The Worst Performing Stocks In The S&P 500 So Far, From Boeing To Intel

KEY FACTS

Drugstore chain Walgreens was the worst-performing company in the S&P 500, a benchmark that tracks the share prices of the 500 largest U.S. companies. In the first six months of the year, Walgreens’ stock price halved to its lowest level since the mid-1990s, coinciding with the company’s plans to close up to a quarter of its locations as analysts predicted Walgreens’ worst annual profit since 2013.
Lululemon, the high-end athletic apparel company, is the second-worst performing stock YTD on the S&P, as analysts expect the retailer to report its worst annual revenue growth since Lululemon went public in 2007 ., other than the fiscal year ending in January. 2021.
Intel, the S&P’s third-worst performer, was perhaps the most surprising loser, given that rival Nvidia and other silicon chip companies have been among the best-returning investments this year amid the AI frenzy. Intel’s stock has largely been a victim of the company’s prolonged decline in business competition has intensified, with some analysts going so far as to declare Intel a “broken company.” Intel’s first-quarter earnings of $1.8 billion before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization were the second worst first quarter since at least 2000, an improvement over last year’s EBITDA of $962 million. , but represents an 82% drop from $10.3 billion in the first quarter of 2020. For reference, Nvidia’s net profit for the spring quarter rose from $1.1 billion to $17.3 billion from 2020 to 2024
Boeing, the 10th largest returner in the S&P, certainly wasn’t shockingly low. Its stock market woes came as the airline faced what has become a public relations nightmare after several of its commercial jets broke down. That led to a Justice Department investigation, a congressional hearing focused on its problems, and this spring its worst quarterly earnings in eight quarters. All of this has disappointed investors, and Boeing is on a five-year streak of negative earnings.
For shares of entertainment giants Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount Global, the fifth and twelfth biggest losers in the S&P, respectively, had a far from picture-perfect 2024 as both HBO parent WBD and CBS parent Paramount struggled with shaky balance sheets. WBD and Paramount reported net losses of $966 million and $563 million, respectively, in the first quarter — far worse than Wall Street’s Hollywood darling Netflix’s net income of $2.2 billion.
Such negative headlines weighed on entertainment conglomerates, and the expected loss of WBD’s NBA rights led to a 10% one-day selloff on April 30, while Paramount shares tumbled 8% on June 11 after the company ended talks to sell Skydance Media, managed by the son of billionaire Larry Ellison – David Ellison.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Breaking news