Bitcoin price	% Change
Price of Bitcoin yesterday	$80,036.60	-3.31%
Price of Bitcoin 1 month ago	$83,419.82	-7.23%
Price of Bitcoin 1 year ago	$108,321.57	-28.56%

Price of Bitcoin yesterday
Bitcoin price	$80,036.60
% Change	-3.31%
Price of Bitcoin 1 month ago
Bitcoin price	$83,419.82
% Change	-7.23%
Price of Bitcoin 1 year ago
Bitcoin price	$108,321.57
% Change	-28.56%

---

---

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is widely recognized as the pioneering cryptocurrency and continues to hold the top spot in terms of name recognition and market size. Its market capitalization is roughly $1.33 trillion, putting it far ahead of second-place Ethereum with about $233 billion in market cap.

At a basic level, Bitcoin functions as a decentralized digital currency. Instead of relying on a central authority like a bank or government, it runs on a peer-to-peer network of computers. This design lets people transfer value straight to others without using a traditional financial intermediary.

Many investors turn to Bitcoin as a potential hedge against inflation in the U.S. dollar or as a way to branch out beyond conventional investments. Over the past decade, it has posted stunning gains, often outperforming major stock indexes, which has played a big role in its popularity.

At the same time, Bitcoin shares a key trait with other cryptocurrencies—it can be extremely volatile, with frequent and sometimes dramatic price changes.

Bitcoin price history

Since it was introduced in 2009, Bitcoin has been highly volatile and often headline-grabbing. One early milestone in its history involves developer Laszlo Hanyecz, who famously spent 10,000 Bitcoins on pizza. Today, those coins would be valued at more than 668 million dollars.

Over the last decade or so, Bitcoin’s price has climbed more than 15,000%. This tremendous growth comes with a trade-off, as cryptocurrencies are known for their unpredictability. Bitcoin has undergone severe pullbacks—sometimes dropping tens of thousands of dollars within months—as well as dramatic recoveries. At the close of 2025, it was trading roughly 30% below the all-time high it hit that very October.

What affects Bitcoin’s price?

Several different dynamics can move Bitcoin’s price up or down, including:

• Investor speculation: Like many speculative assets, Bitcoin’s short-term price is heavily driven by trader psychology and buzz. In the near term, prices usually reflect investor beliefs and trading activity more than anything else.
• Adoption by major companies: When large corporations embrace Bitcoin or broader crypto technology, it can help support further growth. For example, Bitcoin’s price rose after companies such as Tesla and Ferrari announced plans to accept Bitcoin as a payment option.
• Economy: Bitcoin doesn’t track inflation figures or central bank decisions in the same way many traditional investments do. Still, it often benefits when the U.S. economy is strong, because people who feel financially secure may be more willing to allocate money to alternative assets that are a bit riskier—like crypto.
• Regulatory developments: As a relatively young asset class, cryptocurrency is still in the process of being fully regulated. New rules or enforcement actions can either instill confidence or create fear. Both cases can significantly affect Bitcoin’s price.

How to buy and invest in Bitcoin

If you’ve decided to invest in Bitcoin, there are multiple ways to do it. Here are some of the main options.

Buy Bitcoin on a cryptocurrency exchange

The most straightforward route is to buy Bitcoin directly. You set up an account with a crypto exchange, connect it to your bank, and then use your deposited cash to buy Bitcoin.

Invest in Bitcoin ETFs

For those who prefer a more traditional investment vehicle, Bitcoin exchange-traded funds are an alternative. A Bitcoin ETF holds Bitcoin on behalf of its shareholders, and its shares trade on standard stock exchanges. This option lets you skip the process of managing your own crypto wallet and can reduce the risk of losing access to your funds because of a password mistake or wallet issue.

Buy crypto stocks

Investors who don’t want to buy Bitcoin directly can also consider stocks of companies in the crypto space. These might include tech companies that support blockchain technology, public crypto exchanges, even payment processors. Because these companies may earn revenue from Bitcoin-related activity, their share prices can offer indirect exposure to Bitcoin’s performance.

Open a Bitcoin IRA

For retirement-focused investing, a Bitcoin IRA is another great option. Like a standard IRA, it’s a tax-advantaged account with similar contribution limits and tax rules, but it lets you allocate some of your retirement savings to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as alternative investments.

---

---

Bitcoin vs. other cryptocurrencies

Bitcoin might be the best-known name in crypto, but it is not your only choice. When weighing where to put your money, you may want to compare it with a few other major coins.

Cryptocurrency	Price per coin as of 8:15 a.m. on Oct. 30, 2026
Bitcoin	$77,380.93
Ethereum	$2,232.62
Tether (USDT)	$0.99
XRP	$1.24

Bitcoin
Price per coin as of 8:15 a.m. on Oct. 30, 2026	$77,380.93
Ethereum
Price per coin as of 8:15 a.m. on Oct. 30, 2026	$2,232.62
Tether (USDT)
Price per coin as of 8:15 a.m. on Oct. 30, 2026	$0.99
XRP
Price per coin as of 8:15 a.m. on Oct. 30, 2026	$1.24

• Ethereum: Ethereum is currently the second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap. Unlike Bitcoin, which was designed mainly as a form of money, Ethereum was built as a decentralized computing platform and is widely used for running applications and smart contracts.
• Tether: Tether is a stablecoin, meaning that its value is directly tied to another asset—in this instance, the U.S. dollar. Its peg typically keeps price movements smaller than Bitcoin’s, but that also means there’s less opportunity for outsized growth.
• XRP: XRP is a digital asset created to make sending money across borders faster and cheaper, focusing specifically on international transfers with low transaction costs.

Crypto coverage from Fortune

See our newsroom’s recent coverage of what’s been happening on the cryptocurrency scene:

• The $6.3 billion Binance hack: What we know so far about the biggest crypto heist in history
• Polymarket launches 15-minute ‘Up or Down’ contracts for the price of gold
• Bitget CEO aims to enter the U.S. market in 2027, with or without the CLARITY Act

Is it a good time to invest in Bitcoin?

When compared with long-standing blue-chip names such as Procter & Gamble or Walmart, Bitcoin is still a newcomer. That makes predicting its long-term behavior challenging. But its recent history has been impressive. As more companies start accepting Bitcoin as a payment method, its price may get a further boost, and as the asset matures, it might eventually see somewhat smoother price movements.

However, Bitcoin should not be treated as a sure bet. It’s wise to invest only money you can afford to have tied up and to ensure your broader portfolio is diversified, so other investments can help offset Bitcoin’s volatility.

For most people, Bitcoin is better viewed as a long-term, higher-risk holding than as a quick trade. It is not ideal for investors who are uncomfortable watching large price swings. But if you plan to hold it for years and keep it as a piece of a balanced portfolio, investing in Bitcoin could make sense for a portion of your overall strategy.

Frequently asked questions

How much will Bitcoin be worth in 2030?

While the answer is obviously unknowable, crypto experts are generally optimistic about the short-term success of Bitcoin. Some models price it at more than $700,000 by 2030, with conservative estimates closer to $300,000.

What is Bitcoin’s all-time high price?

As of this writing, Bitcoin reached its highest price ever on Oct. 6, 2025, pricing at a whopping $126,198.07.

Can you buy a fraction of a Bitcoin?

Yes, you can buy a fraction of a Bitcoin. Most cryptocurrency exchanges offer fractional investing, meaning you can buy portions of crypto coins. Thanks to fractional investing, you can invest in Bitcoin with as little as a few dollars.

How do I start investing in Bitcoin as a beginner?

If you want to invest directly in Bitcoin by owning the currency, you’ll typically open an account with a cryptocurrency exchange. Once the account is created, you can transfer money to your crypto account from your bank and place an order for Bitcoin and other tokens or coins. You can also indirectly invest in Bitcoin via an ETF or a business that uses Bitcoin.

What can you buy with Bitcoin?

You can use your Bitcoin holdings in several ways, from selling for cash to trading it for other coins. In some cases, you can also pay for purchases, such as with Tesla and Microsoft.

Does Bitcoin outperform the stock market?

Bitcoin has well outperformed the stock market since its launch, but its extreme volatility makes it far less than a guarantee to be a better investment than stocks.

Oil price per barrel	% Change
Price of oil yesterday	$115.40	+2.31%
Price of oil 1 month ago	$99.47	+18.69%
Price of oil 1 year ago	$64.69	+82.51%

Price of oil yesterday
Oil price per barrel	$115.40
% Change	+2.31%
Price of oil 1 month ago
Oil price per barrel	$99.47
% Change	+18.69%
Price of oil 1 year ago
Oil price per barrel	$64.69
% Change	+82.51%

Will oil prices go up?

It’s impossible to forecast oil prices with detailed precision. Many different elements affect the market, but ultimately it boils down to supply and demand. When worries about economic recession, war, and other large-scale disruptions increase, oil’s path can shift fast.

How oil prices translate to gas pump prices

Gas prices at the pump don’t only track crude oil. They also include what it takes to refine and move that fuel, the taxes layered on top, and the extra markup your local station adds to stay in business.

Since crude oil generally makes up a majority of the per-gallon cost, changes in its price have an outsized impact. When oil surges, gas prices typically rise in tandem. But when oil retreats, gas prices often lag on the way down, a trend sometimes described as “rockets and feathers.”

The role of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

In case of emergency, the U.S. has a store of crude oil known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Its primary purpose is energy security in case of disaster (think sanctions, severe storm damage, even war). But it can also go a long way toward softening crippling price hikes during supply shocks.

It’s not a long-term answer and is more meant to provide temporary relief, assisting consumers and keeping critical parts of the economy running, like key industries, emergency services, public transportation, etc.

How oil and natural gas prices are linked

Both oil and natural gas are key sources of the energy we use every day. Because of this, a big change in oil prices can affect natural gas. For example, if oil prices increase, some industries may swap natural gas for some segments of their operations where possible, which increases demand for natural gas.

Historical performance of oil

To gauge oil’s performance, we often turn to two benchmarks:

• Brent crude oil, the main global oil benchmark.
• West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the main benchmark of North America

Between these two, Brent better represents global oil performance because it prices much of the world’s traded crude. And, it’s often the best way to track historical oil performance. In fact, even the U.S. Energy Information Administration now uses Brent as its primary reference in its Annual Energy Outlook.

Looking at the Brent benchmark across several decades, oil has been anything but steady. It’s seen spikes due to factors such as wars and supply cuts, and it’s also seen crashes from global recessions and an oversupply (called a “glut”). For example:

• The early 1970s brought the first big oil shock when the Middle East cut exports and imposed an embargo on the U.S. and others during the Yom Kippur War.
• Prices dropped in the mid-1980s for reasons such as lower demand and more non-OPEC oil producers entering the industry.
• Prices spiked again in 2008 with increased global demand, but it soon plummeted alongside the global financial crisis.
• During the 2020 COVID lockdown, oil demand collapsed like never before—bringing prices below $20 per barrel.

All to say, oil’s historical performance has been anything but smooth. Again, it’s hugely affected by wars, recessions, OPEC whims, evolving energy initiatives and policies, and much more.

Energy coverage from Fortune

Looking to stay up-to-date regarding the latest energy developments? Check out our recent coverage:

• China’s clean energy tech exports projected to avert 24% of global CO2 emissions
• UK Treasury offers $130 one-off payment to 20 million households and energy bills relief
• A cruise ship promising life at sea suspended operations blaming fuel expenses

Frequently asked questions

How is the current price of oil per barrel actually determined?

The current price of oil per barrel depends largely on supply and demand, including news about potential future supply and demand (geopolitics, decisions made by OPEC+, etc.). In the U.S., prices also move based on how friendly an administration is to drilling, as it can affect future supply. For example, 2025 saw the Trump administration move to reopen more than 1.5 million acres in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas leasing, reversing the Biden administration’s policy of limiting oil drilling in the Arctic.

How often does the price of oil change during the day?

The price of oil updates constantly when the “futures” markets are open. A futures market is effectively an auction where people agree to buy or sell oil in the future. As long as people and companies are trading contracts, the oil price is changing.

How does U.S. shale oil production affect the current price of oil?

In short, shale is rock that contains oil and natural gas. Think of shale as energy yet to be tapped. The more shale the U.S. accesses, the more energy we’ll have—and the more easily oil prices can keep from spiking as much thanks to a greater supply.

How does the current price of oil impact inflation and the broader economy?

When oil is expensive, it tends to make everyday items cost more. This can be related to energy (your heating, gas utilities, etc.), but it’s also due to the logistics involved with making those items accessible to you. Shipping, for example, can affect the price of things at the grocery store, as it’s more expensive to get those products from warehouses and farms onto the shelf.

The proposal—according to Trump—is a win for oil and gas producers, especially small operators. Whether it moves the price at the pump, before next week’s midterms or for years after, is another question. The $45 billion savings estimate is spread over 2027 to 2050—and the rules cover leaks and venting at the wellhead, and gasoline prices track crude oil, which is trading around $103.99 as of October 30 as the Iran war continues.

Regular gasoline averaged $3.472 a gallon during Trump’s second presidency, narrowly exceeding the $3.471 average during Biden’s four years in office, according to Reuters. The national average climbed to $4.20 per gallon as of October 30.

On Tuesday in Lubbock, Texas, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a proposal to revise Biden-era oil and natural gas regulations—with an estimated $45 billion in savings for consumers and businesses from 2027 to 2050. The proposal also projects an additional 210 million barrels of domestic oil production and 1.41 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the same period.

“The Biden administration’s short-sighted plan to kill domestic energy production hurt hard-working families, crushed our businesses, and threatened the communities that power our nation,” Doug Burgum, the U.S. secretary of the interior, said in the EPA press release. “Since day one, President Trump has been putting real money back into the hands of American people by putting American energy back in the hands of the American workers, businesses, and communities.”

The proposal is part of Trump’s effort to expand fossil fuel production. “We will frack, frack, frack and drill, baby, drill,” Trump said during a campaign event in October 2024.

But Trump’s EPA proposals throughout his tenure haven’t been accepted by every expert. Jody Freeman, a professor of law and director of the environmental and energy program at Harvard Law School, wrote concerns regarding the president’s earlier 2025 EPA proposal to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding”—the scientific basis that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and harm human health.

“The irony is that no industry asked for this extreme step,” Freeman wrote in a guest piece for The Los Angeles Times in August 2025. “Car makers need stable federal rules to compete globally. Power companies have invested billions in renewable energy, which regulatory uncertainty puts at risk. Even most oil and gas companies support a national approach to limiting methane.”

What the Biden rules required

Trump’s EPA proposal targets regulations finalized by the Biden administration in 2024 under the Clean Air Act. The rules established methane-emissions standards for new and existing oil and natural gas operations, including requirements for detecting and repairing leaks and limiting the release of natural gas from oil wells.

The Biden administration’s rules were intended to reduce emissions from methane, a greenhouse gas that escapes during the production of fossil fuels. But the Trump administration argues the requirements imposed excessive compliance costs, especially on smaller operators and owners of marginal wells.

“The proposal also emphasizes reforms for marginal wells, which account for roughly four out of every five producing wells in the nation,” an EPA press release read. “Many are family-owned wells that play a critical role in family economics by powering homes and fueling farm equipment; ultimately offsetting other daily expenses. Families also often use the money from these wells for their retirement savings. Reducing regulatory burdens will provide financial security for thousands of American families.”

The EPA is also considering separate regulatory standards for marginal and higher-producing wells, as well as rescinding the Biden-era Super Emitter Program—which allowed certified third-party organizations to identify and report major methane leaks to regulators. The EPA’s own regulatory impact analysis estimates about 60 million additional short tons of methane from 2027 through 2050.

The proposal is not yet final. The EPA said it would hold at least a 45-day public comment period and a public hearing after the rule is published in the Federal Register, so no final rule can land before next week’s midterms.

And private jets are some of the biggest sources of carbon emissions. According to a new Oxfam report, the 8 million people who make up the world’s richest 0.1% are responsible for more carbon pollution than the poorest 3.5 billion people combined. In the U.S., the report found that the richest 0.1% emit 108 times more carbon dioxide per person than the poorest half of the country, and a lot of it has to do with private aircraft.

Oxfam calls private aviation one of the clearest examples of that inequality: all of the world’s private jets combined emit more carbon pollution in two seconds than someone in the poorest half of humanity does in a year. It estimates private jets emitted 16 million tons of CO2 in 2025. “It’s basically all about plane travel,” Gernot Wagner, a climate economist at Columbia Business School, told Fortune.

Oxfam, a global confederation of groups working to end poverty and named for the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, argues that private jets allow those with the most money the ability to escape disasters.

For everyone else, the consequences can arrive through damaged homes, disrupted food supplies, and insurance they can no longer afford. “The ultra-rich are setting the planet on fire and then charging the rest of us for the extinguishers,” Oxfam International executive director Amitabh Behar said in a statement.

The report, which was released ahead of the COP31 climate summit in Türkiye, looks at how wealth shapes both who causes emissions and who can survive the consequences. Fisher argues it also shows the limits of treating climate change as a problem shoppers can solve.

“We individually—while we can do small things to make our personal little corners of the world better—we cannot solve these problems without the system changing,” Dana Fisher, a professor at American University who studies climate action, told Fortune.

What happens in a disaster

A disaster can strike a whole city and leave people in very different places. 

Wagner pointed to how a blackout like the one Hurricane Sandy caused in Lower Manhattan in 2012 could send someone to a shelter, while a wealthier person could hop on a private jet and leave the city.

“The rich are always going to adapt. It’s the poor who suffer,” he told Fortune.

For households with less to spare, the damage lasts well beyond the emergency. Rachel Carle, senior advisor on climate justice at Oxfam America, pointed to food supply disruptions and the struggle to find affordable insurance in exposed communities. The poorest fifth of U.S. households already spend a third of their income on food, she noted.

“Those shocks hit the poorest in our communities the hardest,” she told Fortune.

Wagner said those costs reach household budgets in more than one way. Fossil fuel prices have driven much of this year’s inflation, he said, and the same fuels are heating the planet, while extreme weather adds its own pressure by disrupting production and pushing prices higher.

“They’re maximizing for profit and not necessarily human need,” Carle said, adding that communities most vulnerable to climate disasters “are not always the communities that are receiving the bulk of disaster preparedness and recovery funds.”

Oxfam is calling for taxes on wealthy polluters, fossil fuel companies, and high-emitting luxuries such as private jets, and for more funding to help poorer countries adapt. Wagner said the design of these policies matters because the size of a tax and what it covers determine the incentive to change behavior. 

“Will we solve climate change simply by taxing private jets? Of course not,” he said. “But would that be an obvious starting point? Yes, I’d like to think so.” 

The National Business Aviation Association, which represents more than 10,000 company and professional members, did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment by the time of publication.

In a statement to Fortune about a separate September report from the Institute for Policy Studies, which focused on private jets’ tax treatment rather than emissions, NBAA Interim Chief Operating Officer Dan Hubbard said, “Our industry pays several taxes and fees, including a pay-at-the-pump fuel tax.”

“We pay more in taxes when we fly more–just like car users do through a fuel tax,” he said.

Alphabet saw its cash flow sink deeper into negative territory in the third quarter, with the Google parent also joining Meta and Amazon in charging ahead with massive spending plans. On Thursday, Alphabet fell about 12%, its worst day on record.

Meanwhile, Microsoft reported strong cloud growth and stayed free cash flow positive, though it said its capital spending will accelerate, while AI chip giant SK Hynix blew away earnings forecasts. And ahead of its IPO, Anthropic’s S-1 filing showed its cash flow turned positive in the first half of this year.

Some on Wall Street see investors sorting out AI winners from losers rather than giving up on the sector altogether. That’s after numerous head-fakes in recent years that falsely signaled the AI boom was about to go bust.

According to market veteran Ed Yardeni, the AI investment boom faces financial, physical, and political constraints.

Financial constraints are evident in investors’ growing concerns over whether AI returns are enough to justify enormous capital expenditures, as well as in doubts about whether the supply of capital is sufficient to meet all the demand from hyperscalers, he explained in a note on Monday.

Indeed, just this past week alone, Elon Musk said SpaceX closed $40 billion in debt financing; Meta announced plans to raise $95 billion in equity; and Microsoft raised $25 billion in a bond sale.

Meanwhile, data centers have run into physical constraints like electricity shortages and limited grid capacity. At the same time, the growing political backlash against data centers could slow the build-out.

If any of these constraints worsen, stocks could dive further, especially considering that AI is now a major driver of corporate earnings and GDP growth, Yardeni warned.

“However, we view these constraints as healthy for the durability of the AI boom!” he added.

For example, if the supply of capital doesn’t flow as easily, it could lead to more efficient allocation, lowering the risk of overinvestment. For his part, Yardeni expects hyperscalers to retain access to financing—thanks to their strong balance sheets—and keep spending.

That’s as Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle are projected to invest nearly $800 billion this year and $1 trillion annually from 2027 through 2030. But AI companies with weaker balance sheets, like the so-called neoclouds, have seen their borrowing costs soar and may have to pull back.

But in Yardeni’s view, it all comes down to the U.S. economy, which he said has performed remarkably well over the past few decades. Even the midterm elections are unlikely to derail it, regardless of which party controls Congress.

“Further AI jitters therefore could set up buying opportunities rather than signal the end of the boom,” he said.

To be sure, a Democratic Congress could step up scrutiny of the AI sector and shape the debate around regulation, according to economists at Oxford Economics.

But any federal legislation on AI would unfold gradually, and a nationwide pause on new data center projects is unlikely, meaning state and local governments will exert greater influence over the build-out, they added.

Given the geographic concentration of data centers, elections in Texas, the Southeast, and Midwest will matter most. But like Yardeni, Oxford sees some upside to any AI slowdown.

A less frantic build-out could ease stubbornly high inflation, as reduced demand for chips and other tech inputs gives consumers some relief on prices for tech gadgets.

“If the AI capex cycle runs hotter for longer, this component of inflation would prove stickier, keeping pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep monetary policy restrictive for longer,” Oxford said Thursday. “However, a slower build-out would ease inflationary pressures through the end of the decade and relieve some of the upward pressure on long-term rates.”

U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war and threats against traditional allies have accelerated efforts by Canada and Europe to reduce their dependence on Washington and strengthen their economic and security ties.

“What brings us together goes far beyond geography. We see the world through the same eyes,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. “These headwinds won’t stop blowing. This change is permanent.”

Carney said the alliance would help Canada and Europe withstand economic pressure and make their own decisions rather than be dictated to by more powerful countries.

Trump has suggested Canada’s proposed EU arrangement could be a “hostile act” and threatened tariffs on Europe if he considered it unfriendly.

The move is aimed at reinforcing sovereignty, Carney says

Asked whether Trump could eventually be invited to join the alliance, Carney did not directly answer but insisted it was not aimed against any country.

“It is about reinforcing sovereignty. Why? So we can live our lives as we choose, our people can live their lives as they choose and have the full freedoms that people enjoy in the European Union and in Canada,” Carney said.

“It’s not against anything, it’s for,” he said.

Carney, von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa launched the “Alliance for the Future” at the end of a two-day summit in Montreal, announcing progress on digital trade, European investment in Canadian critical minerals and artificial intelligence.

“Today we move toward associate membership for Canada, and we launch a new alliance for the future,” Carney said.

But the joint declaration made no mention of associate membership, despite both Carney and von der Leyen championing the designation. Instead, the leaders agreed to define an “ever-closer association” by their next summit in 2027.

Carney said Canadian Cabinet ministers and European commissioners would meet in March before he attends European Council meetings in June, where he intends to conclude negotiations on the proposed relationship. Costa confirmed the invitation and said more details would be announced then.

Von der Leyen said Friday there was broad support for bringing Canada closer to the EU, despite disagreement over what to call the relationship.

“On one thing I’m absolutely sure, having spoken about it in the last weeks, is the broad support of having Canada much, much closer to the European Union,” she said.

A new economic partnership

Canada and the EU already have a free-trade agreement that eliminated most tariffs. They wrapped up negotiations Friday on a new digital trade agreement to make it easier for businesses to sell across the Atlantic.

Canada also signed an agreement allowing the European Investment Bank to finance Canadian critical minerals projects, potentially opening a new source of investment for the country’s mining industry.

Canada will also join a European supercomputing initiative that Carney said could transform research. He said Europe’s JUPITER supercomputer could complete in one day calculations that would take Canada’s most powerful research computer six months.

“A tech startup in Vancouver will have a smoother path to customers in Berlin,” Carney said. “Bottom line: less red tape, more growth, more opportunity.”

The two sides also concluded negotiations on a competition agreement intended to curb anti-competitive practices and lower prices for consumers. They will explore linking their instant-payment systems to make cross-border transfers faster and cheaper.

An alliance beyond Canada and Europe

The broader Alliance for the Future could eventually include other like-minded countries, with Canada and the EU at its core.

Costa said the two sides wanted to create a relationship unlike any previous EU partnership with a country outside the bloc.

“Our relationship is so special that we want to create something new: to go beyond a simple association, everything short of full EU membership,” Costa said.

The leaders also agreed to study the feasibility of exporting Canadian liquefied natural gas to Europe and explore new undersea cables connecting Canada, Europe and Asia.

Canada and the EU will begin negotiations on expanding Canadian participation in Erasmus+, the European student exchange program, and explore ways to make it easier for young people to study and work across the Atlantic.

The two sides also agreed on a new border security arrangement and pledged closer cooperation on defense, cybersecurity, Arctic security and countering foreign interference.

The United States accounted for 71.7% of Canada’s merchandise exports in 2025. Carney wants to double exports to other countries over the next decade.

But conflict, U.S.-China strategic competition, and economic nationalism threaten these opportunities. Sustaining them requires protecting the security, supplies, and rules underpinning commerce.

Governments must de-escalate tensions and, with businesses, understand and address the political objectives behind economic restrictions, assess whether diversification reduces vulnerabilities or creates new ones, and strengthen critical infrastructure. They have a shared interest in defending international law—even when doing so may create friction with the country violating it.

Conflict and coercion 

The U.S. war against Iran has disrupted oil and gas supplies to Southeast Asia, which relies heavily on the Middle East. Higher energy prices raise business costs, squeeze household budgets, and increase loan-default risks.

The Strait of Hormuz has also demonstrated how a strategic waterway can become an instrument of coercion, even for a militarily weaker power.

Developments there serve as a stark warning about the risks of coercion and disruption in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. In August, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore reaffirmed their commitment to keeping those waterways, which carry nearly a quarter of global seaborne trade, free, open, and safe. That commitment does not preclude a littoral government restricting passage, an outside power pressuring it to do so, or a state or non-state actor disrupting shipping.

Economic détente between Washington and Beijing could benefit businesses, but if maintaining it diminishes U.S. commitment to regional security, it could weaken deterrence and undermine the stability commerce depends on. In October 2025, China began its first significant island-building in the South China Sea in almost a decade at Antelope Reef, where it is building a runway; the reef is now China’s largest outpost in the disputed Paracel Islands. In September, China announced the opening of a joint military aviation facility in Laos. China has also expanded its presence in the waters east of Taiwan, where Japan and the Philippines have overlapping exclusive economic zones. A shift in the regional balance of power could increase vulnerability to coercion and affect the rules governing trade and investment.

Strategic rivalry and economic nationalism 

Strategic rivalry has brought gains for Southeast Asian countries able to maneuver for advantage: higher U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods prompted manufacturers to shift production to the region. But U.S. licensing requirements for shipments of certain advanced chips to China can delay or prevent sales by regional distributors. Malaysia, amid U.S. pressure, introduced its own controls, including 30-day advance notification for specified advanced chips moving through or out of the country.

U.S. economic nationalism creates a distinct challenge: Washington’s drive to reduce trade deficits and rebuild American manufacturing extends beyond its rivalry with Beijing. Tariffs have applied across Southeast Asia, including to U.S. allies and partners—even Singapore, with which the United States runs goods and services surpluses. Vietnam, which ran a $178.3 billion goods surplus with the U.S. in 2025, has drawn particular scrutiny.

Legal challenges have not ended this pressure. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s February ruling that the emergency law did not authorize Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, the administration turned to temporary tariff powers and Section 301 investigations into alleged excess manufacturing capacity and failures to adopt or enforce bans on imports made with forced labor. The latter led to July tariffs on all 60 economies investigated, including several in Southeast Asia.

Understanding Washington’s objectives and priorities helps determine what concessions might achieve. The administration has justified tariffs and other restrictions by citing reciprocity, reducing deficits, protecting domestic industry, raising revenue, reducing strategic dependence, and denying capabilities to a rival. Trade concessions may not remove restrictions designed to deny China strategic capabilities. Nor will moving production from China to Vietnam satisfy demands for production in the United States. Unclear or conflicting priorities will complicate responses.

Assess dependencies

Securing multiple suppliers may reduce vulnerabilities, but those suppliers may still rely on the same shipping routes or Taiwanese semiconductor foundries.

The region remains acutely exposed to energy supply disruptions. Businesses cannot yet count on regional arrangements to secure supplies. The revised ASEAN Framework Agreement on Petroleum Security has yet to enter into force; even once it does, assistance during critical oil and gas shortages will remain voluntary and subject to commercial terms. The ASEAN Power Grid could diversify electricity supplies, but a regional system remains elusive nearly three decades after ASEAN leaders called for it.

Nuclear power could reduce fossil-fuel dependence for electricity generation. Vietnam has signed an agreement with Russia for its first plant; an Indonesian company has agreed to buy electricity from two Rosatom floating nuclear units. The Philippines has discussed nuclear cooperation with Russia. Russian reactors, however, could create long-term dependence on Moscow for technology, nuclear fuel, spare parts, and technical support.

Energy insecurity has lent urgency to Philippine-Chinese talks on joint oil and gas development in the South China Sea. Yet any deal’s benefits must be weighed against its implications for Philippine maritime rights and potential dependence on Beijing.

Strengthen systems and uphold rules

Resilience can contribute to deterrence by reducing what hostile actors expect to gain from disruption. Governments must work with owners and operators to strengthen critical infrastructure, including subsea cables, ports and data centers. A World Economic Forum report to which I contributed advocates joint vulnerability assessments, standards setting, communication mechanisms, and response planning.

The rules underpinning commerce also need defending: economic rules provide predictability and recourse, while international law protects freedom of the seas and constrains the use of force. Upholding international law may cause friction, but countries should remain steadfast. Not wanting to choose sides should not be an excuse for failing to defend the rules: this is not about alignment with any country. Keeping Southeast Asia’s commercial options open will require taking a stand to defend rules that support peace and prosperity.

Lynn Kuok will be speaking at the Southeast Asia 500 Summit on Nov. 3 in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Join executives from the Fortune Southeast Asia 500, policymakers, and investors to examine the forces reshaping one of the world’s most important growth regions. Apply here.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

That might sound like a lofty ambition for a 19-year-old, but Traina is taking a decidedly practical approach: She’s studying philanthropy at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, the first school of its kind in the world.

She’s part of a growing cohort of students doing the same. Over the past decade, enrollment at the school has grown more than 300% from about 50 students to roughly 230, as students explore careers in nonprofits, foundations, corporations, and government. The school says it has had a 100% job placement rate for the past three years—a higher rate than the university’s business school students. 

The growth comes as more young people look for careers that offer something beyond a paycheck and a chance to make a tangible difference. And in a world where wealth is increasingly concentrated among the richest Americans, philanthropy is becoming an important part of the conversation about how money and resources can be put to work for the public good.

Meanwhile, the $124 trillion Great Wealth Transfer—the passing down of baby boomer fortunes to younger generations—begs the question of how philanthropy will look in the future. Will millennials and Gen Z carry on the traditions of their family fortunes, or will they chart their own path?

These are the types of questions a philanthropy education can explore, as well as how the wealthy are filling the void left by the federal government, which has pulled back funding for nonprofits and higher education institutions. 

Gen Z wants to make a difference and make a living—and philanthropy could offer both

Indiana University’s roots in philanthropy education go back decades. The university formally organized its fundraising teaching and research into an academic center in 1987. A quarter-century later, in 2012, it was established into an official philanthropy-focused school, making it the first place in the world dedicated exclusively to the study and teaching of the subject. Today, it is one of the few places where students can earn a bachelor’s, master’s, or Ph.D. specifically focused on philanthropy.

The school’s development has been supported by the Lilly Endowment—established in 1937 by the family of pharmaceutical executive Eli Lilly—since 1988. It views philanthropy and the nonprofit sector as important complements to government and business in promoting the public good.

“We hope that as these students prepare for careers in philanthropy, they are also discovering what it means for them to live lives of meaning and purpose and how they can help others do so as well,” an endowment spokesperson told Fortune.

That philosophy carries into the classroom. Traina’s classes range from the history of philanthropy to storytelling for social change. In one course, she and six classmates decided how to distribute a real $10,000 grant. 

“When I wake up every day and I want to help achieve impact… I want to keep moving that needle to where there are less people suffering and without basic human needs,” Traina said.

After graduation, she hopes to work in impact evaluation, helping nonprofits measure whether their programs are making a difference. Traina’s ambitions reflect a broader sentiment among Gen Z. A survey released this summer by the Walton Family Foundation, established by Walmart founders Sam Walton and his wife Helen, found that 79% of Gen Z hope to find a future job primarily focused on helping others or making a positive difference in people’s lives.

That desire is not only shaping what young people study but also where they work—and where they don’t. Forty-four percent of Gen Z said they had left a job they felt lacked purpose, while around 40% had rejected a potential employer for similar reasons, according to a 2025 Deloitte survey.

And there are plenty of opportunities to pursue that purpose. Nonprofits employed about 12.8 million workers in 2022, accounting for nearly 10% of all private-sector jobs, according to an analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Still, Amir Pasic, dean of IU’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, said the sector faces a persistent misbelief: that meaningful work comes at the expense of a viable career.

“There’s still this misconception that if you go into philanthropy or the nonprofit sector that you are going to be offering to work for free, basically… ‘Aren’t you sweet to have such a warm heart?’” Pasic said. 

The reality is more complicated. Nearly two-thirds of nonprofit workers earn more than $75,000 a year—about 15% more than the average U.S. salary—and philanthropy-related roles at some Fortune 500 companies can reach well into six-figures. Walmart, for instance, has advertised a grant manager role in Arkansas paying up to $180,000, while a Microsoft job has offered compensation of up to $275,000 for a recent community affairs role.

For Traina, the potential payoff of her studies goes beyond a paycheck: “If you regret the degree, the worst you’re gonna have is you’re gonna know how to help people and how to impact society and create change.”

Philanthropy as a career switch

Patrick Lindenmeyer took a less traditional route into the field. He spent nearly 17 years in financial services helping clients grow and structure their wealth. Many of them wanted to be generous with their money, he told Fortune.

Then the pandemic hit. It pushed him to rethink what he wanted from the second half of his career, and the part of his job he’d always enjoyed most was helping clients figure out how to direct their money toward causes they cared about.

“The financial services career really gave me the technical ability [of asking] how, like how do we best structure assets? How do we best leverage impact?” Lindenmeyer said. “But the school of philanthropy really helped me with the why behind why individuals want to make this impact, and what does that look like.”

He enrolled in the school’s online master’s program in philanthropic studies, taking one course per semester while working full time. Midway through the program, he landed what he called his dream job: gift planning officer at the University of Notre Dame, where he helps families build giving into their estate plans through tools like donor-advised funds and charitable remainder trusts. Several of his Notre Dame colleagues have also completed the IU degree or are working on it, he said. 

Lindenmeyer is now also pursuing a master’s in nonprofit administration at Notre Dame, which he expects to finish in 2028. Plenty of universities teach the business side of running a nonprofit, he said, but IU’s program focuses on what drives donors to give. Overall, he encourages others at any point in their career to explore studying philanthropy.

“People that are looking for true, meaningful work, work that creates an impact and something that they can truly see, I think that this is something worth exploring,” he said. “That certainly wasn’t on my radar … 25 years ago when I entered college as an undergrad.”

Continued wealth growth could exponentially expand philanthropy’s reach

From a wealth and giving standpoint, philanthropy could be on the cusp of a major expansion.

In 2025, billionaire wealth surged more than 16%—three times faster than its average growth over the previous five years—and reached a record $18.3 trillion, according to Oxfam. Charitable giving also reached a record $617.2 billion in 2025, but rose just 3% after adjusting for inflation, according to Giving USA.

The gap between the wealth billionaires have grown and what they’re giving has fueled criticism that the ultrawealthy are giving too slowly. MacKenzie Scott remains a notable exception: She has given away more than $26 billion, and alone accounted for one-third of America’s megagifts last year.

Since then, the fortunes of many of the world’s wealthiest people have continued to grow, fueled in part by soaring tech stocks and optimism around AI. Take Jensen Huang, for example. The billionaire Nvidia CEO donated $75 million to Vanderbilt University.

For Pasic, that presents an opportunity for students at Indiana University to help shape how such wealth is put to work, particularly as younger heirs push their families to give away more money, sooner. 

“The anticipated large windfalls that will come through the AI industry,” Pasic said. “There’s this problem of money on the sidelines, to which more is going to be added pretty soon.” 

And while the $124 trillion Great Wealth Transfer has the power to change philanthropy as we know it, that handoff isn’t completely solidified. Wealthy Americans are growing less confident their heirs will carry on their family’s charitable giving, according to a 2026 Bank of America Private Bank study. But perhaps that’s where philanthropic education will play a larger role.

Lindenmeyer sees firsthand how aging baby boomers are deciding where their wealth goes next.

“We had always talked about the great wealth transfer,” he said. “First it was … the retirement boom for the baby boomers and what that was going to look like, and then now as they’re aging and passing away, what does this transfer of wealth look like?”

Labor share, or the portion of the U.S.’s economic output that workers receive through salary and wages, decreased to 52.8% in the second quarter of 2026, its lowest level since the BLS started recording this data in 1947, according to its labor productivity and costs report. In the previous quarter, labor share was at 53.6%. This decade, the labor share average was about 55.6%.

That’s despite corporate earnings skyrocketing, with profits for Fortune 500 companies hitting a record $2.1 trillion in 2025. The U.S. GDP grew 3.4% in the third quarter last year, exceeding economists’ predictions. 

That growth has not only come at the expense of how much of the pie of wealth workers are taking home, but also how many Americans are in the workforce, economists warn.

“That decline in the share of labor has got to be either falling earnings or falling numbers of people,” Raymond Robertson, a labor economist at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government, told Fortune. “The falling share of income is having to do with the shift towards capital.”

Indeed, there are growing signs that as national income balloons, the U.S. workforce is deflating. Unemployment ticked up to 4.2% in September, and employers added just 584,000 jobs in 2025 compared to 2 million added in 2024. The U.S. added 29,000 jobs in September, about one-third of economists’ projections.

The bifurcation of corporate victories and weak labor data raises concerns among economists of jobless growth jeopardizing the U.S. workforce, as well as a K-shaped economy, where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, becoming more exaggerated.

“Data right now is very mixed,” Robertson said. “But I think it also all consistently points to this idea that things are getting worse for workers and much better for billionaires.”

What is causing jobless growth?

Robertson attributes weakening labor share averages to the rise in automation, which he noted is displacing workers, with productivity—a metric essentially measuring worker output—continuing to rise. Second-quarter GDP data showed nonfarm productivity growth grew 1.4% last quarter, though the rate has slowed from 2.2% in the same quarter a year ago.

“All these things, bit by bit, are replacing people, and they’re concentrating income and their share of capital,” he said.

Goldman Sachs analysts Joseph Briggs and Sarah Dong estimated in a report, based on Department of Labor job numbers, that AI automation could displace 25% of all work hours. They predicted that over the course of the AI adoption period, a 15% increase in AI-driven productivity would displace 6% to 7% of jobs, and, at its peak, a 1 million increase in unemployed workers, though job displacement as a result of AI has not shown up meaningfully in any economic data.

The displacement could be substantial, the analysts said, but said the impacts of automation will be tempered by a wealth of new jobs created as a result of the technological changes.

Automation is expected to be a boon to corporate profits and GDP, projected to boost GDP by 1.5% by 2035, according to a Wharton brief published in September 2025. Early signs indicate AI could drive productivity gains, with around 80% of employees reporting AI makes them faster at specific tasks, but only 37% of companies seeing an impact of that productivity on operating profits, according to McKinsey data, and AI operating costs continue to constrain its deployment.

Robertson added that growing unemployment, which he expects to see rise over the next few months, keeps wages down, allowing margins and profits to expand.

To be sure, the recent productivity surge has been an “open question,” Morgan Stanley economists have argued, not unanimously attributed to increased adoption of AI or automation. The analysts suggested this increase would be cyclical, or vestiges of pandemic-era habits of companies making more from less.

An Oxford Economists research brief from earlier this year suggested companies are disguising overhiring-related layoffs as a result of AI, but said automation-related workforce reductions have not yet happened en masse. Additionally, while unemployment has been ticking up over the past year, it is still relatively low.

Why is an immigration crackdown backfiring on U.S. labor?

Mark Regets, senior fellow at National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), sees a different reason for a slowing workforce. He told Fortune President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown has not done what Trump administration officials, such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, said it would in increasing the number of U.S.-born workers. Instead, according to Regets, Trump’s immigration policies have not only decimated the foreign-born workforce, but has also created fewer opportunities for domestic-born workers to find jobs.

NFAP data shows a 1.1 million to 1.4 million-person reduction in the foreign-born workforce since January 2025, consistent with the Congressional Budget Office’s report last year indicating shrinking U.S. population growth as a result of migrants being deported or refusing to come to the U.S. out of fear of hostile polities.

“The data is raising huge red flags that we are losing immigrants of all types that we otherwise would be advancing America’s economy,” Regets said.

Recent BLS data is counter-evidence to Miller’s argument that harsher immigration policy would grow the U.S. workforce. The labor participation rate for foreign-born workers fell from 66.3% to 66% from September 2025 to September 2026, and labor participation for native-born workers has similarly fallen from 61.6% to 60.9% over the same period. Fewer immigrant workers may actually make it harder for U.S.-born individuals to find work.

“A company unable to find the workers it needs for some roles could shut down operations rather than continuing,” Regets said.

He noted skillset diversity in a workplace could boost productivity and justify employing more people. Greater immigration can also increase consumer spending and stimulate businesses, as well as encourage businesses to take advantage of ample labor market availability and seek out their labor instead of offshoring jobs.

How does the U.S. reverse a shrinking labor force?

While friendlier immigration policies could help reverse an exodus of foreign-born workers, Robertson said addressing the workplace automation push would be key to growing the U.S. workforce.

“There are trades that are technology-assisted,” he said. “Those are going to be in higher demand, but you really still have to have a significant investment in skills.”

The young generation of workers are already prepared to adapt to a changing labor landscape. Gen Z are flocking to trade schools in hopes of a finding a job as a carpenter or welder not so easily outsourced by AI, and in 2024, enrollment in vocation-based community colleges increased 16%, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse. 

Companies have taken it upon themselves to provide reskilling opportunities to employees. A CareerTrainer survey from June found that 72% of hiring managers intended to reskill employees. While the U.S. Department of Labor updated guidelines to encourage states to adapt workplace development systems, Robertson argued the government hasn’t done enough in several decades to imbue the workforce with necessary skillsets for future jobs.

“Democrats and Republicans have not significantly invested in training [or] the retraining or active labor market programs that you need to match workers to jobs,” Robertson said. “That’s the obvious solution.”

Without changes, economists see the pattern of an employment slowdown continuing, but with greater concern about the ability for the U.S. economy to sustain growth.

“We need job growth to have a growing economy, and I think we need job growth to pay our debts,” Regets said. “I don’t know how you have job growth with a shrinking labor force.”

A version of this story was published on Fortune.com on Jan. 13, 2026.

More on the American workforce and wages:

• Goldman says the economy is rewarding capital ownership over labor—and most Americans don’t own enough of it to benefit
• Trump’s farmworker pay cut moved $2.5 billion a year from workers to growers. A judge says it’s illegal, and back pay could follow
• The minimum wage is now the lowest it’s been in 70 years—making the federal wage floor ‘officially a poverty wage,’ report finds

Current refi rates data

Note that Fortune reviewed the most recent Mortgage Research Center data available as of Oct. 29.

How mortgage refinancing works

Boiled down to the basics, a mortgage refinance replaces your existing home loan with a new one. As when you applied for a mortgage to purchase your home, you’ll need to apply and meet lender criteria regarding your credit profile, proof of income, your debt-to-income (DTI) ratio, and more. This process typically results in a small hit to your credit score due to a hard inquiry. And, be aware there’s a risk of denial if you don’t meet the lender’s requirements.

---

---

What’s happening with mortgage rates in today’s market?

Some market watchers had hoped that mortgage interest rates would fall as the Federal Reserve made several cuts to the federal funds rate in late 2024. However, that didn’t happen, and mortgage rates remained stubbornly near the 7% mark—considering the nationwide average for 30-year, fixed-rate loans—for months. 

Rates have long remained well above the pandemic-era lows, when some homeowners were able to get rates in the 2% or 3% ranges. A report from Redfin showed that as of the third quarter of 2024, 82.8% of homeowners with a mortgage had a rate below 6%. Many have been essentially locked in with their existing home loans, unable or unwilling to move or refinance in the current environment.

But homeowners finally got a little relief starting in late August and early September of 2025. Mortgage rates dropped in a noticeable way ahead of the September 2025 Fed meeting, where the central bank delivered a widely anticipated rate cut of a quarter percentage point. Then, the Fed followed up with a second cut of a quarter percentage point at the end of October and a third in early December.

However, rates ticked upward in March 2026 after the Trump administration launched Operation Epic Fury in Iran at the end of February, accompanied by a spike in gas prices and widespread uncertainty about the economy in general. Mortgage rates briefly looked as if they’d drop after the U.S. and Iran announced a ceasefire in June 2026, but overall have remained elevated. They ticked up slightly after the ceasefire appeared to fall apart in July 2026.

The Fed raised its benchmark rate in September 2026 for the first time since 2023. Given the environment of stubborn inflation and economic uncertainty, mortgage borrowers aren’t likely to see significantly lower rates any time soon.

When it might make sense to refinance your mortgage

As we’ll cover more in the section below this one, it’s not free to refi your home loan. So, when does it make sense to accept the upfront costs and refinance? 

One rule of thumb many experts use is that if you can get a new rate a full percentage point lower than the one you have right now, it’s probably worth refinancing. Using recent market conditions as an example, someone who took out a home loan at 7% should strongly consider a refi if market conditions are in a place where that homeowner could now get a 6% rate.

It may also be strategic to refinance if you want to tap your home equity through a cash-out refi. Be aware you’ll typically need to have at least 20% equity in your home to be able to do this. So, for those who got into their home with the 5% minimum down payment generally available on conventional mortgages, it could take a while before you’re in a place to leverage a cash-out refi. 

Yet another case where a refi can help is to change your loan term. For example, maybe you applied for a 15-year mortgage when you bought the home, knowing that in exchange for higher monthly payments you’d save a boatload on interest charges over time. But then, your circumstances changed and now your monthly payments are stretching your budget. Refinancing to a 30-year loan might give you much-needed flexibility to make lower payments in that situation.

You may also wish to refi if you’re hoping to switch loan types. Maybe you have an FHA loan with lifetime mortgage insurance (called MIP on this type of loan) requirements, and you want to switch to a conventional loan to get rid of this. Or perhaps you took out an adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) but now you’ve decided to stay in the home for a longer time and don’t want to deal with the chance of rate hikes during the adjustment period. In that case, refinancing to a fixed-rate home loan could make sense. 

Costs to refinance your mortgage

Much like the traditional home loan you likely took out to buy your house, refinancing a mortgage involves closing costs that can run about 2% to 6% of the loan amount. For instance, if you do a rate-and-term refi on a $300,000 loan, you might pay anywhere from $6,000 to $18,000 in refi closing costs.

Here are some costs you might see listed on your refinance loan estimate:

• Lender origination fees.
• Appraisal fees.
• Title search and insurance fees.
• Loan application fees.
• Survey fees.
• Attorney fees (if required in your state).
• Recording fees.
• Prepayment penalties (if your current loan servicer charges one).

---

---

Different types of mortgage refi loans

There are many types of mortgage refinance loans available, and the one you need will depend on your goals and also on your existing mortgage. Here are some common refi options to consider:

• Rate-and-term refinance: This is likely the most popular refi option and offers a chance to lower your interest rate and/or get a different loan term. Just know if you opt for a shorter loan term, while that typically earns you a lower rate and also hefty lifetime interest savings, you’ll be committing to higher monthly payments.
• Cash-out refinance: With a cash-out refi, you tap your home’s equity by replacing your existing loan balance with a larger one and taking the difference in cash. You can use the money for home improvements, consolidating high-interest debt, or virtually any other financial goal.
• No-closing-cost refinance: With this type of refi, the lender covers closing costs but charges you a higher interest rate. If you don’t have cash upfront for closing costs and think you could otherwise benefit from a refinance, this option may be worth a look. But approach it with careful scrutiny.
• Streamline refinance: These are generally available to existing FHA, VA and USDA loan borrowers, and will typically involve less documentation and a more straightforward application and approval process.

Refinancing with your existing lender vs. a new one

You’re not obligated to stick with the lender you got your original mortgage from when you refi. In fact, it’s probably worth shopping around for the lowest rate and best service you can find. 

However, some lenders may offer incentives if you stay with them, such as waiving a portion of the closing costs. Since these upfront charges can be something of a barrier to those who want to refinance, incentives can make a refi more feasible, and it’s worth broaching the conversation with your lender.

Lastly, know that if your mortgage was purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, you might be eligible for programs like Refi Now and Refi Possible.