How Much Growth Is Left for Nvidia? Consumer Cushion Shrinks, SpaceX IPO Mechanics, 401(k) Planning & More

Logic should tell you there may not be much growth left in Nvidia

Investing has become increasingly emotional for many people, and too often investors stop thinking logically. Could the popular company Nvidia continue climbing higher? Of course it could. But there are logical reasons to believe its future growth may be limited compared to what investors expect today.

First, consider the company’s market capitalization. As the stock price rises, so does the market cap, which currently sits around $5.2 trillion, depending on the day. To put that number into perspective, $5 trillion is roughly equal to the entire GDP of Japan. With that amount of money, you could buy all the real estate in New York City, London, and Tokyo combined. You could also purchase every major sports franchise in the world several times over.

So investors should ask themselves: if you are buying or holding Nvidia today, are you expecting the company to double in value anytime soon to more than $10 trillion? Does that really seem realistic?

Over the last year, Nvidia generated approximately $216 billion in revenue, which is nearly half the size of the entire U.S. consumer technology industry, estimated at $537 billion in 2025. The company’s revenue grew by about 65% year over year. If Nvidia were to repeat that same 65% growth rate in 2026, revenue would increase by roughly $140 billion, bringing total annual sales to around $356 billion.

To understand how massive that growth would be, only about 25 companies in the entire S&P 500 generate more than $140 billion in annual revenue. In other words, Nvidia would need to add more revenue in a single year than 95% of S&P 500 companies produce in total annual sales.

None of this means Nvidia is a bad company. In fact, it is an exceptional company doing extraordinary things. However, wherever enormous profits exist, competition inevitably follows. We are already hearing about major technology companies developing their own AI chips, while startups and rival semiconductor firms continue introducing competing products that could eventually take market share from Nvidia.

Does that mean Nvidia is going to crash? Probably not. Could it happen? Anything is possible in the market. But for long-term investors, the bigger concern may be that future revenue growth simply cannot continue at the pace investors have become accustomed to. If growth slows meaningfully, the stock could experience years of stagnation or disappointing returns. That is the logical case investors should at least consider.

The Consumer Isn’t Breaking, it’s Quietly Running Out of Cushion

The recent economic data showed that inflation came in line with expectations and much of the shift can likely be attributed to higher energy prices. A bigger concern to keep an eye on is what’s happening to household finances underneath the surface.

April core PCE, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, came in at 3.3% year-over-year, exactly in line with expectations. This was the highest annual level since November 2023.

At this point, inflation still doesn’t appear to be a crisis story. If energy prices can decline, I believe much of the recent increase in inflation would dissipate and we’d head closer to the Fed’s 2% target.

While I’d say inflation isn’t a major concern currently, the data suggests consumers are increasingly stretched financially.

The clearest warning sign is the savings rate. The U.S. personal savings rate fell to just 2.6%, one of the lowest levels seen outside of the immediate Covid reopening period in 2022. The April reading was down from 3.2% in March and 5.8% a year prior. It also marked the lowest savings rate since June 2022 when it hit 2.2%. For perspective, Americans saved about 5-7% from 2010 to the beginning of 2020.

That gap matters. It suggests consumers are continuing to spend, but they’re doing it with far less financial cushion than they historically had. Spending resilience is increasingly being supported by depleted savings, rising debt usage, and retirement account borrowing rather than excess cash reserves.

Fidelity reported that 19.2% of workers now have an outstanding 401(k) loan, up from 18.8% a year ago. Meanwhile, hardship withdrawals across retirement plans continue to rise industrywide. Vanguard recently reported that 6% of account holders took hardship withdrawals in 2025, up from 4.8% the prior year and above pre-pandemic norms.

Retirement accounts are increasingly functioning as emergency liquidity for everyday expenses. Historically, 401(k)s were largely treated as long-term investment vehicles. Now they’re becoming a financial backstop for consumers trying to maintain spending in a higher-rate environment.

This data continues to point towards the concerns around the K-shape economy. While debt levels remain in check, increased debt balances or more 401k withdrawals could create more longer-term consequences that we should be aware of.

The most important part of the SpaceX IPO may not be the valuation. It may be the mechanics behind the stock itself.

SpaceX has yet to declare the size of its IPO offering, but it will likely be a single-digit percentage of the company’s total shares outstanding. That matters because float, not just valuation, can determines how violently a stock moves in the early months after an IPO. When demand is huge and supply is constrained, prices can disconnect from fundamentals quickly. If institutions, retail investors, and passive index funds are all competing for a tiny number of available shares, scarcity alone can drive a major rally independent of fundamentals.

Nasdaq created a rule in May that shortened the waiting period for megacap stocks to be included in the Nasdaq 100 index to 15 trading days, which is down from as long as a year. There’s also a proposal to shorten the waiting period for S&P 500 inclusion to six months from 12 months and there’s speculation that could be implemented before the SpaceX IPO. If SpaceX is added rapidly to major indexes, passive funds and ETFs may become forced buyers while insiders gradually gain the ability to sell into strength. That creates a setup where institutional demand collides directly with controlled insider supply releases. The result could be extraordinary volatility in both directions.

The lock-up structure may be even more important than the float itself. SpaceX plans to allow certain shareholders to sell portions of their stock before the traditional 180-day lock-up expires. Restrictions usually apply to existing investors, employees, large institutional investors or people with access to privileged information. Under the proposed structure, some insiders could begin selling as early as after the company’s first earnings report if performance targets are met. Up to 20% of the restricted shares may be sold shortly after the company releases its second-quarter earnings. Another 10% would be unlocked if the stock trades at least 30% above its IPO price. Additional tranches of 7% each are set to unlock at five intervals between 70 and 135 days after the listing, with a further 28% becoming available after a subsequent earnings report. Any remaining restricted shares would be eligible for sale after 180 days. Elon Musk, who holds 85.1% of the voting power and 12.3% ​of the economic interest in Class A shares, agreed to a 366-day restriction.

Historically, unlock events have often been brutal. The Facebook IPO is probably the clearest example. Facebook had an IPO of $38 in May 2012 during one of the most hyped tech IPOs ever. Within three months, the stock had already fallen sharply, but the real pressure came from the lock-up expirations. In August 2012, Facebook’s first major lock-up expiration released 270 million additional shares into the market increasing the publicly tradable share count by roughly 60%. The stock fell more than 6% that day and closed below $20, almost 48% below its IPO price. Interestingly, your returns in Meta/Facebook have been great and investors who bought the stock after its first day of trading are up close to 1,500%, but investors that bought six months later are up close to 2,500%.

Facebook isn’t the only example. In fact, generally IPOs fizzle out shortly after the hype fades. Jay Ritter, a University of Florida professor, point out the 1,724 U.S. IPOs from 2011 through 2024 had an average first-day pop of 23%, but over the next three years, these stocks lagged behind the market by 25 percentage points. The trend is even more troubling for stocks that trade with a high premium. Since 1980, issuers with trailing annual sales of at least $100 million and a price-to-sales ratio above 40 have seen an average three-year drop of 45% from their first day’s close.

The psychology behind lock-ups is simple. During the first few months after an IPO, the market is dealing with artificial scarcity. The available supply of stock is intentionally constrained while excitement and media attention are elevated. Once insiders are allowed to sell, the supply-demand balance changes immediately. What makes SpaceX interesting is that management appears to be trying to avoid a single catastrophic unlock day by spreading the selling pressure over time. In theory, that could reduce the probability of a massive one-day collapse like Facebook experienced. But it may also create a different environment where insider selling becomes a continuous overhang rather than one clean reset event.

The lesson from previous IPO cycles is that the first trade and the long-term investment outcome are rarely the same thing. Stocks with tiny floats and massive narratives can become detached from fundamentals very quickly. Eventually supply catches up.

Financial Planning: Match or Max Your 401(k)

Many people have heard the advice to contribute enough to their 401(k) to receive the company match, but stopping there can mean leaving one of the most powerful wealth-building tools underutilized. A 401(k) allows investments to grow tax-deferred or tax-free with traditional and Roth contributions, which can significantly improve long-term after-tax returns compared to other investment options.

Critics often argue that 401(k) plans have failed to replace traditional pensions, but in many cases the problem is not the structure of the 401(k) itself, it is that people simply have not contributed enough or invested appropriately over time.

Not everyone is going to become a real estate mogul, successful entrepreneur, or business owner, and that is perfectly okay. The 401(k) was designed to allow ordinary workers to build extraordinary retirement security through disciplined saving and investing over decades. With consistent contributions, proper investment allocation, and time, a well-funded 401(k) can generate retirement income that exceeds many traditional pension plans while also providing greater flexibility and ownership of the assets.

Gen X has the highest average student loan balance

Gen X, which includes people between the ages of 50 and 61, makes up a large portion of the millions of borrowers defaulting on their student loans. Some of these borrowers are parents who took out loans on behalf of their children.

After the pandemic, the default rate appears to have increased by about 10% compared to pre-pandemic levels. One possible reason is that the previous presidential administration was more lenient in collecting student loan payments and attempted to forgive many loans. This may have confused some borrowers into believing they no longer owed the money, even though their loans were not actually forgiven.

It also appears that borrowers who defaulted on their student loans were struggling with other forms of debt as well. Approximately 40% of those who defaulted were also behind on their auto loans, 56% of those with at least one credit card were past due on credit card payments, and 20% were behind on their mortgages. This suggests that many borrowers may have become overwhelmed financially by taking on more debt than they could manage.

So far, the Department of Education has delayed garnishing wages, tax refunds, and Social Security benefits from borrowers in default, but that could change in the future.

What jobs are safe from AI?

It can be scary to think about how many jobs artificial intelligence may take over in the workforce during the next 10 years. However, there are still many careers that AI is unlikely to replace, no matter how advanced it becomes. The list is long, but here are some of the top jobs that are expected to have strong job security.

First, careers such as police officers, firefighters, and paramedics are very safe. No matter how advanced AI becomes, these jobs require human judgment, quick decision-making, courage, and compassion in dangerous or unpredictable situations.

Managers and entrepreneurs will also continue to be important because businesses will always need people to lead, organize, and make difficult decisions. AI may assist with data and efficiency, but it cannot fully understand conflicting interests, cultural trade-offs, long-term vision, or ethical responsibility.

Many jobs in the medical field, including nurses, doctors, dentists, and medical specialists, are also difficult to replace with AI. These professions require precision, responsibility, communication, and human judgment. While AI can help doctors analyze information, patients still need human care, trust, and emotional support.

Skilled trades such as plumbers, electricians, mechanics, and construction workers are also considered safe from automation. These jobs involve hands-on work and unpredictable situations that require fast thinking and adaptability. People in these trades often face problems that cannot be solved by a machine alone.

Finally, careers involving human connection like counselors, social workers, consultants, and advisors are also likely to remain secure. These professionals can benefit from AI as a tool for research and information, but the heart of their work depends on empathy, communication, and understanding human emotions. AI cannot truly read nonverbal cues, emotional reactions, or personal experiences the way humans can.

Although AI will continue to change the workplace, many careers that rely on human judgment, emotional intelligence, leadership, and adaptability will continue to be valuable for years to come.

Robinhood just crossed into truly surreal territory.

The company is now allowing AI agents to trade stocks on your behalf, rebalance portfolios, monitor markets, and even make purchases using your credit card. In other words, we are rapidly moving from “AI assistant” to “AI financial operator.”

According to the reports, users can create dedicated AI trading accounts with spending limits, notifications, approvals, and kill switches. The idea is that your AI can independently execute financial decisions while you supervise from a distance. On paper, that sounds efficient. In reality, it opens the door to an entirely new category of financial and security risk.

The obvious concern is that these systems are still unreliable. AI models hallucinate, misinterpret context, and can behave unpredictably under pressure. That’s annoying when the AI writes a bad email. It becomes much more serious when the same technology is moving real money, buying assets, or making split-second trading decisions during volatile markets.

But the credit card side of this may be even crazier than the trading side. We are talking about giving AI systems the ability to autonomously spend money in the real world. Not just recommending purchases, but actually executing them. An AI agent could theoretically book flights, subscribe to services, buy software, order products, renew memberships, pay invoices, or make purchases based on goals you previously gave it. Even with spending caps and approval settings, this fundamentally changes the relationship between humans and financial control.

The risks become massive when you think about scale and automation. A normal person might carefully evaluate a large purchase before clicking “buy.” An AI agent could execute dozens or hundreds of micro-transactions automatically because it determined they aligned with your instructions. If the AI misunderstands your intent, gets manipulated by bad information, falls for deceptive advertising, or is exploited through prompt injection attacks, the consequences become financial almost instantly.

And unlike traditional fraud, where a criminal directly steals your card, this creates a world where your own authorized AI agent could become the mechanism that drains your account while technically operating within the permissions you gave it.

There’s also a psychological risk that almost nobody is talking about yet: people becoming detached from spending decisions altogether. Once purchases become ambient and autonomous, consumers may stop tracking where money is going in real time because “the AI is handling it.” That could fundamentally alter spending behavior, impulse control, debt accumulation, and personal accountability around money.

There’s also the larger systemic risk. If millions of AI agents begin reacting to the same headlines, sentiment signals, or market patterns simultaneously, you could create automated herd behavior at a scale we’ve never seen before. Imagine thousands of bots all deciding to dump or buy the same stock within seconds because they interpreted the same data in the same way. That’s how you get amplified volatility, algorithmic cascades, and potentially flash-crash scenarios that spiral faster than humans can intervene.

And then there’s security. Once AI agents gain direct access to brokerage accounts and payment systems, they become high-value attack surfaces. A hacked AI assistant with permission to move money is a very different threat model than a hacked chatbot.

What’s craziest is how quickly this is happening. A year ago, most people were experimenting with AI to summarize meetings or generate images. Now companies are openly saying: “Let the AI handle your investments and spending.” Society has barely begun figuring out the legal, ethical, and technical implications of AI, and we’re already wiring it directly into the financial system

Carvana Is Replacing Dealerships

If the thought of walking into a car dealership and dealing with a salesperson makes you uneasy, Carvana is trying to change that experience.

For many consumers, buying a new car means spending three to four hours at a dealership negotiating prices, financing, and paperwork. Carvana, known for its glass car vending towers, is looking to simplify the process by allowing customers to purchase vehicles almost entirely online.

Back in December 2022, Carvana’s stock traded for less than $1 per share, but it has since rebounded significantly and recently traded around $70 per share. While consumers have long been able to buy used cars online, federal and state franchise laws generally require new vehicles to be sold through certified dealerships.

To work around that limitation, Carvana has purchased seven Stellantis dealerships, allowing consumers to buy new Stellantis vehicles directly through Carvana and have them delivered without ever stepping inside a traditional dealership. Stellantis brands include Jeep, Dodge, Fiat, and Ram, among others.

Traditional dealerships are understandably unhappy with this shift, but there appears to be little they can do to stop it. It will be interesting to see whether automakers such as General Motors and Ford eventually allow Carvana to acquire dealerships with the goal of selling their vehicles entirely online.

This could very well represent the future of car buying, where consumers can choose between purchasing a vehicle online or going through the traditional dealership experience. The U.S. auto market is massive, with consumer vehicle sales exceeding $1 trillion annually in 2025, including roughly $655 billion spent on new cars and $524 billion on used vehicles.