The Street

Albertsons Companies (ACI) opened Thursday, July 23, at $12.50, more than $2 below Wednesday’s close of $14.60. By midday, the stock traded near $11.38, down about 22% and sitting on a fresh 52-week low of$11.02.Grocery stocks are supposed to be the boring ones. People eat in good times and bad, which is why the sector gets treated as a place to hide when the economy wobbles.Thursday broke that assumption.The company that runs Safeway, Vons, Jewel-Osco, and 19 other banners told investors its shoppers are pulling back, and it cut its profit forecast by roughly 21%.What Albertsons actually reported in the first quarterAccording to Albertsons’ earnings release, the company earned $84.7 million, or 17 cents per share, in the 16 weeks that ended on June 20. That’s down from $236.4 million and 41 cents a year earlier.Adjusted earnings came in at 42 cents per share against 55 cents last year.Revenue barely moved, rising 0.2% to $24.94 billion, and the increase came from fuel sales rather than groceries.Identical sales, which track stores open in both periods, fell 0.8%.That identical sales figure is the one that stung, because it means the same stores sold less food to the same shoppers.

Albertsons said lower-income shoppers are trading down to private label and cheaper proteins, pressuring both units and basket sizes.Cheng Xin / Getty Images

Why the guidance cut hit harder than the earnings missAlbertsons now expects adjusted earnings of $1.75 to $1.85 per share for fiscal 2026, down from $2.22 to $2.32.The midpoint of $1.80 lands well below the $2.27 analysts had predicted, Yahoo Finance reported.Adjusted EBITDA guidance dropped to a range of $3.55 billion to $3.625 billion from $3.85 billion to $3.925 billion.Identical sales guidance flipped from growth of 0% to 1% into a decline of 0.5% to 1.5%.A missed quarter is simply one bad report, but a guidance cut of this size tells investors the company expects the pressure to last through February.The consumer signal buried in the numbersAlbertsons Chief Financial Officer Sharon McCollam gave the detail that matters most on the earnings call.She said the sales decline was sharpest among lower-income customers. Albertsons saw weakness in both the number of items bought and the size of the basket, Yahoo Finance reported.More Retail Stocks:Kroger just shook up the supermarket landscapeKroger stock slide reveals bigger grocery problemKraft Heinz bet inflation peaked, but your cookout bill disagreesChief Executive Susan Morris added that those shoppers are moving to private label, value packaging, and cheaper proteins. She also said Albertsons is losing them mainly to Walmart (WMT), Amazon (AMZN), and Aldi.That is a market-share problem dressed up as a macro problem.Two adjustments soften the headline figure. Pharmacy pricing tied to the Inflation Reduction Act cost about 100 basis points, and egg deflation cost another 50 basis points.Strip those out, and identical sales rose about 0.7%.The stock still fell 22%, which tells you Wall Street cared more about the trajectory than the adjustments.Albertsons is rebuilding its operating structure mid-slumpAlongside the results, Albertsons announced ACI Edge, a restructuring that collapses 11 operating divisions into four regions covering California, the West, the South, and the East.Center-store merchandising, which is the packaged goods that fill the middle aisles, moves under a single enterprise team.Related: Kroger changed its loyalty rewards program, but shoppers need to be waryThe company expects roughly $200 million in annual run-rate benefits, with most arriving in 2027 and about $50 millionin transition costs spread across two years.Morris said the savings will fund price investments rather than flow to the bottom line.She was also specific about what those investments are not. Albertsons is not shifting to everyday low pricing and is not running broad discounts.Instead, the company is targeting particular markets and categories where shoppers compare prices closely.The CFO exit that complicated the earnings releaseAlbertsons disclosed on the same day that McCollam, who joined in 2021 and serves as president and CFO, plans to retire later this year.Morris said Albertsons is searching for her successor and will consider both internal and external candidates.Announcing a turnaround plan, a guidance cut, and a CFO departure in one press release forces investors to consider all three at once. The market’s response was selling.What is actually working inside the businessThe quarter was not entirely weak, and three areas grew.Digital sales rose 13%, with digital penetration reaching nearly 10.5% of the business.E-commerce turned profitable in the quarter, including both first-party and third-party operations.Pharmacy is profitable on a stand-alone basis, with growth in scripts, immunizations, and clinical services.Retail media revenue also grew, helped by new display placements and sponsored product listings inside AI-powered search.The catch is that e-commerce carries a lower gross margin rate than in-store grocery, so growth there dilutes company margins, even while adding profit dollars. Gross margin fell to 26.6% from 27.1%, driven largely by delivery and handling costs.Where Wall Street stood going into the reportAnalysts were already cautious. Before Thursday, eight analysts carried an average target of $17.43.Morgan Stanley’s Simeon Gutman held a sell rating with a $14 target as of July 16, while Telsey Advisory’s Joe Feldman maintained a buy with a $22 target on July 17.JP Morgan trimmed its target to $20from $22 on June 30 while keeping an overweight rating, GuruFocus noted.Every one of those targets was set against guidance that no longer exists, so expect revisions in the coming days.What investors should watch from hereACI now trades below every published analyst target, including Morgan Stanley’s Street-low $14. However, that does not make it cheap, because the earnings base underneath it just moved.4 things need to happen before the Albertsons bullish case works:Identical sales turn positive on a reported basis, not just after adjusting for pharmacy and eggs.The $200 million in ACI Edge savings shows up on schedule in 2027.Price investments win back lower-income traffic, rather than simply lowering margins.A permanent CFO is named who can defend the new guidance.Albertsons will pay its next quarterly dividend of 17 cents per share on Aug. 7. The company also bought back13.4 million shares for $226.5 million during the quarter, part of a $2.0 billion buyback plan.Those returns are funded from a shrinking profit base, and the net debt ratio has climbed to 2.33 from 1.96 a year ago.For shoppers, the price cuts Albertsons described should show up on shelves in specific categories over the coming months. For investors, the next real test is the second-quarter report, when management has to show whether shoppers keep buying cheaper options or start spending normally again.Related: Amazon has one weakness Walmart is quietly using against it

Are autonomous vehicles like Waymo really safer than human drivers?That’s the question some of the biggest tech companies in the world are investing billions of dollars to answer. Alphabet owns Waymo, Amazon owns Zoox, and Tesla has its own Robotaxi division.The advantages robots have over human drivers are apparent. Robotaxis don’t drink and drive, don’t drive while tired, don’t drive distracted, and don’t get vengeful when someone cuts them off.Half of U.S. states reported discernible blood alcohol concentration for at least 70% of fatally injured passenger-vehicle drivers in 2023, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). So it’s clear that eliminating drunken driving would significantly improve road safety. And clearing the roads of people whose driving ability is impaired for other reasons puts us well on our way to a transportation utopia.On the other hand, driverless vehicles have displayed some disturbing patterns as they accumulate more miles on the road, leading to some awkward interactions with human drivers and even some dangerous situations with children and pedestrians.So the IIHS conducted a study to find out once and for all: Is Waymo safer than human drivers?Waymo cars were involved in nearly 70% fewer crashes than humansWaymo driverless vehicles deployed in San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Austin were involved in 68% fewer crashes than human drivers per vehicle mile traveled (VMT), according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.“The results show that, on a limited scale, these driverless cars are safer than human drivers — who can be impaired or drowsy or suffer lapses in attention,” IIHS President David Harkey said.Researchers estimated that only 22% of the 736 public-road crashes in which automation was engaged between 2021 and 2024 were likely police-reportable, including 89 crashes involving Waymo vehicles. Waymo’s crash involvement was 76% lower in Phoenix, 35% lower in San Francisco, and 71% lower in Los Angeles, but was 4% higher in Austin, though the sample size there was relatively small.Waymo vehicles were involved in 85% fewer single-vehicle crashes and 81% fewer injury crashes per VMT.But before futurists declare the discussion about safety over, the study came with a major caveat: “However, the present data collection system isn’t good enough to allow continuous monitoring of a large-scale expansion.”The data used in the study go back to 2021, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began requiring self-driving cars on public roads to report crash involvements that result in fatalities, injuries, or property damage of any severity.But while companies are required to report crash data, they are not obligated to report the miles they log or whether such miles involved a human driver. Waymo provides that information voluntarily, but its competitors do not, making a holistic assessment impossible. “Even with the mileage data that Waymo provides, a direct comparison with the crash rates of humans is impossible without time-consuming operations to account for the differences between the reports required by the SGO and what humans report,” the IIHS said. Meanwhile, human drivers are not required to report crashes that result in no injuries or less than $1,000 in property damage to the police. According to IIHS, about half of all crashes and a third of injury crashes by humans go unreported. Waymo says that the IIHS report validates the company’s own analysis of the first 56.7 million miles of fully autonomous driving under its belt. Waymo’s own number showed its vehicles were involved in 79% fewer injury crashes compared to human drivers. “We welcome this new research from IIHS, which confirms our previous peer-reviewed analyses and reinforces the significant safety benefits of the Waymo Driver,” a Waymo spokesperson told TheStreet. “We also support the authors’ recommendation for more robust reporting requirements for AV operators — requirements that Waymo already voluntarily meets.”

A new IIHS study noted that the present data collection system isn’t good enough to draw firm conclusions on the safety of autonomous vehicles versus human drivers.Josep LAGO / AFP via Getty Images

U.S. senators question Tesla FSD safety dataIn May, Reuters reported that Tesla was exaggerating its safety claims for FSD and that it is using a team of “data labelers” to help improve the AI that powers FSD.Based on this revelation, Elon Musk’s declaration that FSD is already up to 10 times safer than human drivers and ready for more widespread adoption may ring hollow.So Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent a letter to the National Highway Traffic Administration saying the Reuters report exposes “dangerous gaps” in its autonomous vehicle data collection.“Tesla has repeatedly told investors, consumers, and the public that FSD is far safer than human driving, but the data analysis justifying those claims is weak and misleading. These representations are not merely marketing claims; they may shape how drivers use Tesla’s FSD, how the public understands the risks of the technology, and how regulators evaluate potential safety defects,” the letter stated.According to the letter, Tesla’s data justifying the “10 times safer” claim is flawed for several reasons, including:Comparing unlike crash outcomes that made Tesla look betterComparing newer Tesla vehicles to the entire U.S. vehicle fleetCounting FSD-involved crashes only if it is active at the time of crash or within five seconds. The NHTSA uses a 30-second time threshold for all ADAS systemsRelying on incomplete automated telemetryTesla is cooking the books, according to the senators, and the NHTSA has not been able to get the real data it needs, which makes the whole situation more dangerous for drivers.“The push to allow more autonomous vehicles on public roads depends heavily on the claim that these driving systems are safer than human drivers,” the letter stated.“To the extent that Tesla or other vehicle manufacturers are misleading the public about their safety data, however, consumers may choose to purchase or ride in an AV based on the unproven expectation that they are safer than non-autonomous vehicles. This type of information asymmetry is a classic market failure, which will likely result in more AVs on the road — and potentially more traffic injuries and fatalities if those systems are not in fact as safe as they claimed.”Currently, the NHTSA does not require vehicle manufacturers to submit data on the number of vehicles they operate, the distances they travel, and other data that could help contextualize crash rates.They say that is the type of data that “would help prove or disprove Tesla’s safety claims.”For this reason, the senators are asking the agency to “significantly expand autonomous vehicle data reporting requirements.”Related: Waymo shows it learned critical lesson from previous blackouts

The U.S. Department of Defense has entered an aggressive new era of spending this year. Before launching into its massive new tech overhauls, it kicked off the momentum with a $266 million firm-fixed-price contract awarded to Rocket Lab for 12 suborbital launches. But aerospace isn’t the only sector cashing in on this modernization push; legacy enterprise software is also securing massive wins.Oracle spent the first half of 2026 fighting a narrative about debt. The stock lost roughly a third of its value between January and July as investors questioned whether the company could afford its AI data center buildout, according to The Motley Fool.On Thursday, July 23, Oracle landed a 10-year, nearly $7 billion contract with the U.S. Department of Defense, and the market barely blinked.That gap between the size of the deal and the size of the reaction is the real story. It says less about Oracle’s government business, which is healthy, and instead highlights what investors actually worry about heading into the back half of the year.Consolidating a decade of Defense spendingThe Pentagon awarded Oracle a 10-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract on July 23, according to a press release distributed through the agency’s Enterprise Software Initiative.The base value covers $3.31 billion over the first five years, rising to $6.99 billion if the department exercises all five option years, the release states.The agreement covers on-premises Oracle software across every military branch, the Coast Guard, and the intelligence community, CNBC reported.Related: Analyst sends chilling Oracle stock verdictIt was negotiated by the Department of the Navy as a non-competitive direct award and marks the department’s first ever direct contract with Oracle for its on-premises tools.Oracle’s relationship with the department is not new. The CIA was Oracle’s first customer decades ago, CNBC noted, and the company has sold into the military since the 1990s. What changed is the structure, not the relationship.Scale explains why that structure matters. The Department of Defense employs more than 3.4 million civilians and service members across dozens of agencies and branches.Before this contract, that workforce bought Oracle software through scattered, one-off purchases instead of a single framework.

Oracle secured a 10-year Pentagon software contract worth up to $6.99 billion, but shares rose only 2% to 3% as debt concerns continued to weigh on the stock.Douglas Rissing / Getty Images

Wall Street’s muted reaction reveals what investors are pricingOracle (ORCL) shares rose about 2% to 3% in extended trading on Thursday, July 23. For a contract that can reach $7 billion, that is a modest move.Context explains why. Oracle just closed its worst week since the 2001 dot-com bust in late June, falling 19% in five trading days as investors focused on its balance sheet, CNBC reported.The company was carrying about $130 billion in debt as of late May, with capital spending up 162 percent to nearly $56 billion for the fiscal year, CNBC found.Oracle has also said it plans to raise another $40 billion through debt and equity in fiscal 2027 to keep funding data centers, Motley Fool reported.A government contract, however large, does not resolve that math. It adds a predictable revenue stream to a story that has otherwise been about unpredictable, debt-funded AI capacity, and investors appear to be treating the two as separate questions rather than one offsetting the other.A direct access to government advantageThe Pentagon signed a similarly sized enterprise software agreement in May, but the comparison is not to Oracle’s biggest AI rivals.That deal, worth $9.69 billion over five years, covers Microsoft 365 and Azure licensing, and it was awarded to Dell Federal Systems, not Microsoft, CNBC reported at the time. Dell manages the licensing relationship on Microsoft’s behalf.More Oracle:Mizuho sends intriguing Oracle stock message after 38% dropOracle stock makes rattling move after major setbackOracle stock falls for a seventh session as filing risk landsOracle’s contract skips that layer entirely. The department is buying straight from Oracle, a structural difference that gives Oracle more direct control over how the relationship evolves, more visibility into how its software actually gets used, and more of the margin that would otherwise go to a reseller.That distinction matters beyond this one contract. It suggests Oracle’s decades of entrenched, unglamorous enterprise relationships still carry weight the newer AI infrastructure story does not fully capture.Department of Defense’s fewer, bigger software betsThe Department of Defense has been consolidating its technology purchasing all year, from the Dell-Microsoft agreement in May to a January initiative aimed at accelerating commercial AI adoption across the military.The pattern favors vendors already embedded in government systems over newer entrants trying to break in.For Oracle, that is a quieter kind of advantage than a splashy AI partnership, but a more durable one. Software running inside classified systems is not swapped out easily, regardless of what happens to a company’s stock price.This contract only covers on-premises software, the part of Oracle’s business furthest from the AI data center buildout worrying investors.The next test is whether Oracle can win a similarly structured deal for its cloud and AI products, not just its legacy databases, as defense agencies decide which vendors they trust to run the next decade of military infrastructure. That answer will say more about Oracle’s future than the July 23 contract does.Related: Oracle stock makes rattling move after major setback

Two tankers loaded with Saudi crude turned around in the Red Sea on July 22. They had been heading toward China and India. The Houthis had just claimed strikes on them. Around the same time, Kazakhstan’s oil exports were falling again after the Caspian Pipeline Consortium suspended loadings at its Black Sea terminal because of attacks. Two separate disruptions, two separate shipping corridors, on the same day.Goldman Sachs was already working on a new oil research note. Lead analyst Daan Struyven and his team had been watching the same headlines. By the time the note published, Goldman had a clear message for investors: The price forecast stays at $80 Brent for Q4 2026, according to Investing.com — but the risk around that forecast has shifted. The chances of going higher have increased. The chances of going lower have not.What Goldman Sachs said about oil prices and Red Sea shipping risksThe two events on July 22 are exactly the kind of thing Goldman’s note was built around. Houthi forces claimed strikes on two Saudi oil tankers transiting the Red Sea. The tankers turned around before reaching the Bab-al-Mandab Strait, according to CNBC. At the same time, CPC oil loadings appear to have declined following fresh attacks on tankers at its Black Sea terminal, affecting the pipeline that carries about 80% of Kazakhstan’s crude exports to global markets.Neither development on its own changes the supply picture fundamentally. Together, Goldman says, they’re the kind of incremental pressure that tilts near-term risk to the upside without yet being large enough to move the baseline.Related: U.S. blocks Strait of Hormuz: Here’s what’s next for oil pricesOil flows through the Bab-al-Mandab Strait, the chokepoint connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, have averaged nearly 9 million barrels per day over the past 30 days. That includes roughly 4 million barrels per day that would be extremely hard to reroute if disruptions hit the Bab-al-Mandab, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Suez Canal simultaneously. The Houthis declared a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia, threatening to cut off the kingdom’s Red Sea oil exports entirely, according to CNBC. Saudi loadings at the Yanbu port have stayed stable at around 5 million barrels per day for now. Whether they stay that way depends on whether the Houthis follow through.Why Goldman kept its $80 Brent oil forecast unchangedGoldman didn’t raise its forecast because the baseline still assumes geopolitical tensions gradually ease before Q4. That assumption is doing a lot of work in the model. The bank expects Middle Eastern production to fall in the second half of 2026 as a result of the conflict, which provides support. But two things are pulling the other way.Middle Eastern output came in stronger than expected in June, adding supply the market hadn’t fully priced in. And Goldman downgraded its demand expectations for China, South Korea, and the Middle East after weak consumption data from all three. More Oil & Gas:Drivers face an unpleasant surprise at the gas pumpU.S. blocks Strait of Hormuz: Here’s what’s next for oil pricesA big shift in the U.S. energy market is about to happenThat demand softness takes some pressure off prices even as supply risk rises on the other side.WTI stays at $76 for Q4 2026 under the same unchanged baseline. For 2027, assuming Hormuz stays open, Goldman forecasts Brent at $75 and WTI at $70, with a global surplus of 3.2 million barrels per day. That’s not a bullish picture for next year. But Goldman doesn’t think it translates to a price collapse either, as TheStreet reported.Goldman’s oil price upside scenario and how bad it could getGoldman outlined what happens if the baseline assumption is wrong. If the Strait of Hormuz remains significantly disrupted through 2027, Brent could exceed $120 in Q4 2026 and average around $100 throughout 2027. If disruptions spread simultaneously to the Bab-al-Mandab and the Suez Canal, Goldman estimates an additional $25 of upside on top of that scenario. Gulf oil production would only fully recover by December 2027 in that case, with pipeline extensions helping bridge the gap.There’s also a downside. Brent could fall to the low $60s by the end of 2027 if supply exceeds Goldman’s expectations and demand losses prove more persistent. That scenario looks less likely right now, but it’s there.Goldman also gave investors a specific trade to go with the view. If you want to hedge against persistent Mideast and Russia disruptions, the bank said to go long the December 2026 to March 2027 European diesel/gasoil timespread. That’s the instrument Goldman thinks captures the geopolitical risk most efficiently right now.

Governments are expected to add roughly 1.2 million barrels per day of demand through strategic stockpiling in 2027.Ronaldo/Getty Images

Why Goldman expects oil prices to stay firm through summer 2026Even under the base case, Goldman expects oil to hold most of its recent gains through July and August. Global visible oil stocks have already hit a year-to-date low. Three things are keeping them under pressure.Middle Eastern production is expected to fall in July. Summer travel should add roughly 0.8 million barrels per day of demand in Q3 versus Q2. And strategic petroleum reserve releases have slowed sharply after heavy drawdowns in Q2, with South Korea and Japan now actively rebuilding reserves rather than releasing them. That shift removes a source of supply that had been quietly cushioning the market.Put those together and you get a summer where inventory keeps drawing even if the broader economic backdrop stays mixed.What prevents oil from collapsing even in a 2027 surplusGoldman’s 2027 surplus forecast is 3.2 million barrels per day, assuming Hormuz stays open. That’s a large number. Normally it would drag prices down hard. Goldman doesn’t think it will, and the reasons are specific.Governments are expected to add roughly 1.2 million barrels per day of demand through strategic stockpiling in 2027. U.S. shale economics create a natural floor: sustained prices below roughly $60 a barrel slow drilling and reduce future supply, which tightens the market from the supply side. Both factors together mean Brent probably doesn’t fall much below the high-$60s even in the surplus scenario, as TheStreet reported.Goldman’s bottom line is that the balance of risks points up, not down, especially near-term. The official forecast hasn’t moved yet. But the conditions that would move it higher are building.Related: JPMorgan resets oil price target for rest of 2026

Every industry builds a room where it keeps the dangerous thing. Chemical plants have containment vessels. Banks have vaults.Artificial intelligence (AI) labs have sandboxes, sealed computing environments where a model can be pushed to its limits without touching anything real.The rule is simple. Whatever happens inside the sandbox stays inside the sandbox.Testing a model’s hacking ability makes that rule load-bearing, because the test only works if you switch off the safety refusals that would normally stop the model cold.So the lab builds the tightest box it can, strips the guardrails, points the model at a target, and measures what it does next.The results usually surface months later as a benchmark score in a research paper, discussed at conferences by people who speak in acronyms.Nobody outside the labs pays much attention, and for about three years, the arrangement has held well enough that nobody needed to.It stopped holding this month.OpenAI disclosed on July 21 that a combination of its own models chewed through containment during an internal evaluation, reached the open internet, and broke into Hugging Face, the unaffiliated platform where much of the world’s open-source AI is hosted.Neither company is publicly traded. That has not stopped the disclosure from landing on the desk of every chief information security officer with a budget.Why AI security spending is already a board-level problemStart with the money, because the money explains the reaction.Worldwide end-user spending on information security reached $213 billion in 2025 and is projected to rise 12.5% to about $240 billion in 2026, according to Gartner.More Artificial Intelligence:Workers over 55 in Al-exposed jobs face new realityVisa hands banks an edge against their rivals with Al toolNvidia CEO doubles down on Al and stock market verdictThat is healthy growth for the sector. It is also a rounding error next to what the same companies are spending to buy and deploy AI in the first place.Federal officials have been circling that gap for months. The pattern was already visible: regulators treating machine-speed attacks as a financial stability question rather than an IT question.Most enterprise security stacks were built to catch a human intruder, or a script written by one. They assume an attacker gets tired, makes noise, and works a shift.What changed on July 21 is that the alternative stopped being a forecast.

OpenAI’s models escaped a sandbox and hacked Hugging Face during a cyber benchmark test.Europa Press News / Getty Images

What OpenAI disclosed about the Hugging Face breachThe sequence matters more than the summary.Hugging Face went public first. The company said on July 16 that it had detected and contained an intrusion into part of its production infrastructure, one driven end-to-end by an autonomous agent system.At that point, nobody knew whose agent it was.Related: OpenAI just admitted something that has the AI industry on edgeFive days later, OpenAI identified the attacker as itself. The models involved were GPT-5.6 Sol and a more capable pre-release model, both running with cyber refusals reduced for evaluation purposes, according to OpenAI.Here is the part that keeps me up. The models were not trying to cause damage. They were trying to pass a test.Told to solve a cyber-capability benchmark called ExploitGym, they spent enormous compute finding a way out instead. They located a zero-day flaw in a software package proxy, escalated privileges across the research network, reached a machine with internet access, then reasoned that Hugging Face probably hosted the benchmark’s answers.They were right, and they went and took them.The company described the event as an “unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities,” according to OpenAI.Cheating on a test is a very human motive. Doing it by finding a previously unknown software flaw at three in the morning is not.The timeline behind the AI breach numbersThe published record is thin but specific.On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed unauthorized access to internal datasets and service credentials.More than 17,000 attacker events were reconstructed by the company’s own analysis agents, according to Hugging Face.July 21, OpenAI attributed the intrusion to its own models under evaluation.A previously unknown vulnerability in a package proxy provided the path to the open internet, OpenAI also indicated.Information security spending is forecast at roughly $240 billion for 2026, according to Gartner.Those five lines describe a failure mode for which no current security vendor sells a finished product.The guardrail problem nobody priced into cyber stocksThen came the detail I did not expect, and it is the one investors should sit with.Hugging Face said that when it tried to analyze the attack using commercial frontier models, the requests “were blocked by the providers’ safety guardrails.” Feeding real exploit payloads to a hosted model looks identical to attacking with one.So the defenders ran their forensics on an open-weight Chinese model, GLM 5.2, hosted on their own hardware.Read that again. The attacker was bound by no usage policy. The defenders were.That asymmetry is a product roadmap for every security vendor on the market, and the sell side has noticed. Palo Alto Networks (PANW) and CrowdStrike (CRWD) have both been repriced this year around agentic AI defense, and Microsoft (MSFT), OpenAI’s largest corporate backer, sells the security tooling that sits underneath much of the enterprise cloud.Lawmakers noticed, too. Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) called the disclosure alarming, saying “AI is developing extremely fast with no real regulations to keep us safe,” according to Al Jazeera.Congress has spent two years arguing about AI copyright and AI trade secrets. This is the first incident that hands it a security question with a named victim.What the Hugging Face breach means for your portfolioIf you own an S&P 500index fund, you own this problem twice.You own the companies building models that can now chain novel exploits without ever seeing the source code. You also own the companies selling the defense, whose addressable market just expanded by a category that did not exist in last year’s budget.For the next several quarters, I would watch three things rather than the headlines. Whether security vendors report accelerating deals tied specifically to agentic threats. Whether frontier labs publish containment standards that an outside auditor can actually check. Whether Washington converts alarm into a disclosure requirement with teeth.There is a smaller, more personal item, too. Hugging Face advised users to rotate access tokens and review recent account activity, which is the same hygiene that protects your brokerage login and your email.The uncomfortable takeaway is not that a model went rogue. It did not. It followed instructions with a literalism nobody had priced in, and the shortest path to a passing grade ran straight through another company’s production database.That behavior will not stay inside test environments. The next system that does it will not have a lab publishing a blog post about it afterward.Related: Tech expert predicts an OpenAI collapse

Retailers across the U.S. continue to reevaluate growth strategies as cautious consumer spending and slower discretionary demand force companies to prioritize profitability over rapid expansion. For some chains, that means closing underperforming locations, slowing new store openings, and redirecting investment toward businesses with stronger long-term returns.Now, one of the nation’s largest rural lifestyle retailers is taking similar steps as it navigates an increasingly challenging operating environment. The company is closing dozens of stores, scaling back expansion plans, and withdrawing its long-term financial framework as it adjusts to changing consumer behavior.Founded in Chicago in 1938 as a mail-order tractor parts business, Tractor Supply Co. has grown into the largest rural lifestyle retailer in the U.S. The retailer expanded its pet business with its 2016 acquisition of Petsense, a specialty chain that sells pet food, toys, and supplies while also offering services such as professional dog grooming and in-store pet adoptions.Tractor Supply confirms store closures and slows expansionTractor Supply (TSCO) will close approximately 75 underperforming Petsense stores following a strategic business review.”We believe these actions will improve returns, simplify the business, and allow us to direct resources towards higher growth, higher return opportunities,” said Tractor Supply CEO Hal Lawton during the company’s second quarter of fiscal 2026 earnings call.The retailer is also slowing its expansion plans. It now expects to open approximately 85 to 90 new Tractor Supply stores in 2027, down from its previous target of 100 locations.Instead, the company plans to focus on strengthening its existing footprint by investing in Project Fusion remodels, optimizing store locations, and expanding its Final Mile delivery network.”Together, these investments will improve the customer experience, enhance store execution and productivity, and drive stronger returns across our existing store base,” Lawton added.Why Tractor Supply is closing Petsense storesPet-related products account for roughly 20% of Tractor Supply’s business, but the company said growth across the category has slowed as consumers become more selective with discretionary spending.”What has changed is customer spending behavior,” said Lawton. “Customers continue to invest in the care of their pets, animals, farms, and properties, but they’re shopping more deliberately, consolidating trips, and prioritizing needs-based items while taking a more measured approach to discretionary purchases.”Here’s some of my previous coverage of store closures:Sportswear giant continues store closures nationwideGrocery chain makes final major business closurePopular breakfast chain sold, 16 locations shut downThe Petsense closures are expected to result in approximately $71.7 million in impairment and other charges, including a $5.9 million inventory write-down.The announcement comes just months after Tractor Supply acquired veterinary services provider VIP Petcare in May 2026. The business operates clinics in about 2,700 retail locations, including 1,700 Tractor Supply stores. The acquisition generated $9.5 million in related expenses during the quarter.”The acquisition fills an important gap in our pet ecosystem, allowing us to connect veterinary services, prescriptions, and products across physical and digital channels,” said Lawton.The closures and slower expansion reflect Tractor Supply’s broader effort to improve profitability as softer discretionary spending continues to weigh on parts of the retail sector.

Tractor Supply Co. will close 75 Petsense stores and slow down expansion plans.Amy Beth Bennett/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Tractor Supply lowers outlook amid retail headwindsTractor Supply’s strategic shift comes after a weaker second quarter, reflecting continued pressure on consumer spending.During the second quarter of fiscal 2026, the company reported:Comparable sales declined 1.5%.Comparable transactions fell 1.7%.Net income decreased 1.5%.In response, the retailer withdrew its long-term financial framework and reduced its full-year guidance.Tractor Supply now expects fiscal 2026 sales to increase between 2.5% and 3.5%, down from its previous forecast of 4% to 6% growth. It also expects comparable-store sales to range from a 1% decline to flat for the year.As of June 27, Tractor Supply operated 2,463 namesake stores across 49 states and 209 Petsense by Tractor Supply locations in 23 states, underscoring that the closures represent a relatively small portion of the company’s nationwide footprint.Related: Ikea closing key U.S. stores

Long-term Treasury bonds have delivered one of their worst stretches in modern history, with prices falling steadily since 2021 as inflation remained above the Federal Reserve’s target. Investors who owned 10-year and 30-year government debt watched the value of those holdings erode quarter after quarter for five years running. Now, one of Wall Street’s largest banks is making the case that the losing streak may be nearing its end, and the catalyst is not a rate cut or a recession.Warsh’s inflation task force draws from the Volcker playbookBank of America’s Chief Investment Office laid out the argument in its July 20 Capital Market Outlook, a weekly report from the CIO Macro Strategy Team, alongside CIO Christopher Hyzy and Investment Strategist Kirsten Cabacungan. The macro strategy section, credited to the CIO Macro Strategy Team, focuses on three economists Warsh chose to lead the “Inflation Frameworks” task force.Greg Mankiw of Harvard University, Nobel Laureate Thomas Sargent of New York University, and William White of the C.D. Howe Institute each bring decades of research, arguing that the Fed lost its way by ignoring monetary aggregates.More Bank of America:Bank of America warns America now has 2 economiesBank of America answers a tough stock market questionBank of America gives stock market investors a summer reality checkMankiw published a 2024 paper indicating that Fed frameworks built on the Phillips Curve do not work in practice, the report noted. He credited economist Jeremy Siegel with predicting the post-pandemic inflation surge by tracking M2, a broad measure of the money supply that includes cash, checking deposits, and savings accounts.For the first time, the Fed’s semi-annual Monetary Policy Report released in July now includes a discussion of M2 in its evaluation of financial conditions, the BofA report stated. The last Fed chairman to pay serious attention to money-supply data was Paul Volcker in the early 1980s, when he set targets for monetary growth that eventually broke double-digit inflation.Why Warsh may accept 1% to 3% inflation as within targetBofA’s strategists argue that even without Warsh formally moving the target, the way the Fed interprets “2%” could shift.They linked that framing to Belief #6 in Harvard economist Greg Mankiw’s 2024 paper, which argues that “a target of 2 percent is superior to a target of 2.0 percent.” Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh said long-term inflation is primarily shaped by Fed decisions, CNBC reported.While monthly price fluctuations are inevitable, especially in an unsettled world, underlying inflation over longer time horizons is determined largely by monetary policy.Warsh said at the June press conference that any review of the 2% target is “outside the scope” of the task force until inflation is back at the goal level.The implication, according to the report, is that the Fed would aim to keep inflation in a range of roughly 1% to 3%, allowing it to average around 2% over time. That would mark a departure from recent policy, under which inflation ran persistently above 2% for five straight years because the Fed never allowed it to fall below target to compensate.

BofA says Warsh could interpret the Fed’s 2% inflation target more flexibly, accepting 1% to 3% while averaging 2% over time.Bloomberg/Getty Images

Morgan Stanley sees lower volatility at the long end of the curveBank of America is not alone in viewing the Warsh reforms as potentially transformative for bonds. Jim Caron, chief investment officer of the Portfolio Solutions Group at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, told Fortune that the new chairman’s approach should reduce price swings in longer-dated Treasuries.”If you can stabilize the volatility in the longer end by addressing the higher frequency of data in the shorter end… it could be a really good thing,” Caron explained. He described the front end of the yield curve as a “shock absorber,” meaning two-year notes would absorb policy volatility, while longer-dated bonds settle into a calmer trading range.That distinction matters for borrowers. Mortgage rates, corporate loan pricing, and auto financing all anchor to longer-term yields, so a more stable long end could eventually ease borrowing costs for households and businesses.What the Volcker parallel means for bank stocks and bond fundsBofA’s investment implications section draws a direct comparison to the early 1980s Volcker era. Committing to a framework that explicitly controls inflation would likely end the five-year bear market in long-term Treasury bonds, the report stated. It would also make financial sector stocks more attractive for the long run, and that conclusion aligns with the firm’s broader positioning. BofA’s Chief Investment Office currently favors Financials, Industrials, and Consumer Discretionary sectors, with an overweight recommendation on equities overall.A credible commitment to lower inflation would push long-term yields down over time, delivering price appreciation on top of current income for holders of 20-year-plus Treasury funds, according to BofA’s CIO Macro Strategy Team.Inflation and geopolitics remain the wild cardsThe BofA report does not ignore the risks. Cabacungan wrote in the Market View section that the durability of any shift depends heavily on whether inflation pressures stay contained.Renewed military tensions in the Middle East and their impact on oil prices remain a threat to the inflation outlook, the report warned. Second-quarter consumer price index inflation averaged roughly 3.8% year over year, well above the Fed’s stated target, with energy costs contributing significantly.Warren Buffett offered a measured endorsement of Warsh in a July 15 CNBC “Squawk Box” interview, saying he believes the new chairman “will do the best he can at achieving the job he was assigned to do, which is 2% inflation and maintaining maximum employment.”Whether the task forces produce a genuine structural shift or merely cosmetic changes to Fed communication will determine if the bond bear market truly ends, or simply pauses before its next leg down.Related: BofA sees lost year taking shape for gold

Amazon has long derived a disproportionate share of its profit from its cloud division, Amazon Web Services (AWS).A growing number of Wall Street analysts are now projecting AWS will exceed consensus growth estimates when CEO Andy Jassy reports second-quarter results on July 30, The Motley Fool notes.The consensus estimate calls for $196.71 billion in total second-quarter revenue and earnings of $1.82 per share, according to analyst forecasts tracked by TipRanks. Several major banks are signaling that Wall Street has set the bar too low on the cloud side of the business.Bank of America sees AWS cloud growth reaching 33%Bank of America raised its AWS revenue growth forecast to 33% year over year for the second quarter, up from a prior estimate of 31%, according to Benzinga. The firm also projects Amazon will report total revenue of $198.8 billion and operating income of $24.1 billion, both above the Street consensus of $196.8 billion and $23.6 billion, respectively.The bank cited growing demand from Anthropic, OpenAI-powered Bedrock services, and broader enterprise adoption of artificial intelligence as catalysts for the accelerated cloud growth, Benzinga reported.More Amazon:Bank of America doubles down on Amazon shares after Prime DayAmazon’s $8.3 billion Prime Day sends Wall Street a warningAmazon Prime Day gives Wall Street a $22B reason to take noticeBank of America reiterated its buy rating and $310 price target on the stock, the report noted.KeyBanc analyst Justin Patterson raised his price target from $325 to $335 and now expects AWS to grow 31% year over year through both 2026 and 2027, TipRanks reported. Goldman Sachs analyst Eric Sheridan also raised his target to $335, forecasting AWS growth of about 33% this year and close to 35% in 2027, TipRanks noted.Amazon’s first quarter showed AWS already acceleratingThe bullish analyst revisions are not coming from speculation alone, because the first quarter results gave them a foundation to build on. AWS generated $37.6 billion in revenue during the first three months of 2026, a 28% year-over-year increase that marked the division’s fastest growth in 15 quarters, according to Amazon’s earnings release.That cloud segment accounted for 21% of Amazon’s total first-quarter sales but generated 59% of the company’s operating profit, highlighting just how much the bottom line depends on Jassy’s cloud business.Amazon CEO Andrew Jassy said cloud revenue surged at its fastest pace in nearly four years.Growth continued to accelerate, up 28% year over year, the fastest growth rate in 15 quarters, up $2 billion quarter over quarter, the largest Q4 to Q1 AWS revenue increase ever.AWS posted $14.2 billion in operating income during the first quarter at a 37.7% operating margin, up from $11.5 billion in the same period a year earlier, the earnings release showed. Amazon’s total operating income reached $23.9 billion at a 13.1% margin, which Jassy described as the highest operating margin in the company’s history.The company guided second quarter revenue between $194 billion and $199 billion, with operating income expected in a range of $20 billion to $24 billion, the release confirmed.

Amazon’s AWS delivered its fastest growth in nearly four years, fueling record operating margins and strengthening confidence in future earnings.SOPA Images/Getty Images

How custom chips and Anthropic are driving AWS growthBehind the headline revenue figures sits a custom silicon business that has become a significant contributor to Amazon’s cloud momentum. Amazon’s chips division, which includes the Graviton, Trainium, and Nitro product lines, surpassed a $20 billion annualized revenue run rate in the first quarter while growing at triple-digit percentages year over year, Jassy noted in his 2025 annual letter to shareholders.Trainium2 chips delivered about 30% better price performance than comparable graphics processing units and have largely sold out, while the newer Trainium3 chips began shipping at the start of 2026 with another 30% to 40% improvement, Jassy wrote. Even Trainium4, which is still roughly 18 months from broad availability, already has a significant portion of its capacity reserved by clients, he added.Bank of America estimates that Anthropic-related workloads alone could contribute more than $1.5 billion in sequential AWS revenue growth during the second quarter, Benzinga reported. That figure underscores how Amazon’s investment in the AI startup is translating into measurable cloud demand, not just paper gains on its balance sheet.What to watch beyond the AWS headline revenue beatThe July 30 report will produce a top-line revenue number and an earnings-per-share figure, but analysts have flagged several additional metrics as more consequential. Bank of America analysts said investors should pay closer attention to AWS operating margins, capital expenditure guidance for the remainder of the year, AI backlog expansion, and management commentary around Trainium adoption, Benzinga reported.The stock currently carries a strong buy consensus rating from 46 analysts as of July 22, with an average price target of about $319 to $320 that implies roughly 29% upside from its recent trading price near $244, TipRanks data showed. Amazon shares have gained about 7.6% year to date and trade at approximately 29 times forward earnings. Jassy’s ability to deliver the blowout that analysts expect hinges on how much of that contracted computing capacity has already converted into recognized revenue.Related: Amazon may be losing its biggest competitive edge

TheStreet aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.Why we love this dealPools can be an expensive long-term investment. In-ground pools certainly are more costly than the above-ground counterparts, but even those that require no digging or cementing can be expensive if you’re not providing proper upkeep. Disregarding proper chlorine and pH levels, adding the wrong cleaning chemicals, and letting dirt and debris pile up won’t just make your pool a place no one wants to take a dip in. Over time, it contributes to algae and bacteria growth, structural damage, and equipment strain — and whether you paid $30,000 or $3,000 for your pool, no one wants to lose money when they can simply get some help with products like the Syvio Handheld Pool Vacuum to keep that backyard oasis pristine and clean.Although consistent vacuuming can be annoying, taking 15 minutes every week to clean your pool can help the filtration system perform better, and for longer, as well as ensure that the water quality is safe for anyone who takes the plunge. And although pool equipment, like pools themselves, can be expensive, Walmart’s Flash deal can help you get the Syvio Handheld Pool Vacuum on sale for 53% off. Now is your chance to shop the cordless device for $89 instead of $190 for a limited time. Syvio Handheld Pool Vacuum, $89 (was $190) at Walmart

Courtesy of Walmart

Shop at WalmartWhy do shoppers love it?Unlike corded pool vacuums, which restrict your mobility, tangle easily, and can be tripping hazards, cordless options like this Syvio model allow you to maneuver and move however you want. They’re faster and easier to set up while being safer for both you and those around you who also enjoy the pool.This cordless option uses a 40-watt robot motor that has a powerful 18.5 gallons per minute (GPM) suction. This means it filters 18.5 gallons of water a minute, sucking up dirt and debris, quickly removing leaves, sand, mud, acorns, and other messes from pool and hot tub floors. The large 11.4-inch cleaning head has built-in side brushes to help increase cleaning coverage, working with the suction to effectively and quickly clean up dirt. That, in combination with the adjustable pole which extends from 27.6 inches long upwards to 86.6 inches long, allows you to cover every crevice, corner, and surface with ease. The dirt is sucked up and deposited into two filter bags, one made for larger debris and the other for small, finer particles. When you’re done cleaning, simply unzip the bags and empty them before your next vacuuming session. Related: Pool products that cut costs and make maintenance easierPowered by five 2,000 milliampere-hour (mAh) lithium batteries, the pool vacuum gets its power by charging the battery, which can quickly rejuice completely within an hour and a half. Once charged, the vacuum can provide up to 60 minutes of continuous cleaning before it needs to be put back on the charger. You also get a two-year warranty from the date of purchase. Details to knowDimensions: The vacuum extends from 27.6 inches up to 86.6 inches. The head is 11.4 inches wide.Power source: Five rechargeable 2000 mAh lithium batteries. Features: The cordless handheld vacuum has two filter bags where dirt and debris are stored when they are sucked up by the 40-watt 18.5 GPM. They require emptying after each cleaning.  Shoppers are impressed with the powerful suction power this vacuum has, especially compared to higher-end, more expensive models on the market. Useful in a pool or hot tub, it’s very well made, and the wide vacuum head and lightweight feel make it easy to maneuver and hit all the areas you need to. “This vacuum is the real deal,” one shopper said. “This is the only item that we have bought in the past few years that hasn’t disappointed us.”Shop more deals Talosbo C1 Cordless Robotic Pool Vacuum, $300 (was $700) at WalmartIntex Deluxe 800 GPH+ Wall-Mounted Automatic Skimmer, $25 (was $45) at WalmartWybot Cordless Robotic Pool Cleaner, $85 (was $177) at WalmartPool products can be expensive, but it’s far better to invest in them than wait and have to spend far more fixing problems caused by improper upkeep. Thankfully, with Walmart’s latest Flash deal, you don’t have to sacrifice when it comes to what you spend. Add the Syvio Handheld Pool Vacuum to your cart for only $89 while it’s on sale for 53% off. 

Big purchases run on borrowed confidence.Almost nobody shopping for a diamond has the training to price one. So you lean on numbers, and they arrive already packaged, usually inside a headline telling you the market is doing one thing or another.That works fine when the packaging is neutral.Here is the route a diamond statistic travels before it reaches you. A producer commissions consumer research, a trade publication writes it up, retail blogs recycle the write-up, and somewhere around step three the chain of custody quietly disappears.What survives is the number. What gets lost is who paid for it.That process is running at full speed behind a claim you have almost certainly seen. Natural diamonds are staging a comeback, buyers are trading up to bigger stones, and demand is healthier than the gloomy coverage suggests.Every version of that claim traces back to a single survey. It was published by De Beers.

Natural diamond spending rose 25% in 2025 while engagement ring budgets fell.Cheng Xin / Getty Images

Why the diamond market split into two different economiesStart with what nobody disputes. This is now two products with two unrelated cost structures.Natural diamonds come out of the ground on a schedule a handful of miners control. Lab-grown diamonds come out of a reactor, limited mainly by how many reactors exist.That gap has widened every year for a decade, as synthetic capacity expanded and production costs fell while natural prices held comparatively firm.Related: World’s quietest metal just dropped a huge bullish signalThe bridal market has already picked a side. Lab-grown center stones accounted for 61 percent of all engagement ring purchases in 2025, a 239 percent jump since 2020, according to The Knot Worldwide and its survey of more than 10,000 US couples.Natural diamond engagement rings showed no growth in total or center stone size over the same period, JCK reported.Supply on the natural side is genuinely contracting, though not for the reason the comeback story implies. Global rough output is forecast to fall below 95 million carats this year, the lowest since 1987, as mine economics force closures, according to independent analyst Paul Zimnisky.Mines are closing because the economics stopped working. That is a very different thing from a market tightening on strength.What the De Beers study actually found about diamond buyersThe research everyone is citing is the US Diamond Acquisition Study, and De Beers Group published it on June 11.More Retail:Trump’s tariff cuts may make popular luxury items cheaperMajor retailers have jacked up prices due to tariffsBest Buy warns holiday shoppers of updated return policyThe sample is respectable and the findings are real. Here is what the company reported:The survey covered 18,500 US women aged 18 to 74, not the “tens of thousands” some write-ups claim, according to De Beers GroupNatural diamond jewelry ranked first as most-desired luxury gift at 11 percent against 8 percent for lab-grown, per InStore MagazineAverage spend reached $4,063 in 2025, up from $3,242 in 2023, according to RapaportGen Z spends $4,080 per piece against $2,250 for Baby Boomers, according to De Beers GroupPoint-of-sale data from 950 independent jewelers showed sales up 4 percent in Q4 2025 and 9 percent in Q1 2026, per InStore MagazineNow the breakdown that almost never travels with those numbers. The overall acquisition rate, meaning the share of surveyed women who actually bought a natural diamond, was 9 percent in 2025, up from 8 percent in 2023, Rapaport reported.Among households earning $150,000 or more, that rate went from 12 percent to 15 percent.My analysis is that the second figure carries the first. The affluent cohort moved three points while the overall market moved one, which means most of the reported growth came from buyers who were already in the category.That is a real recovery. It is just a narrow one, and “natural diamonds are back” is doing a lot of work to cover the difference.De Beers also has a reason to want the first framing. Parent company Anglo American (NGLOY) has been trying to sell the business since 2024, posted a $3.7 billion loss for 2025 and took a $2.3 billion writedown on De Beers, its third impairment in three years, Rapaport reported.The company cut 2026 production guidance to 21 million carats from a prior floor of 26 million, citing “challenging rough diamond trading conditions,” according to its own production report.Independent analysts read the downturn as structural. The industry faces “a more fundamental crisis,” not a cyclical dip, senior analyst Joshua Freedman of Rapaport told News Anyway.None of this makes the survey false. It means you weigh it against the filings, and the filings and the survey disagree.The lab-grown price gap that costs buyers real moneyThere is a second number circulating that is out of date, and this one can cost you thousands.You will still see claims that lab-grown diamonds run 20 percent to 40 percent below comparable natural stones. That was roughly accurate in 2016.It is nowhere near accurate now. The per-carat gap reached 72.8 percent, up from 26.6 percent in 2019, according to appraisal and insurance data from BriteCo.Retailers put it wider still. The discount runs 60 percent to 85 percent depending on size and specification, according to comparison-powered retailer Rare Carat, whose own pricing pages undercut the figure the trend pieces keep repeating.Walk in believing the gap is 30 percent and you will badly misjudge what your money buys. On a $5,000 budget that is roughly the difference between a one-carat stone and a two-carat one.There is also a tariff variable nobody was pricing a year ago. US duties on diamonds shipped from India reached 50 percent before an interim trade agreement cut the rate to 18 percent in early 2026.What to check before you spend on a diamond this yearNone of this settles the natural versus lab-grown question. That call depends on what you want the stone to do.But I would run three filters on anything you read between now and December.Ask who paid for the number. Producer-funded research is not worthless and it is not neutral either, and that matters most when the producer is mid-sale.Ask how old the number is. The lab-grown discount has moved fast enough that guidance written two years ago is now actively misleading.Ask whether the number describes your purchase. An average built from every US buyer says almost nothing about a specific stone in a specific quality bracket.Then verify the stone itself. Free certificate lookup tools let you check a grading report against the listing before you pay, and Rare Carat runs one alongside its comparison pricing.Watch two things through the back half of 2026. Whether Anglo completes the De Beers sale, and whether the engagement season pulls any middle-income buyers back toward natural stones.Zimnisky sees the ubiquity of lab-grown rings creating its own counterforce. “People are starting to want the real thing again,” he told News Anyway.He may be right. But the number that proves it will be the acquisition rate outside the $150,000 bracket, not the average ticket, and that is the figure worth hunting for when the next comeback story lands in your feed.Related: 2 major jewelry brands close hundreds of stores in key market