Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Government Shutdown: LSU Experts Available

As the federal government shutdown continues, LSU finance and economics experts are available to provide insight into its potential consequences—from effects on markets and small businesses to broader economic stability and consumer confidence. Rajesh Narayanan Dr. Narayanan is a leading expert on banking and financial markets whose research and commentary regularly inform policy discussions at central banks and regulatory agencies worldwide. Del Wright Prof. Wright’s research focuses on tax, finance, business, securities, entrepreneurship, and in the last few years, crypto and blockchain regulation.

#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point

When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant. This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment. From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences. This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t. When Obedience Becomes a Liability In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design. This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked. The Challenge of AI Accountability What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making. In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation. The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks. There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies. Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand. There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply? Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems. The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.

The Fed Just Cut interest Rates - What's Mean for Americans and What Does it Say about the Economy?

For the first time since December interest rates are being cut  and all indicators point to even more  signaled more cuts coming this year. The reactions so far have been mixed.  The markets held steady but made no bold moves.  And the opinions on how this will impact housing and home sales was also mixed with President Trump raving that housing will "soar" and others concerned about  volatility. The announcement is getting a lot of media attention with reporters looking for angles, answers and what to expect for the future. And to get those answers - they need experts who understand every aspect of the economy. Dr. Jared Pincin's primary research interests explore the intersection of public choice economics with foreign aid as well as issues in sports economics. Pincin has published in popular publications such as The Hill, Real Clear Markets, Foxnews.com, and USA Today and scholarly journals such as Oxford Development Studies, Applied Economic Letters, and the Journal of Sport and Social Issues. View his profile here Dr. Haymond joined the faculty at Cedarville University in 2010 after a 29-year career in the United States Air Force. He taught at the United States Air Force Academy and was an Air Force Fellow at The Brookings Institution. His research has been published in scholarly journals such as the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Public Choice, the Journal of Public Choice and Public Finance, and Journal of Faith and Economics. His current research interests include economics and religion, as well as monetary theory. View his profile here Looking to know more?  We can help. Jared Pincin and Jeff Haymond are both available to speak with media - simply click on either expert's icon to arrange an interview today.

Largest Cohort in LSU History: Six Distinguished Faculty Members Named Boyd Professors

Named in honor of brothers Thomas and David Boyd, early presidents and faculty members of LSU, the Boyd Professorship recognizes faculty who bring honor and prestige to LSU through their national and, as appropriate, international recognition for outstanding achievements. Before today, only 79 faculty members from all of LSU’s campuses have ever achieved this distinguished rank. The newest cohort of Boyd Professors represent a wide variety of disciplines and hail from three of LSU’s eight campuses: LSU A&M, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and LSU Shreveport. This group includes LSU Shreveport’s first-ever Boyd Professor, a landmark achievement for the campus and a testament to its academic distinction. As the largest group of Boyd Professors ever named at one time, this cohort underscores LSU’s rising reputation for research excellence across all of its campuses. “This is a moment of real pride for LSU. Naming six new Boyd Professors is not only historic in scale, it's a clear reflection of the extraordinary strength and momentum of our academic enterprise,” said Interim LSU President Matt Lee. “These scholars are advancing knowledge in ways that reach far beyond our campuses, and their work is helping to define LSU’s place on the national and global stage. I am especially proud to see LSU Shreveport represented for the first time, a milestone that reflects the growing excellence across our campuses. This achievement is a powerful reminder of our commitment to advancing scholarship and shaping the future through research, education, and service.” The newest Boyd Professors are: Mette Gaarde, Les and Dot Broussard Alumni Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Science, LSU A&M John Maxwell Hamilton, Hopkins P. Breazeale LSU Foundation Professor, Manship School of Mass Communication, LSU A&M Steven Heymsfield, Professor of Metabolism and Body Composition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center Michael Khonsari, Dow Chemical Endowed Chair and Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, LSU A&M Alexander Mikaberidze, Professor of History, Ruth Herring Noel Endowed Chair, College of Arts & Sciences, LSU Shreveport R. Kelley Pace, Professor, Department of Finance, E. J. Ourso College of Business, LSU A&M Nominations for the Boyd Professorship are initiated in the college, routed for review and support at the campus level, then considered by the LSU Boyd Professorship Review Committee, which seeks confidential evaluations from dozens of distinguished scholars in the candidate’s field of expertise. Once endorsed by the review committee, the nomination is forwarded to the LSU President and Board of Supervisors for consideration. With this distinction, a Boyd Professor’s compensation is elevated to reflect the stature of LSU’s most distinguished faculty, with a salary set at no less than the 95th percentile of full professors in comparable disciplines at peer public institutions across the southeastern United States. They also receive an annual stipend to further support their research and scholarly pursuits. Please join us in congratulating these faculty on this outstanding accomplishment.

As Trump rolls back regulations, this expert examines the costs of compliance

President Donald Trump has signaled a push to scale back federal regulation across a wide range of industries, reigniting a national debate over the costs and benefits of government rules. For Joseph Kalmenovitz, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Rochester’s Simon Business School who studies the economics of regulation, the moment underscores the importance of understanding not just what regulations do — but how much they cost. Kalmenovitz, who combines legal training with cutting-edge empirical methods, has developed innovative ways to measure regulatory intensity. His research shows how compliance requirements translate into millions of additional hours of paperwork for firms — costs that often fall outside public view. A recent Bloomberg Law article cited his work in explaining how Wall Street alone devotes an estimated 51 million extra hours each year to compliance since the Great Financial Crisis. Beyond tallying hours, Kalmenovitz’s studies also explore how overlapping rules across agencies — what he calls “regulatory fragmentation” — can stifle productivity, profitability, and growth, especially for smaller firms. His long-term aim is to provide evidence-based insights that can guide smarter rulemaking in Washington. “The dream is that people will take insights from my work and use them to improve the way regulation is conceived,” he told Simon Business Magazine. Kalmenovitz is a leading voice in translating data into meaningful insights about the hidden costs and design of regulation whose work has been published in the Journal of Finance, the Review of Financial Studies, Management Science, and the Journal of Law and Economics. He is available for interviews and can be contacted through his profile.

Play, Learn, Lead: How Aston’s Gamification-Driven MBA Is Redefining Business Learning

Professor Helen Higson OBE of Aston Business School, discusses why gamification is embedded in all of the School's postgraduate portfolio of degrees Give the students something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results. (attributed to John Dewey, US educational psychologist (1859-1952) Imagine you’re the CEO of a cutting-edge robotics firm in 2031, making high-stakes decisions on R&D, marketing and finance; one misstep and your virtual company could collapse. You win, lose, adapt, and grow. This isn’t a case study, it’s your classroom experience at Aston Business School in Birmingham. Imagine you’re participating in Europe’s biggest MBA tournament, the University Business Challenge, where your strategic flair and financial acumen will be tested against the continent’s sharpest minds. Then you’re solving real-world sustainability crises in the Accounting for Sustainability Case Competition, crafting solutions that could be showcased in Canada. What if you could do all this from your classroom seat, armed with only your MBA learnings, teamwork and the thrill of gamified learning. At Aston, we believe the best way to master business is by doing business. That’s why we’ve embedded active learning through games, simulations, and competitions across all our postgraduate programs. The results? Higher engagement, deeper learning, and students who graduate with confidence and real-world skills. Research says gamified learning boosts motivation, lowers stress, and helps students adopt new habits for lifelong success. As educational researchers Kirillov et al. (2016) found, “Gamification creates the right conditions for student motivation, reduces stress, and promotes the adoption of learning material—shaping new habits and behaviours.” This has led to what Wiggins (2016), calls the “repackaging of traditional instructional strategies”. In Aston Business Sschool we have long embraced this approach as a way of increasing student outcomes and stimulating more student engagement in their learning. Our Centre for Gamification in Education (A-GamE), launched in 2018, is dedicated to advancing innovative teaching methods. We run regular seminars with internal and external speakers showcasing gamification adoption, design and research and we use these techniques across the ABS in a wide range of disciplines. (We have included two examples of this work in our list of references.) Furthermore, in 2021 we published a book which outlines the diverse ways in which we use these methods (Elliott et al. 2021). Subsequently, during 2024 we redesigned all our postgraduate portfolio of degrees, and as part of this initiative games and simulations were embedded across all programmes. Why Gamification Works Through simulations like BISSIM, students step into executive roles, steering futuristic companies through the twists and turns of a dynamic marketplace. A flagship programme running since 1981, BISSIM was developed in collaboration between academics from ABS and Warwick Business School, and every decision on R&D, marketing, or HR has real consequences as teams battle each other for the top spot. After each year of trading the results are input into the computer model. The results are then generated for each company in the form of financial reports, KPIs and other non-financial results and messages. Each team’s results are affected by their own decisions and the competitive actions of the other teams, as well as the market that they all influence. This year one of our academics, Matt Davies, has been awarded an Innovation Fellowship further to commercialise the game. Competitions with Global Impact We also encourage students to take part in national and international competitions which have the same effect of developing their engagement with real-life business problems on a global scale. Beyond the classroom, Aston students represent the university in major competitions like the University Business Challenge (in which ABS had the highest number of UK teams this year) and the Accounting for Sustainability (A4S) Case Competition, for which we are an “anchor business school”. Here, theory gets stress-tested against real-world scenarios and top talent from around the globe. The result? Award-winning teams, global experience, and friendships built under pressure. At the heart of this approach is Aston’s Centre for Gamification (A-GamE), dedicated to making learning interactive, motivating, and fun. Regular seminars, fresh research, and close ties to industry keep the curriculum evolving and relevant, so students graduate ready to lead, adapt, and thrive in any business environment. Why does it matter? In a volatile, fast-paced economy, employers appreciate agility, teamwork and decisiveness. At Aston, every simulation and competition is geared towards sharpening these skills. Graduates emerge not only knowledgeable, but prepared for the job market. Engagement Our students have been embracing these opportunities. Six MBA/Msc teams developed their A4S videos, hoping to reach the final in Canada early in 2025, and three teams out of nine reached the national UBC finals. Additionally, the BISSEM simulation has just finished inspiring another group of MBA students (particularly as the prize for the winning team was tickets to a game at our local Aston Villa premiership football (soccer) club, currently riding high in the league!). Typical feedback from non-Finance specialists is that they suddenly surprised themselves during their participation in the simulation and were reconsidering the options of taking a career in Finance. It seems that our original purposes have been met – increased confidence, passion, deep learning and engagement have been achieved. To interivew Professor Higson, contact Nicola Jones, Press and Communications Manager, on (+44) 7825 342091 or email: n.jones6@aston.ac.uk Elliott, C., Guest, J. and Vettraino, E. (editors) (2021), Games, Simulations and Playful Learning in Business Education, Edward Elgar. Kirillov, A. V., Vinichenko, M. V., Melnichuk, A. V., Melnichuk, Y. A., and Vinogradova, M. V. (2016), ‘Improvement in the Learning Environment through Gamification of the Educational Process’, International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(7), pp. 2071-2085. Olczak, M, Guest, J. and Riegler, R. (2022), ‘The Use of Robotic Players in Online Games’, in Conference Proceedings, Chartered Association of Business Schools, LTSE Conference, Belfast, 24 May 2022, p. 79-81. Wiggins, B. E. (2016), ‘An Overview and Study on the Use of Games, Simulations, and Gamification in Higher Education’, International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 6(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2016010102

Covering "meme stocks"? Our expert can help.

"Meme stock" fever in the financial markets is back and hotter than ever. If you're a reporter covering the trend now or in the future (because history suggests it'll boomerang), the University of Rochester invites you to reach out to Daniel Burnside, clinical professor of finance at the Simon School of Business, for insight.  Burnside has held various roles in the investment, risk management and financial planning fields, and has worked extensively with both individual and institutional clientele. He recently helped Forbes explain the trend affecting stocks like Krispy Kreme and Kohl's and other brands, and offered advice on how investors should proceed. "You’re not investing in fundamentals, you’re betting on crowd psychology and social media dynamics,” Burnside told Forbes.  Burnside encouraged potential investors to “keep it small.” “No more than, say, 5% of your portfolio,” he added. “It’s speculation, not strategy. If you can’t afford to lose it, you can’t afford to meme it.”  Contact Burnside by clicking on is profile.

Lending Survey Results Reveal Recent and Dramatic Concern Due to Tariff Policy

Global consulting firm J.S. Held releases its proprietary “Lending Climate in America” survey results from Phoenix Management, a part of J.S. Held. The second quarter survey results highlight lenders’ views on important issues, including policy decisions along with their national and global impact. Each quarter, Phoenix Management, a part of J.S. Held, surveys lenders to identify important trends focused on the latest economic issues, business drivers, and credit trends in the current lending climate. The “Lending Climate in America” survey provides valuable information to lenders, attorneys, private equity sponsors, and the financial news media, exploring topics like: What factors do lenders see as most likely to impact the US economy in the next six months? Phoenix’s Q2 2025 “Lending Climate in America” survey asked lenders which factors could have the strongest potential to impact the economy in the upcoming six months. Sixty-seven percent of lenders are paying the most attention to the possibility of a U.S. recession, while 40% of lenders believe overall political uncertainty has the strongest potential to impact the economy. Lenders also expressed moderate concern regarding the possibility of constrained liquidity in capital markets. To see the full results of Phoenix’s “Lending Climate in America” Survey, please visit: https://www.phoenixmanagement.com/lending-survey/ What shifts do lenders observe in their customers’ hiring and capital improvement plans? Lenders revealed what actions their customers may take in the next six months. Over half of the surveyed lenders believe their customers will raise additional capital. Most telling was that lenders believe only 3% of their customers have plans to hire new employees (down from 56% in 1Q) and only 23% have plans for capital improvements (down from 67% in 1Q). Which industries are expected to see the most volatility over the next six months? For the first time in recent memory, the 3 industries that respondents identified as most likely to experience volatility in the next six months were different from the prior quarter - consumer products (60.0% versus 20.7%), retail trade (43.3% versus 31.0%), and manufacturing (33.3% versus 20.7%). How do lenders plan to adjust their loan structures? Additionally, Phoenix’s “Lending Climate in America” survey asked lenders if their respective institutions plan to tighten, maintain, or relax their loan structures for various sized loans. For larger loan structures (greater than $25M), the plan to maintain loan structures remained relatively constant from Q1 to Q2, decreasing by 8 percentage points. As loan sizes decrease, the percentage of lenders that plan to maintain (as opposed to increase) their loan structures increased – quite dramatically in the under $15M range. How has lender sentiment toward the US economy changed from Q1 to Q2? Lender optimism in the U.S. economy decreased for the near term, moving from 2.33 in Q1 2025 to 2.10 in Q2 2025. In this current quarter, there is heavy expectation of a C level performance (63%), with the remainder split between D and B levels. More telling, lender expectations for the U.S. economy’s performance in the longer term increased sharply from 2.11 to 2.53. Of the lenders surveyed, 57% believe the U.S. economy will perform at a B level during the next twelve months, a hefty increase from the prior quarter. The “Lending Climate in America” survey is administered quarterly to lenders from various commercial banks, finance companies, and factors across the country. Phoenix Management, a part of J.S. Held, collects, tabulates, and analyzes the results to create a complete evaluation of national attitudes and trends. To view the full results, click on the button below: To connect with Michael Jacoby or for any other media inquiries, please contact: Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com

FAU Data Analysis: Falling Rates Bring Some Relief to Banks

Falling interest rates brought some relief to banks’ portfolios for unrealized losses on investment securities, according to a data analysis from a finance professor at Florida Atlantic University. Only two banks with assets over $1 billion reported unbooked securities losses greater than their total equity in the first quarter of 2025, down from three in the last quarter of 2024, according to the U.S. Banks’ Unrealized Losses on Investment Securities screener. For unbooked losses equal to 50% of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (CET1) equity, 24 banks were on the list for the first quarter of this year, down from 34 in the fourth quarter of 2024. Rates dropped from the end of 2024 through the end of March, providing some relief to banks that had extensive interest rate risk in their investment securities portfolios. The yield on the 10-year treasury bond fell from 4.57 to 4.25 as of the end of March. “While this would appear to be good news for the U.S. banking industry, with unrealized securities losses declining by $69 billion from the end of 2024 to March, rates have climbed back to where they were at the end of 2024 so that losses today would be back up close to $500 billion,” said Rebel Cole, Ph.D., Lynn Eminent Scholar Chaired Professor of Finance in the College of Business. The aggregate unbooked securities losses on bank balance sheets declined by $69 billion from $483 billion at the end of the fourth quarter in 2024 to $414 billion at the end of the first quarter this year. The quarterly U.S. Banks’ Unrealized Losses on Investment Securities Screener, produced as part of The Banking Initiative in FAU’s College of Business, measures banks’ exposure to risk based on their unrealized losses in their investment securities portfolios. To calculate a bank’s risk, Cole uses the most recently available data from quarterly call reports published by the U.S. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. Of the 4,543 banks reporting in the first quarter for this year, Cole focused on 1,042 banks with more than $1 billion in assets to calculate unrealized losses on investment securities and compare those losses to a bank’s CET1. Regulators would force a bank that lost half of its CET1 capital to take remedial actions, such as raising new capital or seeking a merger partner; in the worst case, a bank may face closure by the FDIC. “It’s likely that unbooked losses will continue to grow as interest rates continue to move higher” Cole said. “Both the 50-day and 200-day moving average rate on the 10-Year Treasury bond are rising so losses are growing, not shrinking. And this is only one part of banks’ balance sheets that are suffering from rising rates. There also are massive unrealized losses on banks’ residential and commercial mortgage portfolios that total to another $500 billion.” Looking to know more? We can help. Rebel Cole is available to speak with media about banking and the impact on interest rates. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Reclaiming 'Spend': A Retirement Rebellion

June is Pride Month—a celebration of identity, resilience, and the powerful act of reclaiming. Over the years, LGBTQ+ communities have reclaimed words that once marginalized them. “Queer” used to be a slur. Now, it’s a proud badge of honor. Similarly, the Black community has transformed language once used to oppress into expressions of cultural pride and connection. So, here's a thought: What if retirees approached the word “spend” similarly? Yes, you read that right. The psychological Tug-of-War This isn't just about numbers; it’s about narratives. Most retirees have spent their entire adult lives in accumulation mode: save, earn, invest, delay gratification, rinse, and repeat. But retirement flips that formula on its head, and most people weren’t provided with a “mental user guide” for the transition. Now, instead of saving, they’re expected to spend? Without a paycheck? It triggers everything from guilt to fear to a low-grade existential crisis. The Challenge of Saving for an Extended Period Let’s get serious for a moment. The data tells a troubling story: - Canadians over 65 collectively hold $1.5 trillion in home equity (CMHC, 2023) - The average retiree spends just $33,000 per year, despite often having far more resources (StatsCan, 2022) - Nearly 70% of retirees express anxiety about running out of money—despite having significant savings (FCAC, 2022) We’re talking about seniors who could afford dinner out, a trip to Tuscany, or finally buying that electric bike—and instead, they’re clipping coupons and debating the cost of almond milk. Why?  Because spending still feels wrong. I Know a Thing or Two About Reclaiming Words As a proud member of the LGBTQ2+ community and a woman who has worked in the traditionally male-dominated world of finance, I’ve had a front-row seat to the power of language, both its ability to uplift and its tendency to wound. There were many boardrooms where I was not only the only woman but also the only gay person, and often the oldest person in the room. I didn’t just have a seat at the table; I had to earn, protect, and sometimes fight to keep it. I’ve learned that words can be weapons, but they can also be amour—if you know how to use them. Reflect on Your Boundaries Take a moment. Have you ever felt prejudged, marginalized, or dismissed? Perhaps it was due to your gender, sexuality, accent, skin colour, culture, or age. It leaves a mark. One way to preserve your dignity is by building a mental toolkit in advance. Prepare a few lines, questions, or quiet comebacks you can use when someone crosses the line—whether they intend to or not. Here are five strategies that helped me stand tall—even at five feet nothing: 1. Humour – A clever remark can defuse tension or highlight bias without confrontation. 2. Wit – A precisely timed comeback can silence a room more effectively than an argument. 3. Over-preparation – Know your stuff inside and out. Knowledge is power. 4. Grace under fire – Not everything deserves your energy. Rise above it when it matters. 5. Vulnerability – A simple “Ouch” or “Did you mean to hurt me?” can be quietly disarming—and deeply human. Let’s Talk About Microaggressions The term microaggression may sound small, but its effects are significant. These are the subtle, often unintentional slights: backhanded compliments, dismissive glances, and “jokes” that aren’t funny. They quietly chip away at your sense of belonging. Dr. Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility is a brilliant read on this topic. She explains how early socialization creates bias— “Good guys wear white hats. Bad guys wear black hats.” These unconscious associations become ingrained from an early age. Some people still say, “I’m not racist—I have a Black friend,” or “I’m not homophobic—my cousin is gay.” The truth? Knowing someone from a marginalized group doesn’t exempt you from unconscious bias. It might explain the behaviour, but it doesn’t excuse it. And no, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination operates within systems of power and history. When someone points out a biased comment or unconscious microaggression, they’re not discriminating against you—they’re holding up a mirror. That sting you feel? It’s not oppression. It’s shame—and it’s warranted. It signals that your intentions clashed with your impact. And that’s not a failure; it’s an invitation to grow. Calling it “reverse discrimination” is just a way to dodge discomfort. But real progress comes when we sit with that discomfort and ask: Why did this land the way it did? What am I missing? Because the truth is, being uncomfortable doesn’t mean you’re being attacked. It often means you’re being invited into a deeper understanding—and that’s something worth showing up for. Let’s Reclaim 'Spend' What if we flipped the script? What if spending in retirement was viewed as a badge of honour? Spending on your grandkids’ education, your bucket list adventures or even a high-end patio chair should not come with any shame. You’ve earned this. You’ve planned for this. It’s time to reclaim it. Let’s make “spend” the new “thrive.” Let’s make super-saver syndrome a thing of the past. Let the Parade Begin Imagine it: a Seniors’ Spend Parade. Golden confetti. Wheelchairs with spoilers. Luxury walkers with cupholders and chrome rims. T-shirts that say: - “Proud Spender. Zero Shame.” - “I’m not broke—I’m retired and woke.” - “My equity funds my gelato tour.” Dreams Aren’t Just for the Young What’s the point of spending decades building wealth if you never enjoy it? Reclaiming “spend” isn’t about being reckless—it’s about being intentional. So go ahead—book the trip. Upgrade the sofa. Take the wine tour. You’re not being irresponsible; you’re living the life you’ve earned. And if anyone questions it? Smile and say: “I’m reclaiming the word spend. Care to join the parade?” Sue Don’t Retire…Rewire! 8 Guilt-Free Ways to Spend in Retirement A checklist to help you spend proudly, wisely, and joyfully: ☐ Book the Trip – Travel isn’t a luxury; it’s a memory maker. ☐ Upgrade for Comfort – That recliner? That mattress? Worth every penny. ☐ Gift a Down Payment – Help your kids become homeowners. ☐ Fund a Grandchild’s Dream – Tuition, ballet, a first car—you’re building a legacy. ☐ Outsource the Chores – Pay for help so you can reclaim your time. ☐ Invest in Wellness – Healthy food, massage therapy, yoga. Health is wealth. ☐ Pursue a Passion – From pottery to piloting drones, go for it. ☐ Celebrate Milestones – Anniversaries, birthdays… or Tuesdays. Celebrate always! Want More? If this speaks to you, visit www.retirewithequity.ca and explore more: - From Saver to Spender: Navigating the Retirement Mindset - Money vs. Memories in Retirement - Fear Of Running Out (FORO) Each piece explores the emotional and psychological aspects of retirement—the parts no one talks about at your pension seminar.