

Disadvantages

  • Early developer/preview product status — short battery life, narrow FOV complaints, and immature software reported by press and ex-employees.
  • Monthly developer fees / limited availability in early rollouts make them less useful for casual buyers.

Best use case: AR developers, creators experimenting with spatial filters and social AR content.


Apple Vision Pro

Advantages

  • State-of-the-art mixed reality: very high-resolution micro-OLED displays, many cameras/sensors, excellent eye- and hand-driven UI, strong app and media ecosystem potential.
  • Powerful silicon (M2 + R1 variants), strong spatial audio, and platform features (OpticID, immersive video) for productivity and entertainment.

Disadvantages

  • Very expensive and relatively heavy — not something you wear out in public all day; comfort over long sessions can be an issue for some users.
  • Because it’s individualized (eye calibration/OpticID), casual “share the view” experiences are awkward. Battery life / portability tradeoffs vs. glasses form-factor remain.

Best use case: immersive productivity, cinema/3D media, pros experimenting with spatial apps — when cost/portability are less important.


Meta Ray-Ban (Ray-Ban Stories / later Smart Glasses)

Advantages

  • Fashionable, familiar sunglasses/eyewear look — socially acceptable form factor for short capture and hands-free audio/calling.
  • Easy POV photo/video capture and decent microphone/phone integration for calls; improvements (newer models) raise camera and audio specs.

Disadvantages

  • Not a true AR display (mostly capture + audio) — minimal spatial overlays or immersive apps.
  • Use cases often feel novelty-focused (short social clips) rather than utility-driven; raises privacy concerns when people around you don’t know they’re being recorded.

Best use case: casual POV capture, hands-free calls, social sharing where style matters.


Features users want that none of these deliver well (or at all)

Below are practical, high-value features that are either missing or poorly implemented across current smart glasses:

  1. All-day battery in a real glasses form factor
    • Current AR and camera glasses compromise between battery, weight, and heat. A lightweight pair that reliably lasts a full waking day with mixed use (notifications, low-power AR, occasional video/photo) would be a major win.
  2. High FOV, high-brightness transparent AR with low power
    • Narrow “mail-slot” FOVs limit compelling AR. A wider, true see-through holographic display that stays viewable outdoors without huge power draw is missing.
  3. Robust privacy & social signaling built in
    • A hardware indicator that clearly communicates recording/AR use, plus standard privacy modes (auto-blur faces, soft-recording) would reduce social friction.
  4. Interoperable spatial AR standards & cross-device sharing
    • Seamless handoff/visibility of AR objects between different vendors’ glasses (and phones) — e.g., a shared persistent AR note anchors that anyone with supported glasses can see.
  5. Passive contextual sensing (low-power) for useful ambient assistance
    • Glasses that quietly recognize objects/labels/menus and show unobtrusive contextual help (translations, recipes, safety warnings) without needing a full AR app session.
  6. Modular optical inserts & prescription support that preserve AR alignment
    • Practical AR for eyeglass wearers is still awkward; prescription inserts that keep display calibration accurate would broaden the audience.
  7. True social/comfort design: instant “look up” interactions
    • Lightweight designs that let people glance at minimal info (notifications, direction prompts) without breaking social norms — current devices either overdo or underdeliver.
  8. On-device generative AI assistants with privacy controls
    • Localized, low-latency language & vision models that can summarize what you see, translate in real time, or generate contextually relevant suggestions — but run with privacy safeguards and user control.

Short recommendation by user goal

  • If you want enterprise hands-free tools: Google Glass (Enterprise) is the pragmatic, proven pick.
  • If you want social AR creation / developer experimentation: Snap’s Spectacles (current AR lineup) — but expect rough edges.
  • If you want the best immersive MR experience (and money is no object): Apple Vision Pro.
  • If you want everyday-looking glasses for quick capture + calls: Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses

Looking at the financials of the four companies that make these glasses, Google, actually Alphabet (GOOGL) has a trailing price to earnings ratio of 27.5 and a forward P/E of 25, with a price to earnings growth ratio of 1.85. The dividend yield os 0.2%.

As for Snap (SNAP), the company has been generating negative earnings and does not pay a dividend.

Apple (AAPL) trades at 36 times trailing earnings and 30 times forward earnings. The PEG ratio is 3.59, and the yield is 0.4%.

Meta (META) has a trailing P/E of 27.5, a forward P/E of 21, and a PEG of 2.28. The yield is 0.3%.

There is one much smaller company involved in the production of smart glasses, Vuzix (VUZI). The market cap is only $229 million.

Obviously, the smart glasses business makes up only a very small portion of the revenues of the four major companies involved in this industry. However, if and/or when smart glasses ever takes off, it could add a significant amount to the companies’ bottom line.

Disclosure: Author owns Apple. No recommendations are expressed or implied.

Recent Stock Market Industry Trends: Not Just AI

by Fred Fuld III

Recent weeks have been characterized by intense market activity, but this activity is not uniform. The most prominent and influential sectors have been Information Technology and Communication Services, where performance is being driven by the relentless advancement of generative AI and strong growth in the digital engagement economy. These sectors, which represent a significant portion of the S&P 500, have been the primary engines of the market’s recent rally.

However, the term “active” also encompasses periods of extreme volatility and weakness. This is most acutely demonstrated in the Healthcare sector, which has been highly active due to a dramatic bifurcation in performance. A major sell-off in the health insurance sub-industry, triggered by fundamental business challenges and disappointing earnings, stands in stark contrast to robust growth and investor confidence in pharmaceuticals and biopharma. The broader market is navigating a complex macroeconomic landscape. While optimism over strong corporate earnings and the potential for a Federal Reserve rate cut provides a powerful tailwind, this is tempered by persistent risks from rising bond yields and escalating geopolitical tensions over tariffs. This dynamic creates a push-pull effect, demanding a highly selective and data-driven investment approach from market participants.

The Macroeconomic Backdrop: A Push-Pull Market Environment

To properly understand the recent trends in specific industries, it is essential to first analyze the broader macroeconomic context. The market has been operating in a complex environment defined by a combination of positive catalysts and persistent risks.

The overall sentiment has been cautiously optimistic, leading to positive performance in the major US stock indexes. The S&P 500 recently rose 0.8% in a single day, leaving it just shy of a new record set the previous week. The Nasdaq composite, which is heavily weighted toward technology and growth companies, added 1% to reach a new record high.Over a trailing one-month period, the S&P 500 has climbed 2.01% and is up 19.56% year-over-year. The Nasdaq has also shown significant strength, rising 3.9% over the past week and 11.1% over the last four weeks. The fact that the Nasdaq Composite is reaching new records while the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average are showing more modest gains suggests that the current market rally is not a broad-based, all-boats-rising tide. Instead, it indicates that capital is disproportionately flowing into the technology and communication services sectors, which are the primary constituents of the Nasdaq. This targeted rally supports the central thesis that these specific sectors are highly active and influential.

The market is also contending with a series of significant economic drivers and risks. A major source of optimism stems from the prospect of potential interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve later in 2025. This sentiment was strengthened following a weaker-than-expected US jobs report, which firmed up expectations for a rate cut at the Fed’s policy meeting in September. The possibility of lower interest rates is generally seen as a positive for equities, as it can reduce borrowing costs and stimulate economic activity. However, this positive force is being counteracted by persistent risks from rising bond yields. A rise in the “term premium”—the additional compensation lenders demand for longer-term loans—has been putting upward pressure on bond yields, which in turn pressures stock price-earnings (P/E) ratios and stock prices. This dynamic is a core reason why some analysts believe the market could be confined to a “trading range” for the remainder of 2025, as this push-pull effect creates natural upper and lower boundaries.

Another significant geopolitical headwind is the return of “hawkish tariff talk”. Investors are concerned that new tariff measures could harm corporate margins and disrupt global trade. This is not a theoretical risk; the decision by the US to raise tariffs on Indian exports to 50% caused a significant sell-off in export-oriented sectors and led to Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) pulling billions of dollars out of Indian equities. The market is also operating with major indices near record levels, which places a high burden on companies to deliver exceptional performance to justify their current valuations. With the market not priced for an adverse outcome, any negative news or macroeconomic surprises could trigger significant volatility. This environment underscores the need for selective investing, as only companies with strong fundamentals and innovative growth drivers can sustain investor confidence.

To provide a foundational, data-rich overview of the market’s structure, the following table details the weighting and recent performance of the sectors within the S&P 500.

SectorWeighting in S&P 500 (%)Trailing six-month performance (%)Trailing 12-month performance (%)
Information Technology31.6-0.414.6
Financials14.30.126.1
Consumer Discretionary10.6-3.721.7
Communication Services9.67.320.9
Health Care9.6-9.1-4.7
Industrials8.70.218.9
Consumer Staples5.93.115.8
Energy3.0-13.0-7.3
Real Estate2.1-5.515.9
Utilities2.50.418.2
S&P 500 Index-1.314.4
Data from Schwab, as of July 18, 2025 

The Engines of Growth: Technology and Communication Services

The most active and influential sectors in the market over the last few weeks have been Information Technology and Communication Services. Their outperformance has been driven by a confluence of powerful trends, most notably the generative AI revolution and the continued expansion of the digital engagement economy.

Information Technology: The Generative AI Revolution

The Information Technology sector, with an enormous 34.0% weighting in the S&P 500, has been the single largest driver of overall market performance. The central catalyst for this activity is the ongoing and accelerating generative AI boom. This is not merely a passing trend but a transformative force that is already leading to billions of dollars in productivity gains as companies leverage AI assistants to help human developers write and test code. The demand for computing power to support these workloads is exponentially increasing, capturing the attention of both management teams and the public.

The recent Q2 2025 earnings reports from major tech companies provide concrete evidence of how this trend is translating into tangible financial results. Shares of Meta Platforms (META) jumped 11% to an all-time high following a strong report, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg crediting AI for unlocking greater efficiency and gains in their ad system. Amazon’s (AMZN) revenue grew 13% year-over-year, and its cloud services division (AWS) revenue increased 18%, both exceeding analyst projections. Microsoft (MSFT) also paced sector gains after releasing its earnings report. Even companies like Apple (AAPL), which are seen as less directly involved in AI infrastructure, are benefiting; its iPhone sales climbed 13%, and its total number of active devices reached an all-time high, indicating strong consumer engagement with the digital ecosystem.

The AI story extends far beyond the final software or platform product. It has created a complex value chain that is driving activity in hardware and infrastructure. The semiconductor industry, which is the foundational layer for AI, is projected for double-digit revenue growth in 2025, primarily driven by the surging demand for gen AI chips such as CPUs, GPUs, and data center communications chips. This trend is benefiting a wide range of companies, from market giants to specialized players.

For example, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) ranked among the best-performing stocks in July 2025, and some analysts see Micron Technology as an undervalued stock to watch, noting that it is the “preferred memory provider” for Nvidia’s latest AI accelerators. The fact that investors are actively pursuing companies in the hardware and memory space demonstrates a thorough understanding of the AI value chain. The demand for compute-intensive workloads is creating new challenges for global infrastructure, from data center power constraints to supply chain delays, which implies that the investment theme will continue to expand into a broader range of infrastructure-related companies.

Communication Services: The Resurgence of Digital Engagement

The Communication Services sector, with a substantial 9.6% weighting in the S&P 500, has also been a highly active area for investors, exhibiting a robust 20.9% performance over the trailing 12 months. This sector relies heavily on advertising and subscription-based revenue, which tends to rise when the economy is expanding. The recent stock activity and corporate results provide a clear picture of this trend in action.

A compelling case study is the performance of Roblox (RBLX), an online gaming and game creation platform. Its stock was one of the best performers in July 2025, with shares soaring by 19.66% in pre-market trading after a strong Q2 earnings report. The exceptional results were driven by significant growth in key metrics: revenue was up 21% year-over-year, bookings increased by an impressive 51%, and Daily Active Users (DAUs) grew by 41% to over 111 million. This growth was fueled by new, viral content, such as the game “Grow a Garden,” which was launched in March 2025 and set a world record for concurrent users in Q2. The fact that DAUs aged 13 and over now account for 64% of total users and 66% of all hours played suggests a maturing user base with significant spending power, signaling strength in the broader digital economy.

The sector’s activity is not limited to gaming. Comcast, a telecommunications and entertainment giant, also saw its stock rise more than 2% after beating earnings estimates. The company’s Q2 results were mixed but showcased strategic strengths; while it lost video and residential voice customers, it saw revenue growth in its domestic broadband and wireless divisions. The company also benefited from the successful opening of its Epic Universe theme park, which led to a 6% growth in its Content and Experiences segment. However, not all companies in the sector fared as well, with Charter Communications being listed as one of the worst-performing stocks of July 2025. This divergence highlights that even within a highly active sector, a selective approach is crucial.

The Paradox of Activity: Healthcare’s Bifurcated Market

The Healthcare sector provides a critical, nuanced perspective on market “activity.” While the sector has a significant weighting in the S&P 500, its recent performance is a study in contradiction. Instead of moving in a single direction, capital flows have been dramatically bifurcated, with investors punishing one sub-industry while rewarding others based on their business models and innovation.

The most dramatic recent market activity in Healthcare has been a major sell-off in the health insurance sub-industry. A cluster of major companies, including Centene and Molina Healthcare, ranked among the worst-performing stocks of July 2025. The reason for the sell-off was not just market sentiment but a series of fundamental business problems. Centene, for example, saw its stock plummet after it pulled its full-year 2025 earnings guidance. The company revealed that enrollment numbers in its health insurance marketplaces were lower than expected and that the enrollees were generally less healthy, leading to a stunning $1.8 billion shortfall in its risk-adjustment program. This is a systemic issue within the managed healthcare industry: the challenge of managing costs in an environment of rising utilization and higher-than-expected patient morbidity. Similarly, Molina Healthcare reported a year-over-year decrease in adjusted net income and a higher Medical Care Ratio (MCR) for its Marketplace business, indicating that the costs of providing care are rising faster than revenue. The fact that this problem is being cited across the sector, with other insurers like UnitedHealth Group also suspending their guidance, demonstrates that this is not an isolated event but a deep-seated challenge facing the business model itself.

In stark contrast, other parts of the Healthcare sector are thriving. A list of “best healthcare stocks to buy” is dominated by companies in drug manufacturers, medical devices, and diagnostics & research.  These companies are being rewarded for having strong “economic moats,” which are competitive advantages that protect their long-term profitability. For example, Novo Nordisk (NVO) is highlighted for its dominance in the diabetes and obesity treatment markets, with its innovative GLP-1 therapies providing a strong barrier against competition. Merck is also noted for its strong drug pipeline and high-margin product lineup. This flight to quality and innovation is further evidenced by a list of high-growth technology companies that includes several biopharmaceutical firms, suggesting that investor enthusiasm for technology extends to its application in drug discovery and development. This bifurcated flow of capital is confirmed by the prominence of Pharmaceutical ETFs, which have significant weightings in companies like Eli Lilly, AbbVie, and Johnson & Johnson. The stark difference in performance suggests that investors are actively punishing companies with strained business models while rewarding those with strong, innovation-driven competitive advantages.

The following tables visually represent the divergence in performance within the Healthcare sector and across other industries.

Top Performers (July 2025)SectorUnderperformers (July 2025)Sector
Comfort Systems USA (FIX)IndustrialsCentene (CNC)Healthcare
Roblox (RBLX)Communication ServicesMolina Healthcare (MOH)Healthcare
GE Vernova (GEV)IndustrialsCharter Communications (CHTR)Communication Services
PTC (PTC)TechnologyAlign Technology (ALGN)Healthcare
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)TechnologyLiberty Broadband (LBRDA)Communication Services
Data from Morningstar, as of August 1, 2025

Conclusion: Implications for Investors and Forward Outlook

The most active industries for stock investors in the last few weeks have been Information Technology and Communication Services, driven by a powerful and concentrated rally around generative AI and digital engagement platforms. These sectors are providing the primary momentum for the broader market, with strong corporate earnings justifying high valuations and fueling investor optimism. However, the term “active” is also defined by a significant and telling divergence, most evident in the Healthcare sector, where investors are fleeing from managed care companies facing systemic cost issues and re-allocating capital toward innovative, moat-protected biopharma and medical device companies.

For investors, this bifurcated market presents a critical lesson: selectivity is paramount. A broad, passive approach to a sector like Healthcare would have been disastrous in July, while a highly selective approach could have yielded significant returns. The outsized influence of a few mega-cap technology stocks presents a concentrated opportunity, but also a risk if those companies fail to deliver. This is reinforced by the broader macroeconomic picture, which suggests a potentially “rangebound” market for the remainder of 2025. This environment highlights the value of diversification, not only across sectors but also into other asset classes like international stocks and precious metals.

The forward trajectory of these active industries will likely be determined by three key factors. First, the pace of AI innovation and adoption will continue to be a primary driver. The market will be watching to see if demand for AI hardware and software can continue to drive earnings, or if scaling challenges and new competitors will temper growth.Second, the market’s direction will be dictated by the delicate balance between corporate earnings and macro policy. Companies must continue to deliver strong results to justify their high valuations, especially in the face of rising bond yields and geopolitical tariff risks. Finally, the Healthcare sector’s path forward depends on how the health insurance sub-industry responds to its fundamental cost challenges, and whether the pharmaceutical sub-industry can continue its innovation-driven growth, which has proven to be a shield against broader market pressures.

Disclosure: Author owns several of the above mentioned stocks including AAPL, AMZN, and MSFT.

Are College Degrees a Bad Investment?

by Fred Fuld III

Is College Worth It?

As graduation approaches, many families face one of the biggest decisions of a young person’s life: Should I go to college? For decades, the answer was automatic—college was seen as the surest path to success. But with rising tuition costs, student debt, and alternative career paths gaining traction, students and parents alike are asking a new question: Is a college degree really worth the investment?

Here’s a balanced look at the advantages and disadvantages of getting a college degree, tailored for families weighing both the personal and financial implications.

Advantages of a College Degree

1. Better Job Prospects and Earning Potential
College graduates tend to earn more over their lifetimes. Many well-paying professions—like engineering, medicine, law, and finance—require a degree to even get in the door. A degree can also open up more stable, long-term career paths with benefits like healthcare and retirement plans.

2. Professional and Personal Growth
College isn’t just about lectures and exams. It helps students develop critical thinking, communication, and time-management skills. Living away from home can also foster independence, resilience, and social maturity.

3. Networking Opportunities
College campuses are full of future colleagues, business partners, mentors, and job leads. Professors, alumni networks, and internship programs often become valuable stepping stones into competitive industries.

4. Access to Careers That Require a Degree
Some jobs—especially in education, healthcare, and science—legally or practically require a college education. Without a degree, these paths are not accessible.

Disadvantages of a College Degree

1. High Costs and Student Debt
Tuition, housing, books, and fees can add up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many students graduate with significant debt that takes years—or even decades—to repay. For parents, college can mean dipping into retirement savings or taking on loans themselves.

2. Not Always Necessary for Success
Tech, trades, arts, and entrepreneurship often reward skills, experience, and creativity more than diplomas. Self-taught developers, digital marketers, electricians, and business founders have all built successful careers without a degree.

3. Delayed Entry into the Workforce
Spending four or more years in college means delaying full-time employment and income. Meanwhile, others may start apprenticeships, gain hands-on experience, or launch businesses straight out of high school.

4. Mismatch Between Degree and Job Market
A college degree doesn’t guarantee a job. Some graduates find themselves underemployed or working in fields unrelated to their majors. The job market favors candidates with relevant skills and experience—sometimes more than formal education.

Questions Families Should Ask

  • What is the student passionate about, and does that path require a degree?
  • Is there a clear return on investment (ROI) for the school and major being considered?
  • Are there lower-cost options—like community college, state schools, or scholarships?
  • Could internships, certifications, or trade programs offer a faster, cheaper path?

So can you really become successful without a college degree? Look at Steve Jobs, who dropped out of Reed College and became the co-founder and former CEO of Apple (AAPL). Then there is Bill Gates, who co-ounded Microsoft (MSFT). He dropped out of Harvard.  Kevin Murphy started as a front-service clerk at Publix in 1984 and became CEO in 2024. Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, left school at 16 (SPCE).

Here’s a list of notable founders and CEOs of large publicly traded companies who either did not attend or did not complete college. Despite lacking a degree, they went on to lead or found some of the most influential companies in the world:

Tech and Internet

NameCompanyRoleEducation Status
Steve JobsAppleCo-founder, former CEODropped out of Reed College
Bill GatesMicrosoftCo-founderDropped out of Harvard
Mark ZuckerbergMeta (Facebook)Co-founder, CEODropped out of Harvard
Michael DellDell TechnologiesFounder, CEODropped out of University of Texas
Larry EllisonOracleCo-founder, former CEODropped out of University of Illinois and University of Chicago
Evan WilliamsTwitter (now X Corp.)Co-founder, former CEODropped out of University of Nebraska
Daniel EkSpotifyCo-founder, CEODropped out of KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden)

Retail and Consumer

NameCompanyRoleEducation Status
Richard SchulzeBest BuyFounderDropped out of college
Amancio OrtegaInditext (Zara)Founder, former chairmanNo formal higher education
Do Won ChangForever 21Co-founderNo college education

Industry and Other Sectors

NameCompanyRoleEducation Status
Howard HughesHughes Aircraft, aviation and media mogulFounderDropped out of Rice University
Travis KalanickUberCo-founder, former CEODropped out of UCLA

Industry Trends

The trend of valuing skills and experience over formal education is gaining traction. Companies like IBM, Google, GM, and Apple have moved away from requiring degrees for certain positions. Initiatives like Peter Thiel’s fellowship program offer $100,000 grants to young entrepreneurs who choose to skip or leave college to pursue business ventures.

Final Thoughts

College can be a powerful investment in a student’s future—but it’s not the only one. It’s essential for students and parents to look beyond tradition and emotion, and weigh the financial and personal implications carefully. Success doesn’t always come with a diploma—it comes with purpose, effort, and choosing the path that fits best.

One thing to keep in mind. Although the above business leaders never received a college degree (excluding honorary degrees), many of them did attend college, and a few of them met their friends there who became co-founders of their company. So another consideration is trying college for a while without being concerned about finishing or getting that degree.

Disclosure: Author may own shares in the above described companies.

How to Invest in Starlink and SpaceX Before They Go Public

by Fred Fuld III

Many investors are interested in jumping on the Elon Musk bandwagon by investing in the companies he is involved with, other than Tesla (TSLA). With the success that Musk has been having with rockets and satellites, many investors see the growth potential in those areas.

Fortunately, there are a few ways to participate in the growth of those companies, even though they are not yet public.

Before I cover those ways, I want to relay a story to you about Apple (AAPL). Why Apple you may ask? Well let me explain.

Buying Apple Before It Went Public

Many, many years ago, before Apple went public, I was using an Apple II computer with the VisiCalc spreadsheet program to create financial planning worksheets. I couldn’t believe that calculations could be done so easily on a small machine and then printed out. I was working for an investment management firm at the time and wanted to invest in this little Apple Computer company. (That was the name of the company before it was changed to Apple Inc.) 

Unfortunately, it wasn’t publicly traded. But fortunately, I read in a Forbes article that a publicly traded venture capital company called the Nautilus Fund, which was a closed end fund, had an equity interest in Apple. The fund held share of mostly public companies but also some shares of a few private companies. So to make a long story short, I bought some shares of the Nautilus Fund, Apple went public, and Apple shares were spun off to the Nautilus Fund shareholders. The rest is history.

Investing If Not Accredited

So you can see why investors, including myself, want to find some way to get access to Starlink and SpaceX shares.

If you are an accredited investor, you are probably aware of the services available to you for buying shares in private companies, and where there might be a minimum investment of $25,000. These services include Hiive, Forge, Microventures, and even NASDAQ Private Market.

An individual accredited investor is someone who has a net worth over $1 million, excluding primary residence (individually or with spouse or partner) and/or has an income over $200,000 (individually) or $300,000 (with spouse or partner) in each of the prior two years, and reasonably expects the same for the current year. There is one other qualification that can allow you to meet the accredited requirement. If you are an investment professional with a Series 7, a Series 65, or a Series 82, then you may qualify. There are different rules for organization investors.

But if you are not an accredited investor, there are still ways for you to participate. 

First, let’s discuss Starlink and SpaceX and their connection to each other.

SpaceX

Space Exploration Technologies Corp., commonly known as SpaceX, is a private aerospace manufacturer and space transportation company founded by entrepreneur Elon Musk in 2002. Musk established SpaceX with the ambitious goal of reducing space transportation costs to make space exploration and colonization more accessible, ultimately aspiring to enable human settlement on Mars. 

Headquartered in Hawthorne, California, the company quickly gained attention for its innovative approach to rocket design and its focus on reusability, a concept that has transformed the aerospace industry.

SpaceX made history in 2008 when its Falcon 1 rocket became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach orbit. This success was followed by a series of groundbreaking achievements, including the development of the Falcon 9 rocket, which features reusable first-stage boosters, and the Dragon spacecraft, capable of carrying cargo and crew to the International Space Station (ISS). 

In 2012, Dragon became the first commercial spacecraft to dock with the ISS, marking a significant milestone in public-private partnerships in space exploration.

In 2020, SpaceX achieved another historic milestone with its Crew Dragon spacecraft, which carried NASA astronauts to the ISS as part of the Commercial Crew Program. This made SpaceX the first private company to launch humans into orbit. 

Beyond crewed missions, the company has developed the Starship rocket, intended for deep-space missions and capable of transporting cargo and passengers to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

SpaceX has also revolutionized global communications with its Starlink project, a satellite internet network designed to provide high-speed internet access worldwide. By combining technological innovation with a vision for humanity’s future in space, SpaceX continues to play a pivotal role in advancing aerospace technology and shaping the future of space exploration.

Starlink

Starlink Services, LLC, a subsidiary of SpaceX, was established to provide high-speed satellite internet to underserved and remote regions across the globe. Launched in 2015 as part of Elon Musk’s vision to create a global broadband network, Starlink operates a constellation of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites that communicate with ground stations and user terminals to deliver high-speed internet access. Its mission aligns with SpaceX’s broader goals of advancing space exploration and connecting humanity, particularly in areas lacking reliable internet infrastructure.

Starlink officially began beta testing its services in October 2020 under the program “Better Than Nothing Beta,” offering Internet speeds between 50 Mbps and 150 Mbps. It quickly garnered attention for its ability to provide connectivity in rural and remote areas, where traditional cable or fiber infrastructure is often unavailable. The service expanded rapidly, reaching customers in over 50 countries by 2023. Starlink has since developed specialized products, including maritime and aviation solutions, to cater to various industries beyond residential consumers.

Known for its user-friendly hardware, Starlink employs a compact satellite dish and modem for easy setup. Its advancements in satellite technology have included innovations like phased-array antennas and laser inter-satellite links to improve latency and bandwidth. 

By leveraging a network of thousands of satellites, Starlink aims to overcome the limitations of geostationary satellites, providing lower latency and more stable connections for applications like video conferencing, gaming, and remote work. As of recent reports, Starlink continues to grow its satellite constellation and improve its service capabilities, making it a key player in the global push for universal Internet access.

Ways to Invest

Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL), more commonly referred to as Google, has a division called Google Ventures, which invested in SpaceX almost ten years ago, giving it a reported 7.5% ownership of the company. However, Google is such a huge company that the value realized from the growth of SpaceX will have a very small effect on Google’s stock. 

The same thing is true of Bank of America (BAC), which also invested in SpaceX almost seven years ago, in the amount of $250 million.

Some articles suggest investing in competitors of SpaceX, but be careful. Look what happened to all the new electric car competitors to Tesla (TSLA). Fortunately, there are some other alternative ways to jump on the SpaceX bandwagon.

There is a closed-end fund called ARK Venture Fund (ARKVX), which reportedly has over 10% of it’s assets in SpaceX, in addition to ownership of shares in a couple more Musk companies, X and xAI. 

At the time this article was written, an individual investor would have to buy the stock through SoFi. As a matter of fact, for a limited time, SoFi is offering $25 worth of free stock including fractional shares if you sign up through THIS LINK. There are dozens of choices of free stock that you can choose from, even Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-B) and SoFi (SOFI).

According to the fund prospectus:

“Unlike an investor in many closed-end funds, Shareholders should not expect to be able to sell their Shares regardless of how the Fund performs. An investment in the Fund is considered illiquid.”

It also says, “Unlike many closed-end funds, the Shares are not listed on any securities exchange. The Fund intends to provide liquidity through quarterly offers to repurchase a limited amount of the Fund’s Shares (expected to be 5% of the Fund’s Shares outstanding per quarter).”

The fund has a management fee of 2.75%. The price of the fund has gone up by 27.26% over the last twelve months.

There is one other closed-end fund that owns SpaceX, called Destiny Tech100 Inc. (DXYZ),which trades on the New York Stock Exchange. It currently has 22 companies in its portfolio with SpaceX making up the largest share at 36.9%. Other stocks in the portfolio include Axiom Space, OpenAI, Instacart, Stripe, and Discord. The company has a management fee of 2.5%. In the last six months, the stock has gone up by 189%.

Any of the above ways will give you some participation in the growth of SpaceX or Starlink, but there is one more play in Starlink.

A company called KVH Industries (KVHI) is a Starlink authorized hardware and airtime reseller. This is a microcap stock with a market cap of $108 million, and is therefore extremely risky. The stock, which is currently generating negative earnings, has a favorable price to sales ratio of 0.91, and is selling for 76% of book value.

If you are considering investing in SpaceX or Starlink, even indirectly, you may think your portfolio will go to the moon (or Mars). Just be aware that there are extensive risks involved. 

Disclosure: Author owns TSLA, KVHI, and DXYZ.

Taylor Swift Stock Index: A Great Performer

by Fred Fuld III

Taylor Swift, the name synonymous with chart-topping hits and captivating performances, has also quietly built herself into a savvy business mogul. Her journey extends far beyond the recording studio, encompassing strategic branding, fan engagement mastery, and a fierce fight for artistic ownership.

Taylor Swift’s success goes beyond just being a talented musician. Here are some of her notable business decisions that have contributed to her empire:

1. Reclaiming her music: Swift’s decision to re-record her first six albums was a bold move. While motivated by a desire to own her masters, it also proved to be a successful business strategy. The re-recordings, titled “Taylor’s Versions,” topped charts and reminded fans of her music, leading to increased sales and streaming.

2. Strategic partnerships: Swift has partnered with various brands like Diet Coke and Apple Music, creating mutually beneficial campaigns. These partnerships not only generate revenue but also expand her reach and connect her with new audiences.

3. Building a strong brand: From her signature songwriting style to her nostalgic album themes, Swift has built a strong and consistent brand identity. This allows her to connect deeply with her fans (affectionately called “Swifties”) and fosters a sense of community around her music.

4. Mastering fan engagement: Swift’s social media presence and interaction with fans are legendary. Through online interactions, surprise appearances, and Easter eggs in her music and videos, she fosters a loyal and engaged fanbase, which translates into success in ventures like tours and merchandise sales.

5. Utilizing technology: Swift’s embrace of technology has been crucial. She understands the evolving music landscape and leverages streaming platforms, online exclusives, and digital marketing strategies effectively.

6. Advocating for artists’ rights: Swift has been a vocal advocate for artists’ ownership of their work, influencing industry conversations and inspiring other musicians to fight for their rights. This not only benefits her personally but also contributes to a fairer music industry for all creators.

These are just a few examples of Taylor Swift’s successful business decisions. Her combination of artistic talent, business acumen, and dedication to her fans has made her a true force to be reckoned with in the music industry and beyond.

Six months ago, I wrote about how the Taylor Swift stock index as outperformed the S&P 500. Her index is made up of the publicly traded companies that Swift is a spokesperson for, such as Coca-Cola (KO) and Apple (AAPL).

Her index is up over 319% during the last ten years, versus 261% for the S&P 500, based on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY).

Swift’s boyfriend, Travis Kelce, has done a ton of celebrity sponsorships. It will be interesting to see how well his index does. Subscribe to our newsletter so you will be notified when it is available.

Disclosure: Author owns AAPL and has a short SPY position.

The Worst Mistake You Can Make as an Investor

by Fred Fuld III

Do you know what the biggest mistake you can make as an investor? Selling too soon. Just because you have a great profit on a stock, doesn’t mean you should sell it, assuming you are a long term investor and not a trader.

I have many examples of selling too soon. Here are just a few.

When I was in the financial services industry many years ago, I was selling a lot of the Franklin Municipal Bond Funds and Franklin GNMA Funds to my clients.

I went to visit the Franklin Mutual Funds headquarters (the company was in its old building at the time, and is now called Franklin Templeton) to do some due diligence, and meet with the broker liaison at the company.

When I was given a tour of the place, I noticed that walls were being knocked down, four employees were sharing a small office designed for one person, and cables were literally being run down the hallways by installers right in front of me.

My first thought was “Wow, this company is growing like crazy. I should check and see if Franklin Resources (BEN) is publicly traded.” It was, on the Pink Sheets. (This was way before it was traded on the New York Stock Exchange.) I bought a couple hundred shares at about $7 per share, and it shortly rose to $8.

Also, at that time, I just bought a rental property. I thought at the time that I should probably sell the Franklin stock in case I needed the funds to do upgrades on the property, plus I had just made a 14% profit in a short period of time. I actually didn’t need the funds for the down payment since I bought the property for nothing down (that’s another story I will write about eventually).

Since then, the stock has had ten stock splits. If I had just kept the stock and forgot about it, my $1400 original investment would now be worth around $542,000.

I have another example. I had 100 shares of Boston Beer Company (SAM) that I held in the form of multiple certificates on one share each (another story). I had paid about $30 a share for the stock back in 2009.

The next year, it rose to $90 a share. I thought that tripling my money in such a short period was a pretty good return, actually a fantastic return, so I thought, why not take all these certificates in to my broker and liquidate them.

While I was in the brokerage firm and one of the representatives was preparing a receipt for me including making copies of every certificate, another representative came over and said “What the hell is with all these certificates?”

When he was making these rude comments, I seriously considered picking up my certificates, and leaving, but I didn’t, unfortunately. I wanted to take my profit. The stocks eventually traded over $1000 a share back in 2020 and 2021. The stock is now trading over $350 a share, still more than ten times my cost.

I could tell you one more story about Apple (AAPL) stock, but it would make you sick. It makes me sick even to think about it.

The point that I’m making is that the dollar amount of profit and the percentage amount of profit you have in a stock is irrelevant. If you believe in the company, there is no reason to sell it, unless you are very desperate for money. And if you are that desperate, see if you can get by with selling half.

Obviously, there’s a chance of holding on to losers, and not getting out soon enough. Maybe you lose $5,000 or $10,000 on a stock that goes to zero. But it’s the big long term winners that pay for all those losses, and still provide huge returns.

The best way to tell if you should sell a stock is to imagine that you didn’t own the stock but you have the money to buy it. Would you buy it now? If the answer is yes, hold on to the stock. If the answer is no, then maybe it is time to sell.

Disclosure: Author owns AAPL and SAM.

You can now SELL YOUR VOTES

by Fred Fuld III

I am surprised that there isn’t a law about this. There is a company that provides a vote exchange where you can buy or sell votes.

It is for shareholders of publicly traded companies. The company is called Shareholder Vote Exchange.

The service allows shareholders to sell the rights to the proxy votes of stocks in order to generate additional income.

Companies and activists are the usual buyers.

For example, if you own 1000 shares of Apple (AAPL), you could sell your voting rights for $187.44 to $9,372.00 per year, depending on various factors.

For 1000 shares of Disney (DIS), it would be $91.07 to $4,553.50.

You don’t need 1000 shares, You could sell your votes for 100 or 10 shares, or even 1 share.

For example, if you own 100 shares of Tesla (TSLA), your votes could be sold for anywhere between $22.37 to $1,118.55.

If you had 100 shares of Meta/Facebook (META), you might get $33.50 to $1,675.20 each year.

Here’s a summary of the Shareholder Vote Exchange:

What they do:

  • SVX enables shareholders to buy, sell, and trade their voting rights for upcoming company meetings on their online platform. This allows passive investors who are not interested in voting to monetize their votes, while also giving activist investors and companies a way to acquire additional voting power.

Key features:

  • Unique auction system: SVX uses a proprietary auction system designed to optimize value for both vote sellers and buyers.
  • Integration with major brokers: The platform is integrated with major brokers like Schwab and Vanguard,making it easy for shareholders to participate.
  • Regulatory compliance: SVX’s auctions comply with all applicable state and federal regulations, ensuring transparency and investor protection.

Benefits for shareholders:

  • Monetize voting rights: Shareholders can earn cash for their votes, even if they are not interested in voting themselves.
  • Increase liquidity: The SVX platform provides a market for votes, which can make it easier for shareholders to buy and sell them.
  • Participate in corporate governance: Shareholders can use the platform to express their views on important company matters, even if they cannot attend shareholder meetings in person.

Current status:

  • SVX is a relatively new company, but it has already attracted a significant amount of interest from investors and the media.
  • The company is currently in the process of expanding its operations and adding new features to its platform.

Potential impact:

  • SVX has the potential to revolutionize the way shareholder voting works. By making it easier for shareholders to buy and sell their votes, the platform could increase shareholder participation in corporate governance and make it more difficult for companies to ignore the interests of their investors.

Now with votes for political candidates, it is illegal to buy or sell a vote, according to 18 U.S. Code § 597 – Expenditures to influence voting.

But that hasn’t stopped people from trying.

Back in the year 2000, some people tried to sell their votes on eBay (EBAY).

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens with these shareholder votes.

Disclosure: Author is long AAPL, DIS, and EBAY, and is short TSLA.

30 Years Ago, Kevin Costner Starred in ‘Ancient’ Apple Computer Ad: Wall Street Video of the Week

Does any one remember what a Lisa Computer was? Has anyone ever touched one? (I did, for a couple hours many years ago.) This was one of the first follies of Steve Jobs. Talk about a clunky, unattractive computer. Anyway, when Apple (AAPL), ran a Lisa television commercial long ago, guess who the star was? Kevin Costner, star of Field of Dreams, Dances With Wolves, Bull Durham, JFK, and many other movies.

This Day Today in Business & Investment History

by Fred Fuld III

Apple Computer (AAPL) was incorporated in 1977.

The first block of the blockchain of the decentralized payment system Bitcoin, called the Genesis block, is established by the creator of the system in 2009.

The Bell Telephone Company (T) was chartered in Massachusetts by Alexander Graham Bell and his associates in 1876.

The Bank of Italy changes its name to Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association (BAC), solidifying its national expansion beyond its Californian roots in 1928.

IBM Corporation (IBM) introduces the IBM 1401, a pioneering transistorized computer designed for business applications in 1960.

The New York Stock Exchange introduces the Decimalization Plan, shifting stock prices from fractions to whole dollar amounts in 1970.

Sony Corporation (SONY) releases the Sony Walkman TPS-L2, the first commercially successful portable cassette player in 1981.