SUCCESS

Goldman Sachs announced Wednesday that it has agreed to buy Neos Investments, adding yet another ETF shop to its fast-growing asset-management business.

In my neighborhood, a successful restaurant that did a massive weekend brunch business closed over a lease dispute with the owner of its building. The restaurant was willing to pay an increase, but not as much as the landlord wanted.That happened right before the Covid pandemic, and the location still sits empty. The restaurant, whose owners had promised it would reopen elsewhere, still has not made a comeback.It’s a familiar story in cities around the country, where restaurant operators can find themselves competing against landlords seeking higher rents when leases expire.In hot markets such as Miami, restaurant operators are even putting their leases up for sale.“There are a lot of people looking for second-generation restaurants,” Fabio Faerman, a listing agent for real estate, told The Real Deal. “The tenant or the landlord of a restaurant that is closing can ask for key money. And [a new operator] is willing to pay for it.” That’s a positive development where both parties win, and consumers benefit from a new restaurant opening. Not all lease transfers happen that smoothly, and an ugly battle has been going on in New York over the fate of three high-profile restaurants operated by Ark Restaurants.Bryant Park brands face evictionArk Restaurants operates three separate brands in New York City’s Bryant Park — Bryant Park Grill, Bryant Park Café, and The Porch at Bryant Park. All three currently face eviction, with Ark’s stay expected to expire in October.”In 2025, the private nonprofit that oversees Bryant Park attempted to evict Ark Restaurants from the park-adjacent restaurant locations, announcing at the time that Jean-Georges Restaurants and Seaport Entertainment Group had won a bid to operate the venues. But required approvals from the city’s Parks & Recreation and the New York Public Library were never obtained,” Nation’s Restaurant News reported. More Restaurants:52-year-old international restaurant chain closing all locations46-year-old casual dining chain closes underperforming locationsClassic burger chain has closed down all its restaurantsThe restaurants remain open, as both sides have filed legal action.In July, however, the court sided with the landlord to evict the Ark concepts, though a stay was granted pending an appeal.”As it stands, Ark is continuing to operate the restaurants on that stay, and the company is seeking an extension, a reversal of the eviction decision or further relief. But, without those options, Ark said ‘the company will be required to vacate these premises and cease operations at these locations upon the expiration of the stay, currently expected to occur on or about October 16, 2026,'” NRN reported.

Ark has continued to operate its Bryant Park restaurants.Shutterstock

Ark comments on Bryant Park restaurantsArk Restaurants CEO Michael Weinstein commented on the situation during the company’s third-quarter earnings call. “The situation in Bryant Park, we think the litigation is going kind of well for us. There’s not necessarily certainty about us renegotiating a new lease, but the judge in the last hearing did award us the right to monetary damages on a breach of lease by Bryant Park Corporation,” he said.Weinstein also noted that there is a hearing to set a trial date in September. “Monetary damages on that could be significant,” he added.A financial victory, however, does not mean the restaurants will stay open. “That does not mean that we’re necessarily going to get a new lease. That’s going to be a negotiation at some point. We hope with the Parks Department and the proper people at Bryant Park Corporation, but those monetary damages could be significant and hopefully give us an opening for a negotiation,” he said.The most recent legal decision can be found here on the New York Courts website.Bryant Park is big businessThe Bryant Park Company (originally the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation) was founded in 1980 and by 1983 had proposed an $18 million redevelopment of the park that included a security force and “huge glass restaurant,” according to New York Magazine’s Grub Street.The restaurant has proven to be big business.”Ark has been involved since 1995 when it opened the Bryant Park Grill. It’s one of the country’s top-grossing restaurants, and combined revenues for its three park businesses — which also include the Porch and Bryant Park Café — amount to $28 million a year,” the website shared. Weinstein alleges that the deal to lease the properties to Jean-Georges Restaurants and Seaport Entertainment Group will be for less money. “You’re doing a deal with Seaport, you’re throwing out 250 employees, and you’re accepting at least $1.2 million, $1.4 million less in rent. Who does that?” Weinstein told Grub Street. “It’s a disaster for the park.”BPC’s attorney shared a brief statement after the court decision to allow the eviction.“We are very happy with the decision,” Corporation lawyer Gil Feder told The New York Post.Related: Costco’s new service beats Amazon at its own game

2026 has been a hard year to work in tech, even at companies posting record revenue. Salesforce trimmed its support division nearly in half earlier this year, then quietly cut more jobs in an AI-related shakeup in February.The justification each time is the same: Artificial intelligence made the roles unnecessary.Oracle is now writing a similar chapter, except its version comes with a much bigger price tag attached.Managers are drawing up lists before SeptemberOracle has drawn up plans for a new round of layoffs in August, according to people familiar with the matter and an internal document viewed by Business Insider on Aug. 11.Managers have been asked to submit lists of affected employees, with the goal of trimming payroll before Oracle’s fiscal second quarter opens on Sept. 1.The cuts could reach double-digits percentage on some teams, according to the same document. Oracle declined to comment on the plans, so it’s obvious they are still keeping it internal for now.The company already cut 21,000 jobs in 2026This isn’t Oracle’s first pass. The company shed 21,000 roles, or 13% of its workforce, during the fiscal year that ended May 31. Headcount fell to about 141,000 employees, down from 162,000 a year earlier.Severance and other exit costs jumped to $1.84 billion for the year, up from $374 million the year before, according to the filing.Oracle itself has acknowledged that AI adoption is a factor behind the reductions, language that rarely shows up so directly in a corporate filing.AI spending is straining Oracle’s cash flowThe reason for the urgency shows up on the other side of the balance sheet. That spending is chasing real demand: Oracle’s revenue grew 17% during fiscal 2026, an unusually fast pace for a company built on decades-old database software. But growth alone hasn’t covered the bill.Oracle spent $55.7 billion on infrastructure in fiscal 2026, outspending its cash generation by $23.7 billion.Related: Morgan Stanley says Bloom can withstand an Oracle project delayTo cover the gap, Oracle raised $43 billion in debt and another $5 billion through stock sales during the year, and it expects to raise roughly $40 billion more through a mix of debt and equity in the current fiscal year.That math helps explain why job cuts and capital spending are now moving in opposite directions at the same company.Cutting payroll is one of the few levers Oracle can pull quickly enough to offset a data center bill that keeps climbing.

Oracle has drawn up plans for a new round of layoffs as it funds a massive AI infrastructure buildout with billions in new debt.Bloomberg / Getty Images

Wall Street’s doubts are already priced into the stockOracle (ORCL) shares gained 1.2% in overnight trading after the layoff report. A modest reaction for a stock that hit a 52-week low in July.Even with that bounce, Oracle remains down roughly 26% this year, a steeper drop than most of its cloud infrastructure peers.Some of that skepticism has turned into outright bets against the stock. Investor Michael Burry disclosed a new short position in Oracle, calling the trade “like shooting fish in a barrel,” according to TipRanks.Burry made a nearly identical bet against Nebius, another AI infrastructure company burning through cash, the same week.More Layoffs:Samsung cuts jobs as it shifts U.S. headquartersAnother popular soda giant closes warehouse operation, cuts 184 jobsMeta layoffs take disturbing turn in new lawsuitHis thesis isn’t that AI demand is fake. It’s that companies borrowing heavily today are betting that demand stays strong long enough to pay off the debt.Retail investors have also seized on a separate worry. Larry Ellison has pledged 346 million Oracle shares as loan collateral, an overhang that grows more sensitive every time the stock drops, according to a 24/7 WallSt analysis.Not every analyst treats the cuts as a warning sign. Barclays argued in a note that the layoffs function mainly as cost discipline the market already expects, reported CNBC, and it kept an overweight rating on the stock.The layoffs are a symptom, not the storyOracle’s situation captures a pattern spreading across enterprise software. Companies with genuine AI-driven revenue growth, like Oracle’s cloud infrastructure unit, which expanded 77% last year, are still cutting staff because growth alone isn’t paying for the buildout.That combination, rising revenue and shrinking headcount, is becoming a template rather than an exception.Bank of America analyst Vivek Arya points to Oracle’s $638 billion cloud backlog as the eventual payoff, with margins expected to bottom out before improving.About 12% of that backlog is due within a year, with another 34% landing over the next two to three years, according to BofA’s estimate.That timeline gives Oracle a narrow window to convert contracted revenue into the cash it needs to keep paying down debt, and it depends on customers like OpenAI actually paying for the capacity Oracle is building.Related: Workers just sent AI companies an ultimatum

The stakes are fatally high as Lucky works out a deal with the FBI in episode 6 that requires she bring in Whittaker and John learns the secret she’s been hiding.

“Reacher” Season 4, starring Alan Ritchson as Jack Reacher, is reflecting a level of popularity that the show hasn’t seen since Season 1.

If you’re choosing between a Roth retirement plan and a traditional account, the key question comes down to when it is optimal to pay taxes.
Your income, current tax rate and long-term financial goals are all important when assessing where to contribute your money. Here’s what to consider when choosing between these two types of retirement savings plans.

Must Read

Gold Just Pulled Back From Its Record — Why Some Retirees Are Buying the Dip
10 Smart Ways Seniors Are Earning Extra Money
Two Investing Tools Everyone Needs to Build Wealth

Roth vs. traditional is mostly about when you pay taxes
Traditional individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) plans offer deferred taxation, meaning contributions are made with pre-tax money and grow tax-deferred. You pay taxes when you withdraw from the account later in life. Roth IRAs and 401(k) contributions are funded with after-tax dollars then grow tax-free. You don’t have to worry about paying taxes on qualified withdrawals (including dividends and capital gains) in the future.
The account that makes most sense for you will depend on your specific income, tax situation, potential income in the future and more. And keep in mind that a saver’s tax rate can change based on new rules in Congress, changes to their income, filing status, deductions and other factors. You don’t necessarily have to choose one plan over the other; you can split contributions between Roth and traditional plans for some tax diversification. The IRS created a Roth comparison chart that offers additional information for people who are trying to decide which type of plan to prioritize.

Where People Are Investing Right Now

Robinhood lets you trade stocks and ETFs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
CIT Bank: Earn up to 4.10% with a high-yield savings account
American Hartford Gold: Explore different gold IRA options and protect your wealth

The 2026 401(k) and IRA rules
The contribution limit in 2026 is $24,500 for a 401(k), 403(b) and most 457 plans. The annual catch-up contribution limit is $8,000 for anyone who is 50 years or older. However, if you are between 60 and 63 years old, you qualify for a super catch-up limit of $11,250.
All catch-up contributions must go into a Roth plan if your wages exceeded $150,000. Otherwise, you can choose to put your catch-up contribution in a Roth or traditional plan.
The IRA contribution limit increased to $7,500 in tax year 2026, with a $1,100 catch-up contribution limit for people who are 50 years or older. IRAs currently do not have super catch-up contributions.
How to make the bet when you can’t know your future tax rate
It’s impossible to predict with full certainty what your tax rate will look like within a few decades, but there are some rules of thumb you can use when deciding which account is right for you. Roth contributions can often make sense for low-income years when your tax rate is low. If you are early in your career, transitioning from a job or taking a hiatus, a Roth plan may be right for you.
Traditional contributions may be more valuable during peak earning years. You can defer taxes now and enjoy a lower tax rate when you retire.
You don’t have to stick with one plan or the other for the rest of your life. Many workers contribute to both accounts throughout their careers for tax diversification. That way, you can withdraw some money from a Roth plan and other funds from a traditional plan each year during retirement. This approach maximizes how much you get to take out of your plans while securing the lowest possible taxes.
Social Security, state taxes, Medicare income-related premiums and required minimum distributions (RMDs) are also important to consider when planning your withdrawals.

Must Read

Gold Just Pulled Back From Its Record — Why Some Retirees Are Buying the Dip
10 Smart Ways Seniors Are Earning Extra Money
Two Investing Tools Everyone Needs to Build Wealth

An overwhelming body of academic research demonstrates that the past performance of actively managed mutual funds does not provide valuable information as to future performance. For example, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, authors of the 2010 study “Luck Versus Skill in the Cross-Section of Mutual Fund Returns,” found that fewer active managers (about 2%) were able to outperform their three-factor (beta, size, and value) model benchmark than would be expected by chance. However, believers in active management were offered hope with the 2009 study by Martijn Cremers and Antti Petajisto, “How Active Is Your Fund Manager: A New Measure That Predicts Performance,” published in The Review of Financial Studies. The authors concluded: “Active share predicts fund performance: Funds with the highest active share significantly outperform their benchmarks, both before and after expenses, and they exhibit strong performance persistence.”Active share is a measure of how much a fund’s holdings deviate from its benchmark index, and funds with the highest active share tend to have the best performance. Thus, while there’s no doubt that, in aggregate, active management underperforms and the majority of active funds underperform every year (and the percentage that underperform increases with the time horizon studied), if an investor were able to identify the few future winners by using active share as a measure, active management could be the winning strategy.Unfortunately, subsequent research has found problems with the conclusions drawn by Cremers and Petajisto. Using the same database they employed, Andrea Frazzini, Jacques Friedman and Lukasz Pomorski of AQR Capital Management examined the evidence and the theoretical arguments for active share as a predictor of performance and presented their findings and conclusions in the paper “Deactivating Active Share,” published in the March/April 2016 issue of the Financial Analysts Journal. The authors concluded that, controlling for benchmarks, active share has no predictive power for fund returns.The October 2016 paper by Ananth Madhavan, Aleksander Sobczyk and Andrew Ang of BlackRock, “Estimating Time-Varying Factor Exposures,” provided an out-of-sample test (post-2009) of Cremers and Petajisto’s findings. They found that the measure of active share proposed by Cremers and Petajisto was negatively correlated (by 0.75) to fund returns after controlling for factor loadings and other fund characteristics. Thus, they concluded that “it is not the case that high-conviction managers outperform.”In an October 2016 update of his original paper, “Active Share and the Three Pillars of Active Management: Skill, Conviction and Opportunity,” Cremers covered the period 1990-2015 and found that while the highest active share had an abnormal (unexplained) return of 0.71% per year, it was not statistically significant (t-stat was just 1.37). Given that he noted the outperformance had occurred before 2002, I contacted Cremers and asked him if he had performance data for 2002–15. He provided me with the table below, which shows the results over that time frame for the active share quintile portfolios (the first quintile is the lowest active share). While active share may have worked before 2002, these results show that even the highest quintile of active-share funds produced negative alphas in the post-2002 period. In other words, as markets became more efficient over time, the alpha was “gone with the wind.” Further evidence of the declining performance of active share is Morningstar’s 2021 paper “Unattractive Share,” which demonstrated that since 2011, investors in high-active-share funds in all Morningstar categories have paid higher fees, incurred greater risks, and earned lower returns. While it may have provided a ray of hope at one point, as Andrew Berkin and I demonstrated in our book, The Incredible Shrinking Alpha, the markets have become increasingly efficient over time, raising the hurdles for active management. The evidence that demonstrates a declining ability of active managers to generate alpha after fees flies in the face of the theory that the increase in passive investing’s share would lead to less informational efficiency and less price discovery by active managers and would lead to more market mispricing and more opportunity for active managers to add value. That contradiction raises an interesting question: Has the secular shift toward passive investing—index funds and exchange-traded funds have grown from about 19% to over 50% of equity fund assets since 2010—changed how active funds perform, and if so, through what mechanism? Hannah Unterberg attempts to answer that question in her June 2026 paper “Passive Flows, Active Woes: Passive Investing and the Decline of Active Mutual Fund Alpha.” What the Paper ExaminesUnterberg studied US domestic-equity mutual funds and ETFs from 1984 to 2024, using CRSP fund data merged with Thomson Reuters holdings data. She found that active performance has deteriorated sharply as the relationship between active share and performance didn’t just weaken after 2010—it flipped entirely. Her explanation is a flow-driven mechanism: When investors pull money from active funds and into index funds, the active managers are forced to sell down their existing (often concentrated, off-benchmark) positions, while passive inflows buy mechanically in benchmark weightings regardless of price. This creates lopsided demand—selling pressure on stocks that active managers like, buying pressure on stocks they don’t hold—and that pressure shows up directly in fund returns.6 Key Findings1) Active fund alpha roughly doubled in its underperformance after 2010. Using the Carhart four-factor model, average net alpha for active funds fell from negative 0.72% annually (1984–2009) to negative 1.82% annually (2010–24). This isn’t explained by rising fees—expense ratios actually fell over the same period. Gross of fees, the picture is just as telling: Consistent with the findings of Fama & French (2010), before fees the value-weighted active fund sector performed similarly to the market portfolio, with alpha close to zero, during the 1984–2009 period. After 2010, the value-weighted portfolio earns a four-factor gross alpha of negative 0.66% per year. And the decline in fund performance is concentrated among the funds with the highest active share. Over 2010–24, the four-factor alpha of high-active-share funds was negative 2.41% versus negative 0.90% for low-active-share funds, with the difference (negative 1.51%) being statistically significant at the 5% confidence level. 2) The active-share premium reversed. Before 2010, high-active-share funds beat low-active-share funds by 0.85% annually (gross, four-factor). After 2010, high-active-share funds underperformed low-active-share funds by 1.11% annually. The swing between periods exceeds 1.9 percentage points and is statistically significant. 3) Flow-induced demand explains the reversal. Unterberg builds a fund-level measure of “flow-induced trading”: essentially, the mechanical portion of a fund’s trading driven purely by investor inflows/outflows applied proportionally to existing holdings, stripped of any discretionary, information-based trading decisions. She finds:Before 2010, active share positively predicted future flow-induced demand: Active funds benefited from flows.After 2010, active share negatively predicts flow-induced demand: The more a fund deviates from its benchmark, the more adverse flow pressure it faces.A 1-percentage-point increase in a fund’s quarterly flow-induced demand is associated with a 1.8- to 2.7- percentage-point increase in contemporaneous returns: a substantial price multiplier.When flow-induced demand is added as a control in return regressions, the negative active-share coefficient becomes statistically insignificant. In other words, controlling for flow pressure largely explains away the post-2010 active-share underperformance. Manager skill has not deteriorated—market structure is the cause of the decline.4) Passive flow effects are persistent; active flow effects are transitory. The price pressure from active fund flows mostly reverses within a few quarters (consistent with prior fire-sale literature). But the price impact from passive flows remains at roughly half its initial magnitude even three years out. Because passive investing represents a secular, continued reallocation of capital rather than a temporary liquidity event, its effects on relative pricing don’t get arbitraged away the way transitory flow shocks typically do.5) Beginning-of-month evidence supports causality. Using a clever natural experiment—401(k) contributions create mechanical passive inflows at the start of each month—Unterberg shows that low-active-share funds earn higher returns in the first three trading days of the month (2.6 basis points higher when passive flows are elevated), while high-active-share funds earn lower returns (2.1 basis points lower) over the same window. Active fund flows show no comparable pattern. This timing-based test is about as close as you can get to plausibly exogenous identification in this literature, since paycheck-driven 401(k) contributions don’t respond to recent fund performance.6) The industry-level “returns to scale” relationship also flipped. Historically, a larger passive share of the industry predicted a wider active-minus-passive return spread (less competition benefited active managers). After 2010, a larger passive share predicts a narrower spread. The mechanical demand effect from reallocation now outweighs any competitive benefit from a shrinking active sector.Investor Takeaways1. Active share is no longer a reliable positive signal. A measure that was a useful predictor of outperformance through the 2000s now correlates with underperformance in the current environment. Investors and advisors who are still using active share as a simple screen for skilled managers should be aware that the historical relationship has not just weakened, it has reversed.2) This is a story about demand mechanics, not eroding manager skill. That distinction matters for how investors interpret active fund track records. Underperformance driven by structural flow pressure is a different phenomenon than underperformance driven by managers losing their edge—and it has different implications for whether skilled stock-picking still has value once the flow headwind subsides or reverses.3) The funds most exposed are precisely the ones with the biggest benchmark deviations. Funds holding concentrated, high-conviction, off-index positions are structurally the most exposed to this flow-induced drag, since their idiosyncratic holdings are exactly what gets sold down (or simply isn’t bought up) as capital migrates to index products. Closet indexers are comparatively insulated—not because they’re more skilled, but because their portfolios look enough like the benchmark to avoid the worst of the mechanical pressure.4) This headwind is a function of the size and direction of the passive shift, not a permanent feature of markets. If passive flows decelerate, reverse, or plateau as a share of the industry, the mechanical pressure on active tilts should, by this paper’s own logic, ease. The current environment may not be representative of the long-run relationship between active management and performance.Implications for Market EfficiencyThis paper sits squarely in a growing body of literature (for example, Xavier Gabaix and Ralph S.J. Koijen’s “In Search of the Origins of Financial Fluctuations: The Inelastic Markets Hypothesis”) that challenges the classical view that prices reflect fundamentals because markets are deep and elastic. If markets were fully elastic, fund flows would be absorbed without lasting price effects, and the source of an active fund’s underperformance would have to be something else: fees, poor security selection, and so on.Unterberg’s findings suggest something closer to the opposite: Capital reallocation toward passive vehicles is large enough, and the supply of price-elastic capital willing to absorb it is limited enough, that flows themselves move relative prices in economically meaningful and persistent ways. That has a few implications worth sitting with.1) Price discovery may be getting less efficient at the margin for stocks where active and passive ownership diverge most. If the buying/selling pressure described here doesn’t fully arbitrage away over a three-year horizon, prices for some securities are, at least temporarily, being set as much by mechanical flow as by anyone’s assessment of fundamental value.2) It complicates simple “passive investing makes markets more efficient because it pushes out unskilled active managers” narratives. The paper directly tests and rejects the idea that a shrinking active sector should mechanically improve the performance—and by extension, the price discovery quality—of the managers who remain. The source of the contraction matters: Managers exiting on account of flow-driven redemptions face a different competitive landscape than managers exiting because of genuine underperformance.3) It raises a forward-looking question about who will play the price-elastic role going forward. In the model, it’s “direct investors” (those managing their own portfolios, price-sensitive by construction) who absorb the supply/demand imbalances created by the active-to-passive shift. As that pool of capital shrinks relative to the market—a long-running trend in its own right—the price-impact multiplier should mechanically rise, meaning future flow shocks of the same size could move prices even more.Unterberg’s paper offers a useful reframing of the question: Why did the historical edge associated with high active share evaporate—and reverse—just as passive investing became the dominant force in equity markets? The answer she provides isn’t that “active managers got worse.” It’s that the market’s plumbing changed. Reallocation from active to passive funds creates structural, asymmetric demand that disproportionately penalizes exactly the kind of benchmark-deviating bets that used to define skilled active management.For evidence-based investors, this is a reminder that performance predictors aren’t static laws of nature—they’re conditional on market structure, and that structure has shifted meaningfully over the past 15 years. It’s also a useful caution against treating “passive investing makes markets more efficient” as an unconditional truth. The mechanism documented here suggests that, at least for the segment of the market most exposed to active-to-passive flow rotation, the opposite may currently be true.

Over the past few years, the furniture industry has lost Circle Furniture and Valley City Furniture, and seen Art Van Furniture and Weir’s close their doors.It has been an unprecedented period of long-lived brands shutting down, but Furniture Today Editor Emeritus Ray Allegrezza pushes back at the narrative that’s supposed to explain why so many furniture stores and chains have closed.”The explanation offered is almost always the same. Housing is down. Tariffs are up. Inflation is squeezing consumers. Costs — from fuel to freight — remain elevated,” he wrote. “All of that is true, but it is also incomplete. Because at the very same time, other furniture retailers are not shrinking; they are expanding into the very spaces left behind.”He noted that some chains, including Bob’s Discount Furniture and Gardner White, have been opening stores to fill the void left by their closed rivals.Now, another longstanding retail giant, Baker’s Main Street Furniture, has decided to shut its doors forever, but the owner isn’t blaming the usual suspects for the shutdown.Baker’s Main Street Furniture closing”Struggling retailers often point to macro pressures: sluggish housing turnover, tariffs, inflation and rising delivery costs. But those pressures are universal. Value City Furniture faced them, and so did Bob’s. Circle Furniture dealt with them, just as Ashley and Ikea have. Art Van operated in the same regional economy as Gardner White,” Allegrezza wrote.Baker’s Main Street Furniture owner may have been impacted by all of those factors, but owner David Baker is not saying that’s why he has chosen to close the doors after 103 years.More Retail:Dollar General copies Costco’s playbook with a discount twistPepsi and Coca-Cola bet big on soda Americans say they wantIconic supermarket chain closes more stores and facilitiesInstead, he’s calling the shutdown a retirement, Furniture Today reported. Baker has chosen furniture promotional sales specialists Planned Furniture Promotions to handle its going-out-of-business sale.“When a business has served the same community for more than a century, its impact reaches far beyond the showroom,” PFP Senior Vice President Tom Liddell told Furniture Today. “This is the end of an extraordinary chapter, and we’re honored to help the Baker family through this milestone.”

A number of long-standing furniture stores have closed their doors. Shutterstock

Baker’s Main Street Furniture was a regional giant”Baker’s Main Street Furniture is a family-owned discount furniture, bedroom, living room, dining room, office, and home accents store based in Garland, TX. Since 1923, Baker’s Main Street Furniture has served customers in Garland, Dallas, Plano, Rowlett, Wylie, Sachse, Rockwall, Mesquite, Allen, Richardson, and Frisco,” the company shared on its website.The company has not mentioned its impending closure on its website, which is still taking orders and offering long-term financing through a third-party credit provider. It did, however, share a press release celebrating its history and mentioning the going-out-of-business sales.”In 1923, August Marvin ‘A.M.’ Baker founded Baker’s Main Street Furniture as a hardware and general store in Wylie. Nine years later, he relocated the business to Garland, where he expanded into furniture and laid the foundation for what would become a family legacy spanning three generations,” according to the release. The Baker family renovated the store into the three-story showroom that has become a landmark in historic downtown Garland.Baker’s Main Street Furniture’s final sale is underway at 524 Main St. “Deep discounts will be offered on a wide variety of high-quality furniture, mattresses and accessories. Famous name brands include Barcalounger, Best Home Furnishings, Corsicana, Crestview Collection, Legacy Home, Massoud, Mayo, Southerland and Southern Motion. Management encourages early shopping for the best selection,” according to the release.Furniture chains are facing economic challengesJust because Baker did not mention the challenging economy does not mean it did not contribute to his company’s closure. “As 2025 drew to a close, consumers were still wary about making higher-ticket spends. A McKinsey & Co. report from November showed 47% planned to spend less of their discretionary income on furniture in the fourth quarter vs. just 18% who planned to spend more,” Furniture Today reported.The overall furniture industry has seen a slowdown, and “final mile” delivery company JB Hunt Transport Services has seen a major drop in demand. COO Nick Hobbs doesn’t expect a shift toward big purchases any time this year.“The end markets in this business remain challenged with demand for big and bulky products still muted, with soft demand for furniture, exercise equipment and appliances,” Hobbs said during his company’s second-quarter earnings call.A number of other furniture companies have shared similar reports.“Our industry has been in a bit of a malaise,” La-Z-Boy CEO Melinda Whittington said on a conference call, Investopedia reported. “But if the consumer is overall more strapped because of the broader macroeconomic trends, they will tend to stretch out their furniture purchases.”Related: Costco’s new service beats Amazon at its own game

After months of testing, Chick-fil-A is finally bringing several test items to its customers nationwide.While Chick-fil-A has built its reputation on iconic staples like its chicken sandwich, waffle fries, and signature sauce, the fast-growing quick-service chain has been experimenting with new menu items to keep customers engaged in a highly competitive restaurant environment.The company recently earned the top spot among quick-service restaurants for the 11th consecutive year, receiving a score of 83 out of 100 in the American Customer Satisfaction Index 2026 Restaurant and Food Delivery Study.As competition in the restaurant industry intensifies, Chick-fil-A is rolling out a major seasonal menu expansion for fall 2026, bringing several new flavors to customers nationwide.Chick-fil-A unveils 9 new items for its fall 2026 menuChick-fil-A is making nine test items available across all its restaurants nationwide beginning Aug. 24 through Nov. 14 as part of its new fall 2026 menu, the company told TheStreet.The nine-item lineup consists of two Chicken & Waffles Sandwiches, each available with multiple chicken options, plus a plain waffle and two treats. The new items include:Chicken & Waffles Breakfast Sandwich: Available in spicy, grilled, or original crispy chicken filetChicken & Waffles Sandwich: Available in spicy, grilled, or original crispy chicken filetPlain Waffle: Can be ordered on its ownS’mores MilkshakeS’mores Frosted CoffeeEach Chicken & Waffles Sandwich features a spicy, grilled, or original crispy chicken filet, applewood-smoked bacon, and honey butter spread, sandwiched between two maple waffles and served with a side of syrup. The breakfast version is smaller, while the lunch/dinner sandwich is full-sized.The breakfast offering will be available during standard breakfast hours, from opening until before 10:30 a.m., while the larger entrée size will be available from 10:30 a.m. to close.The handspun S’mores Milkshake is made with Chick-fil-A’s signature icedream dessert mixed with toasted marshmallow syrup and chocolate shortbread and graham cracker crumbles. It is topped with toasted marshmallow whipped cream and a cherry.The S’mores Frosted Coffee blends brewed coffee and Chick-fil-A’s signature icedream dessert with toasted marshmallow syrup and chocolate shortbread and graham cracker crumbles.”Both Chicken & Waffles and S’mores are much-loved classics, and we challenged ourselves to bring those flavors to our menu in a playful and unexpected way,” said Chick-fil-A Director of Menu and Packaging Allison Duncan in a statement sent to TheStreet. “After seeing the incredible response and excitement from Guests in our test markets, we couldn’t wait to share these flavors nationwide.”Alongside the fall 2026 menu release, Chick-fil-A is also releasing limited-time merchandise through its official online shop and at participating restaurants.Why Chick-fil-A is bringing the former test items nationwideBefore the nationwide launch announcement, Chick-fil-A first tested the breakfast and lunch/dinner versions of the Chicken & Waffles Sandwiches at select locations in Baltimore, Maryland, and San Antonio, Texas, from Dec. 1, 2025, through Jan. 24, 2026.The company also tested the S’mores Frosted Coffee and S’mores Milkshake at select restaurants in Austin, Texas, from late October 2025 through November 10.The nationwide rollout follows those limited-market tests, giving Chick-fil-A an opportunity to gauge customer response before making the items available across its restaurant network.

Chick-fil-A unveils its new fall 2026 menu.Fernanda Tronco/TheStreet

Chick-fil-A fosters innovation to stay relevant amid competitionChick-fil-A frequently tests experimental menu items in select markets before expanding them nationwide.Limited market tests like these allow brands to evaluate consumer demand before committing to a broader launch. Pilot programs also generate consumer buzz while reducing the financial risk associated with introducing a new menu item. Innovation has long played a role in Chick-fil-A’s strategy. The company opened HATCH Innovation Labs in 2012, a dedicated creative workspace designed to develop new ideas informed by customer feedback and operational testing. Industry experts say this type of experimentation has become increasingly important as consumers’ expectations around food and dining continue to evolve.”Consumers are no longer choosing food purely on category familiarity or brand recognition,” said Tastewise industry expert Kelia Losa Reinoso. “They are making decisions based on function, occasion, and flavor experience simultaneously, and they expect both their restaurant and retail choices to keep up.”Here’s some of my previous coverage on Chick-fil-A innovation:Chick-fil-A reveals seven new menu items for Spring 2026Chick-fil-A is making a major change to 425 restaurants nationwideChick-fil-A tries a growth planMenu innovation is also happening at a time when the foodservice industry faces mounting financial pressure. Prices for food away from home increased 3.4% in the 12 months ending July 2026, according to recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.Meanwhile, food and labor costs for the average restaurant have each risen by about 35% over the past five years, according to the National Restaurant Association.To offset those increases, menu prices climbed an average of 31% between February 2020 and April 2025, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.At the same time, overall traffic in the food service industry declined 1% in the quarter ending June 2025, according to Circana. The combination of higher costs and pressure on restaurant traffic has prompted many chains to find new ways to keep customers engaged and strengthen brand loyalty. For Chick-fil-A, limited-time offerings and nationwide launches of successful test items provide another way to generate interest while continuing to expand its menu.Related: Popular breakfast chain closes more restaurants

For much of the artificial intelligence boom, investors faced an uncomfortable trade-off.Big Tech continued to spend tens of billions of dollars on data centers, semiconductors, and cloud capacity as Wall Street waited for confirmation that investments would create enough income to justify the expense.JPMorgan now says the evidence is becoming much clearer.The bank lifted its year-end 2026 prediction for the S&P 500 to 8,000 from 7,800, Reuters reported, citing improved corporate profitability and more confidence that AI spending by the world’s leading technology companies will convert into faster revenue growth.That may not sound dramatic considering the index already gained 13.3% this year.But the justification for the improvement is more essential than the extra 200 points.JPMorgan says the AI investment cycle is transitioning from an era of pledges to spend into one where cloud growth, backlogs, and cash-flow visibility are starting to deliver real returns.That change has implications for investors in the firms funding the AI boom and for everyone wondering if the market’s lofty valuations can hold another leg higher.“As elevated backlogs convert into recognized revenue, cloud growth should remain well supported,” JPMorgan analysts said, reported by Reuters. The company added that the trend should help validate rising AI capital expenditures and ease concerns around return on invested capital.JPMorgan sees earnings catching up with the AI rallyJPMorgan’s new S&P 500 target rests heavily on earnings.The bank raised its 2026 S&P 500 earnings-per-share forecast to $365 from $350 and increased its 2027 forecast to $420 from $390, Reuters reported.That’s a powerful reset.The thinking is that JPMorgan anticipates corporate earnings to expand enough to support higher prices without another big push of market multiples.The second quarter earnings season has backed that viewpoint.Of the 436 S&P 500 companies that have reported earnings so far via Friday morning, 85.1% surpassed analyst expectations, according to LSEG data published by Reuters.From 1994 on, the long-term average is around 68%.That disparity is significant.That means corporate America is posting results far stronger than a typical earnings season, even after stocks have already surged drastically.Related: J.P. Morgan drops Fed rate bombshell over Warsh, inflationThe most significant gains have emerged among the hyperscalers responsible for some of the world’s largest AI capital-spending programs.Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft were among those highlighted by JPMorgan, which said greater cloud growth, bigger backlogs, and better cash-flow visibility eased concerns over whether AI spending will eventually pay off.That’s what makes the difference for investors.Just because you spend on AI doesn’t mean your stocks will go up.The market wanted proof that costly infrastructure was generating income.JPMorgan believes that evidence is increasingly visible.Big Tech is starting to justify its enormous AI spendingThe hyperscaler AI buildout has Wall Street both excited and worried.Technology giants have poured billions into semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, and data centers.That investment has paid off for chipmakers and infrastructure corporations, but it also has raised one fundamental challenge.But how long could corporations hold out before investors sought a return?The second quarter gave a stronger answer, according to JPMorgan.Investors gained increased confidence that AI spending is fueling future income, rather than just boosting capital expenditures, at Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, where stronger demand for cloud computing and rising order backlogs provided a boost.More Wall Street:Wall Street’s AI trade faces its biggest valuation testThe next Wall Street shift is already underwayWall Street sends strong 4-word verdict on the stock marketThat’s not to say the bank sees infinite upside.JPMorgan maintained its target valuation multiple around 20 times projected earnings.That restraint is crucial.What JPMorgan is really saying is not that investors should simply pay more for each dollar of earnings, but that larger profits can propel the market higher.The bank cited several reasons not to assume valuations can keep expanding indefinitely: higher interest rates, geopolitical risk, and heavy equity and debt issuance.That makes earnings growth particularly important.If multiples remain broadly stable, companies need to produce the profits currently embedded in expectations.

JPMorgan just made a bold call on what carries stocks higher.Bloomberg / Getty Images

S&P 500 investors still face a narrow margin for disappointmentAn 8,000 S&P 500 target seems bullish.The details are more delicate.The index is now around 3 percent below JPMorgan’s new year-end target of 7,757.64.And JPMorgan isn’t by itself anymore. At least seven brokerages now predict the S&P 500 to hit 8,000 by the end of 2026, Reuters reported.It makes for a fascinating premise.Expectations have gotten tougher to beat, but Wall Street has become more bullish in the market.What investors should watch8,000: JPMorgan’s new 2026 year-end S&P 500 target.7,800: The bank’s previous target.$365: JPMorgan’s revised 2026 S&P 500 EPS estimate, up from $350.$420: Its 2027 EPS forecast, raised from $390.85.1%: Share of reporting S&P 500 companies that beat earnings expectations through Friday morning.20x: JPMorgan’s unchanged forward valuation-multiple assumption.13.3%: S&P 500 gain so far in 2026.The bull case is simple.Corporate profitability is exceeding expectations, AI investments are beginning to generate tangible revenue benefits, and demand for cloud services is robust enough to sustain significant technology backlogs.The problem is that much of that good news is already priced in.The S&P 500 has risen more than 13% this year and the new goal from JPMorgan provides relatively limited further upside from here.Investors probably don’t need another wave of AI excitement.They need the money to keep rolling in.That’s what makes JPMorgan’s call interesting. The next phase of the AI rally might involve less of the talk about what artificial intelligence could someday become.Maybe it’s a matter of demonstrating that firms are already generating money out of it.Related: J.P. Morgan’s stock price is flashing valuation warning