🏠 HOME 🚀 THE NEXT FRONTIER NEW 💸 MONEY 🎯 SUCCESS 🏡 LIVING SPACES 🍿 WATCH
  • Skip to main content

Mad Mad News

LIVE ABOVE THE MADNESS

SUCCESS


Macy’s is selling a $205 French farmhouse quilt set for $72

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: SUCCESS, The Street

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 deal

Your bedding has a far greater impact on your overall mood than you may even realize. Aside from the obvious of how it helps you sleep comfortably, the right quilt or comforter can totally define the look of your bedroom. Whether you favor modern or traditional, colorful or neutral, your bedcover can express your personal tastes and make you feel truly at home in your personal sanctuary. This week, Macy’s shared an incredible deal on one of its most intriguing farmhouse quilt sets during its Friends and Family sale.

The Ienjoy Home 3-Piece French Jacobean Reversible Quilt Set can provide the visual update your bedroom needs. Thanks to a 65% discount with code FRIENDS, you can score the set for only $72. 

Ienjoy Home French Jacobean Reversible 3-piece Quilt Set, $72 (was $205) at Macy’s

Courtesy of Macy’s

Shop at Macy’s

Why do shoppers love it?

It’s not often that you can find high-end bedding at such an affordable price. Made with a 100% microfiber shell, the brushed fabric is soft to the touch and highly breathable. It has horizontal line stitching throughout, offering visual depth and dimension as well as bolstering the blanket’s rugged build. This is the perfect year-round bedcover that can offer the warmth you need without stifling you in the warmer months. Included in the set are a quilt and two matching pillowcases. The queen-sized quilt measures 94 inches long by 90 inches wide, and the standard pillowcases are 26 inches long by 20 inches wide.  

What’s more, this quilt set is almost like getting two for the price of one. The bedcover is reversible, with a floral farmhouse motif on one side and a pale blue solid design on the other. It allows you to keep things interesting and change up the look whenever you feel like it. The aforementioned white horizontal stitching can be seen on the block blue side of the blanket as well, adding a bit of additional texture to the otherwise plain design. 

The quilt is wrinkle and fade resistant, with anti-fray stitching at the edges. That’s especially useful whenever you put it through a wash and dry cycle. As long as you wash in cold water and tumble dry on the low heat setting, it will come out looking and feeling as good as new. This lovely set is available in blue and pink colorways. It also comes in three sizes, from twin to California king. At this price, it may be wise to buy one for yourself and one as a gift for a loved one. 

Related: Macy’s is selling a $150 farmhouse quilt set for $45

Macy’s shoppers were thrilled with this bedding set. One said the gorgeous design “soothes” before adding that “The quilt is soft and light but feels sturdy. I love it! Perfect size.”

Shop more deals 

Florence Reversible 8-Piece Comforter Set, $40 (was $100) at Macy’s

Seventh Studio Cardinal Patchwork 3-Piece Quilt Set, $30 (was $60) at Macy’s

Meadow Reversible 3-Piece Comforter Set, $28 (was $80) at Macy’s

The Ienjoy Home 3-Piece French Jacobean Reversible Farmhouse Quilt Set is the perfect purchase in the lead-up to the holiday season. As temperatures drop, so has the price on this beautiful bedding set. You’ll only have to spend $72 to have this soft and cozy bedspread in your room for the holidays.

Olympic Gold Medalist Chloe Kim Opens Up About ADHD Diagnosis

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: Forbes, SUCCESS

Two-time Olympic gold medalist snowboarder Chloe Kim discusses how her recent diagnosis with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder took a while and her ADHD treatment

Today’s Wordle #1958 Hints, Clues And Answer For Thursday October 29

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: Forbes, SUCCESS

Looking for help with today’s New York Times Wordle? Here are some expert hints, clues and commentary to help you solve today’s Wordle and sharpen your guessing game.

Anthropic’s Elvis lawsuit could reach inside Claude itself

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: SUCCESS, The Street

Anthropic faces a $48.6 million lawsuit involving songs made famous by Elvis Presley just as it prepares to sell shares to the public.

However, the claim for damages can be the less significant figure.

The plaintiffs also want a federal court to seize or destroy Anthropic’s training datasets, internal repositories, model weights, and server infrastructure carrying unauthorized copies of their music.

For potential Anthropic investors, it may be far more important than another lawsuit.

In its first public offering filing, Anthropic cautioned that unfavorable copyright rulings would limit its use or distribution of impacted models or possibly force it to retrain those models at significant expense.

Anthropic publicly filed its registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 26.

Three days before, the Elvis-related complaint was submitted.

This makes what would otherwise seem to be just another copyright litigation a timely illustration of one of the risks Anthropic is requesting prospective investors to take.

Elvis song owners want more than $48.6 million

The lawsuit covers 274 compositions associated with Presley, including “All Shook Up,” “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” “Don’t Be Cruel,” and “Return to Sender.”

The plaintiffs claim Anthropic deleted copyright-management information, including composer and publisher data, and copied songs without authorization to teach Claude.

Music Business Worldwide reported that the plaintiffs are seeking as much as $41.1 million in statutory copyright damages plus another $7.535 million under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

“We disagree with the claims and intend to defend this case fully,” an Anthropic spokesperson told Music Business Worldwide.

This is the actual complaint. The suggested cure is the uncommon part.

Read more: What Jim Cramer is watching as Anthropic heads to Nasdaq

The plaintiffs are asking the court to reach material allegedly retained not only in conventional datasets but also in model weights.

The numerical values that an artificial intelligence system learns during training are known as model weights. They assist in determining Claude’s reaction to training.

That does not imply that a court is going to destroy Claude.

The plaintiffs still need to substantiate their claims, Anthropic disputes the accusations, and the action has only just been filed.

However, the request demonstrates why an AI business may face a different sort of risk from a typical damages action in copyright litigation.

Anthropic’s IPO filing spells out the larger danger

What may happen if courts reject legal arguments made by AI developers is explained in Anthropic’s own prospectus.

The business claims to have sufficient legal rights or protections for its training data, including the assertion that certain uses are fair use. However, the copyright laws pertaining to contemporary AI training are still unclear.

Anthropic cautions that a negative decision would limit its capacity to share models based on contested material, raise license prices, or restrict access to training data.

More significantly, it states that Anthropic may have to retrain the affected models entirely if the court issues an injunction.

The true conflict among investors is that Anthropic’s remarkable sales growth may make it easier to stomach a $48.6 million lawsuit.

If Anthropic’s remarkable sales growth continues, it may be easier to stomach a $48.6 million lawsuit.

More Artificial Intelligence:

AI’s biggest business opportunity may not look like AI

AI racks are outgrowing old power: 2 chipmakers have a strategy

BofA splits software into winners and losers as AI agents arrive

It is more difficult to price the reconstruction of a frontier AI model. Large quantities of processing power, engineering labor, and time are needed; these are the same resources that Anthropic uses to compete with OpenAI, Google, and other AI developers.

Anthropic has previously shown how costly copyright lawsuits may become.

According to its prospectus, it settled the Bartz copyright lawsuit involving writers for $1.5 billion. In July, a district court granted the settlement.

Anthropic also faces other pending cases involving music publishers and copyrighted lyrics.

This means that the Presley case is only one aspect of a larger legal issue that affects the AI sector as a whole: What would happen if judges determined that some of the content used to create the most useful AI models available today shouldn’t have existed?

Anthropic’s $48.6 million lawsuit hides a bigger IPO risk.Bloomberg / Getty Images

Anthropic investors have a legal test to watch

The most recent lawsuit also has a significant flaw.

Music Business Worldwide noted that the plaintiffs allege Claude created infringing material involving the 274 compositions, but the complaint does not specify Claude reproducing a Presley song.

This development is significant because accusations are not conclusions. Courts are still figuring out how current copyright law relates to AI training, and Anthropic may be able to effectively refute some or all of the allegations.

However, the case offers a helpful example of something hidden in the prospectus for investors thinking about Anthropic’s IPO.

The amount of money Anthropic could owe rights holders is not always the largest copyright risk.

The question is whether a court will ultimately compel the business to modify Claude’s training, limit a current model, or create a new one.

Therefore, investors should keep an eye on more than just $48.6 million. It is the extent to which courts will allow copyright remedies to penetrate the models themselves.

Related: Anthropic’s IPO comes with an unusual warning on AI’s risk to humanity

Sprouts plans nationwide grocery price changes, adds 1,400 products

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: SUCCESS, The Street

Eating healthy is becoming increasingly difficult for Americans as grocery bills rise. Even shoppers who prioritize organic and natural products are reconsidering their spending.

Sprouts Farmers Market is feeling that pressure as customers become more selective about their grocery purchases.

But rather than scaling back, the specialty grocer is introducing new products, expanding affordable prepared meals, and preparing a nationwide pricing overhaul to make healthier food more accessible.

Sprouts launched more than 1,400 unique products during its third quarter, according to its Oct. 28 earnings presentation.

It also reported strong adoption of its loyalty program and opened a record 15 stores.

Now, incoming CEO Nick Konat has confirmed plans to reduce prices on healthy and holiday essentials nationwide, with a broader pricing strategy to follow in January 2027.

Sprouts faces affordability challenge

Recent foot traffic data suggests Sprouts’ existing stores began to stabilize after a difficult first half.

According to an Oct. 21 Placer.ai report, visits to established locations declined just 0.1% year over year in the third quarter, compared with a 4.1% decline in the previous quarter.

However, performance varied across major markets:

Florida: Visits increased 2.2%.

California: Visits rose 1.1%.

Arizona: Visits declined 0.6%.

Texas: Visits fell 3.2%.

Placer.ai found stronger performance in markets where shoppers’ household incomes were closer to their state’s median income, suggesting that Sprouts may be becoming a regular grocery destination in some communities rather than an occasional specialty stop.

Still, affordability remains a challenge. In an Oct. 23 research note, UBS analysts estimated that roughly half of Sprouts’ customer households earn less than $100,000 annually, despite the retailer’s relatively affluent customer base.

That pressure was reflected in Sprouts’ latest results. Total sales increased 5% to $2.3 billion, helped by new stores, but comparable-store sales declined 0.9%.

Transactions at existing stores fell 3.3%, while average transaction size increased 2.5%, indicating that fewer shopping trips were partially offset by higher spending per transaction.

The company expects comparable sales to decline another 2% to 4% during the fourth quarter.

During its Oct. 28  Q3 2026 earnings call, Konat acknowledged that weaker shopping frequency was no longer limited to less-engaged, lower-income customers.

Sprouts is beginning to see even its core customers purchase fewer items and make slightly fewer trips.

Sprouts plans nationwide grocery price cuts and changes

This slowdown has prompted Sprouts to develop a more substantial response.

“Our current pricing strategy has not delivered against that goal,” Konat said, referring to making healthy eating more affordable.

Sprouts plans to introduce lower prices on selected healthy and holiday staples across the country before rolling out a rebuilt national pricing strategy in January.

During the call, Konat identified three areas where the company intends to improve affordability:

Lower-priced entry options: Products such as Sprouts Brand cage-free eggs and raw almonds

Frequently purchased essentials: More competitive pricing on conventional produce

Premium healthy-food staples: Items important to Sprouts shoppers, including organic grass-fed beef

Actual price reductions and savings amounts have not yet been announced.

“This is not a shift to broad-based discounting,” Konat said.

Instead, the company wants to improve prices on products customers regularly buy while keeping its specialty assortment.

Sprouts’ earlier pricing experiments produced mixed results. Discounts helped customers purchase more items in certain categories but did not consistently increase the frequency of return visits.

The latest strategy will cover a much broader selection, with pricing adjusted according to the market and the products shoppers consider most important.

Sprouts will cut prices and add more assortments.krblokhin / Getty Images

Sprouts expands healthier products and affordable meals

Product innovation is core to the retailer’s strategy.

The 1,400-plus items launched in the third quarter followed approximately 1,300 additions in the previous quarter.

Sprouts has been expanding organic, protein-rich, high-fiber, and seed-oil-free options, alongside products addressing specific nutritional needs.

During its July earnings call, management highlighted additions including Pasturebird chicken and Better Than Pop.

The chain has also been promoting prepared meals as alternatives to restaurant takeout.

Previously announced offerings include:

$29.99 family meals for four

Fresh-made salads below $9

Wellness bowls priced below $10

Fresh-baked organic sourdough bread for $4

Prices and availability may vary by location.

Konat said innovation is performing well in the frozen foods, bakery, and deli departments, particularly in products that combine health, convenience, freshness, and value.

Interestingly, broader eating trends may favor Sprouts.

A Cornell University study found that households using GLP-1 medications reduced grocery spending by an average of 5.3% within six months, with particularly sharp declines in snacks and sweets.

While some healthier products gained popularity, the findings suggest consumers may be eating differently without necessarily spending more on groceries.

That raises a question for Sprouts. How can a retailer specializing in healthier food persuade shoppers to visit more often?

Sprouts improving produce prices and freshness

Produce remains another major focus.

Sprouts acknowledged growing competition from conventional supermarkets, particularly in produce categories where shoppers can easily compare prices.

Konat said the company has performed well in organic produce but sees room to improve pricing on conventional fruits and vegetables.

More Retail:

Kroger cuts discounts, promises pricing changes

Walmart gets aggressive when it comes to holiday sales

Costco copies a popular Trader Joe’s collectible

The retailer is also working to improve freshness and reduce waste.

Management explained that slower product turnover can affect produce quality, making it important to sell fresh items more consistently.

Sprouts plans to simplify some in-store processes and improve inventory management to address the issue.

The retailer also faced disruption from the cyclospora outbreak earlier this year.

As TheStreet reported in July, a major Taco Bell supplier pulled lettuce after concerns about contaminated produce.

Sprouts estimated that the broader disruption reduced third-quarter comparable-store sales by 0.6 percentage points, although it did not identify that supplier’s recalled lettuce as a product sold in its stores.

During the latest call, management said the disruption peaked around August and early September and has gradually eased, although it remains a slight headwind.

Sprouts bets on loyalty rewards and personalized savings

Loyalty programs are becoming increasingly important as retailers compete for shoppers making fewer trips.

As TheStreet recently reported, convenience-store loyalty members visit their preferred retailers more frequently than nonmembers, although satisfaction with rewards apps has declined.

Grocery chains are pursuing similar strategies. Safeway and Vons recently reduced the price of their paid grocery memberships while removing several benefits.

Sprouts takes a different approach through its free Sprouts Rewards program. Members earn five points per dollar on eligible purchases, with 1,000 points redeemable for a $2 reward.

The program also offers personalized coupons, exclusive promotions, and bonus-point opportunities.

Konat said Sprouts is preparing to make greater use of customer data to develop more relevant product recommendations, offers, and shopping experiences.

The company wants to move beyond simply promoting individual dietary attributes, such as gluten-free products, toward helping customers find solutions for broader wellness goals, including gut health.

Sprouts expands delivery and considers store improvements

Despite weaker sales at established locations, Sprouts continues to expand.

The company opened 15 stores during the third quarter, bringing its total to 504 locations across 25 states. It still expects 42 net-new stores in 2026.

But existing stores could also see changes. Konat said Sprouts is evaluating ways to refresh older locations, improve how customers discover new products, and better highlight fresh foods.

Tests are being prepared, although the company has not announced a chainwide remodeling schedule.

Online shopping is another bright spot. Sprouts reported 12% e-commerce growth during the third quarter, with digital orders accounting for more than 16% of total sales.

As TheStreet previously reported, the retailer also partnered with Shipt to offer same-day delivery from more than 500 stores, complementing Instacart, DoorDash, and Uber Eats.

The changes come ahead of a leadership transition in January 2027, when Konat will succeed Jack Sinclair as CEO.

For shoppers, Sprouts’ next chapter promises more affordable healthy essentials, new specialty products, personalized savings, and potentially refreshed stores.

The first changes will begin as early as the holiday shopping season, and the broader nationwide pricing strategy is scheduled for January.

Latest Retail NewsEtsy CEO has an unexpected message for shoppersKroger and Albertsons want to change your grocery shoppingGoldman Sachs lowers Whirlpool stock price targetCostco faces major food court complaints

Fed Chair Kevin Warsh reveals October surprise inside interest-rate pause

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: SUCCESS, The Street

Five months into his term as Federal Reserve chairman, Kevin Warsh has kicked off his promised “regime change” at the U.S. central bank by dropping a bombshell about monetary policy in 2027.

But he repeatedly sidestepped the question of why the Fed is keeping short-term borrowing rates steady if the majority of policymakers say the economy is strong and inflation remains too high.

Markets expected the Federal Open Market Committee’s pause at its Oct. 27-28 meeting, despite hiking short-term interest rates by 25 basis points in September to a range of 3.75% to 4%, aiming to cool rising price pressures.  

In keeping with his “no-forward guidance” stance, Warsh stayed mum during the post-meeting press conference as to what the Fed might consider for its rate path at the Dec. 8-9 meeting.

But heads turned when he announced that starting in the fall of 2027, the Fed would hold eight scheduled meetings in 2027, with one devoted exclusively to monetary policy strategy and no rate vote. In 2028, he expects two strategy meetings and six policy-setting meetings.  

“In terms of Warsh as an institution builder, this is the most ambitious overhaul of how the Fed operates in decades: less guidance, no rate projection of his own, outside task forces to re-examine their entire suite of metrics, and now a new meeting calendar that will put monetary policy on a 60-day pace, which seems to be congruent with how Warsh views the time needed for the committee to properly function,’’ REX Financial Head of Research Bill Birmingham told TheStreet in an exclusive email interview.

My first thought: “Whoa.” How will this less-is-more approach impact Wall Street and Main Street?

“The trade-off is that with less guidance and fewer decision points, each rate move has to carry more weight. The net result will be elevated volatility until the inflation target is met,” Birmingham said.

Why did the Fed pause interest-rate bets in October?

The Fed has struggled to bring inflation back to its 2% target after years of above-target price increases. 

“I would call this a hawkish hold with an eye towards a December hike that got the hawks to a 10-2 decision rather than splitting the vote on hiking now. It was a best of worlds situation for Warsh here: Tough language, but patient action,’’ Birmingham said. “He talked about owning 2% after six years above it, then described policy that isn’t yet tight by his own account.” 

Given this backdrop, Warsh had no reason to wait on another rate hike but did. Why? 

“Mainly because any measure of core PCE is not showing the diesel shock pushing what has been slowing inflation momentum in the other direction. That could change with the new results out tomorrow, but he has room for now to let the economy run, and he made it clear he will,’’ Birmingham said. 

The September PCE index will be released Oct. 29 and is estimated to rise to 3.60% year-over-year according to the Cleveland Fed — and displaying nearly six years of inflation above the Fed’s own 2% target. 

Could more Fed interest-rate hikes be ahead?

There were two notable dissents on the 12-member committee — Fed Governor Lisa Cook and Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack, who both would have preferred another 25 basis-point hike to the benchmark federal funds rate to tame prices.

PGIM Chief U.S. Economist Robert Sockin said the FOMC decision to pause was “perplexing.”

“This pause looks divorced from not only the economic data, but the Fed’s interpretation of the data as well. Ultimately, we think the decision to hold is a policy mistake, and a gradual Fed likely means one that has to hike higher, mechanically raising recession risk,’’ he told TheStreet in an email. “We still see four 25 basis-point hikes, one per quarter, with the next one in December.”

The CME Group’s FedWatch Tool shows traders pricing in a roughly 78.4% probability of another 25 basis-point hike at its Dec. 8-9 meeting.

Greg Gizzi, CIO of Fixed Income and Head of Municipal Bonds at Nomura Asset Management International, agreed there could be additional tightening ahead.

Related: How a Fed interest rate pause would impact Main Street investors

Warsh “seemed to take some comfort that financial conditions were tighter since the last meeting but said he is unwilling to call them tight,’’ Gizzi told TheStreet in an exclusive email. 

“The Fed seems willing to take a methodical approach, but work remains to be done to bring inflation back to their target. We anticipate that the Fed will still need to increase interest rates to achieve their target.’’ Gizzi said.

FOMC meets as divisive midterm elections loom

This was the final FOMC meeting of the year before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

Historically, the Fed doesn’t act on rates before an election.

President Donald Trump has been demanding the independent central bank cut interest rates to 1% or below for his entire second term, and has repeatedly described the U.S. economy in glowing terms and downplayed affordability concerns especially during his recent campaign rallies for GOP candidates.

“Due to the politically charged climate, there will naturally be more scrutiny around the Fed’s decision to hold the rates steady. Kevin Warsh explicitly said political considerations, including the midterms, did not play a role in the decision,’’ The Wealth Alliance CEO and Managing Director Robert Conzo told TheStreet in an exclusive email interview.

Ultimately, preserving that independence is critical to the Fed’s credibility, he added.

“Monetary policy certainly has consequences for voters, but decisions need to remain focused on inflation, employment and the broader economy rather than the political calendar,” Conzo said.

Fed’s dual mandate focuses on jobs, prices

The Fed’s dual mandate from Congress requires maximum employment and price stability. 

Yes, it’s a tricky balance of monetary policy because:

Lower interest rates support hiring but can fuel inflation. This risks fueling further inflation, potentially leading to an inflationary spiral.

Higher rates cool prices but can weaken the job market. This increases the cost of borrowing and further stifles economic activity.

Warsh’s hands-off approach seems to be working, Birmingham said. 

“He also has burgeoning signs that consumer inflation expectations are off peak, and the broader credit markets, whether through spreads, long term rates, or credit committee decisions, are doing the rest of the work for him,’’ Birmingham said. 

“As long as this doesn’t get out of hand, Warsh seems to have found a winning formula for the moment,” he added.

Related: Fed holds rates: Good news for homeowners (for now)

Disney Reveals Total Cost Of ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ And Admits It Blew Its Budget

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: Forbes, SUCCESS

Disney made a startling admission today in the latest earnings report for its production company behind 2024’s Marvel Studios movie Deadpool & Wolverine.

Veteran Wall Street Firm Weil Plans To Wind Down—Here’s Why

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: Forbes, SUCCESS

The law firm failed to complete its merger with rival Willkie Farr & Gallagher following failed negotiations this month.

Zillow warns homebuyers on housing costs, mortgage rate change

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: SUCCESS, The Street

As mortgage rates remain stubbornly high, real estate technology company Zillow issues a warning for homebuyers about the hidden costs of homeownership.

“Buying a home comes with a price tag, but keeping that home comes with a second one,” wrote Zillow.

Beyond the principal mortgage, other expenses of homeownership — such as routine maintenance, property taxes, and insurance policies — now total $16,566 annually across the country, tacking on roughly $1,380 each month, according to a new analysis from Zillow.

“Many households focus so much on winning the home and underestimate what it costs to live in it,” said Zillow Senior Economist Kara Ng. “Long after they receive the keys, insurance, taxes and upkeep are recurring expenses to plan for.”

“Since these homeownership costs vary so much by market, home shoppers should run the numbers and understand what they can truly afford before they make an offer.”

Freddie Mac reports weekly 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is 7.32%

The cost of maintenance, property taxes and home insurance are particularly difficult to navigate for many people considering current mortgage rates.

On Oct. 22, the weekly 30-year fixed-rate mortgage clocked in at 7.32%, which is still painfully high, but down from Oct. 15 when it averaged 7.40%, according to Freddie Mac.

“The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage declined this week, offering some relief to prospective homebuyers,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist.

On Oct. 28, the daily FRM was 7.35%, according to Mortgage News Daily (MND). Even with the recent uptick, 30-year fixed mortgage rates sit just 5 basis points higher than last week’s 7.30% trough and are up a mere 0.02% from yesterday’s 7.33% reading.

“Today’s Fed announcement had no impact on mortgage rate movement, and minimal impact on intraday bond market volatility,” wrote MND’s Matthew Graham. “Well before the Fed announcement, the bond market was already slightly weaker compared to yesterday’s latest levels.”

“As a result, the average mortgage lender set rates just a hair higher,” Graham added. “Recent upward pressure is a factor of improvement in investor sentiment surrounding the tech sector.”

Zillow explains hidden homeownership cost trends

For the typical U.S. homeowner, additional expenses break down into $11,171 for annual maintenance, $3,129 for property taxes, and $2,266 for homeowners insurance, according to Zillow.

“Over the past five years, homeowners insurance premiums have jumped 54%, maintenance costs have risen 32%, and property taxes have gone up 19%,” Zillow reported. “But the pace is cooling. Overall, the cost of owning a home rose just 3% in the past year, compared with 32% over five years.”

More Mortgage Rates and Housing Market:

Goldman Sachs has a new warning for the housing market for 2027

Fannie Mae updates its mortgage rate predictions for 2027

Jeff Bezos has a blunt answer for why housing is so expensive

Of all the three main costs, maintenance is showing the clearest slowdown.

“Yearly increases in maintenance costs have shrunk every year, from 9% in 2022 to 1% in 2026,” Zillow wrote.

“Insurance may be following the same path. Federal data shows insurance premiums rose just 0.3% between February and June 2026, though they remain well above where they were five years ago.”

Amid fluctuating mortgage rates, Zillow is warning prospective homebuyers not to overlook hidden homeownership costs.NurPhoto / Getty Images

Homeowner costs vary by region

A small number of major metropolitan areas have seen the steepest increases in costs.

Across 19 of the 30 metropolitan areas analyzed by Zillow, insurance premiums have surged by at least 50% over the past five years — with Dallas (+75%), Tampa (+71%), Denver (+70%), and Houston (+69%) recording the steepest climbs.

Miami tops the nation in sheer cost at nearly $5,000 annually, followed by five other markets — Dallas, Houston, Tampa, Orlando, and Denver — where yearly premiums now exceed $3,000.

In Houston, Phoenix, Denver, and Nashville, annual insurance bills have even outpaced property taxes, a trend largely fueled by severe weather events such as damaging winds, tornadoes, and hail in vulnerable regions like Dallas and Denver.

“Maintenance remains the largest hidden cost everywhere, at roughly two-thirds of the national total, and tops $12,000 in six major metros, including Seattle ($12,594) and Boston ($12,486),” Zillow wrote.

“Los Angeles experienced the sharpest surge in maintenance expenses, jumping 27% year over year,” the real estate technology company added.

“This steep rise reflects a mix of regional factors, including wildfire-related recovery efforts, heightened demand for home services, and persistently elevated labor costs.”

Related: Zillow predicts major mortgage rate, housing market change

Trick or Treat? Index Funds Beat Their Benchmarks More Often Than Active Funds Over the Past Decade

October 28, 2026 MMN Editor Filed Under: SUCCESS

Morningstar recently launched some new data points that slice active and passive funds into finer cuts. Formerly, any active fund—whether it was run by a swashbuckling portfolio manager or driven by quantitative factors—got the “active” tag, while the different flavors of passive funds were all labeled “index.” Now there are some new data points that bring out the shades of gray. They are:Data pointDefinitionActive – DiscretionaryStrategies where qualitative judgment, fundamental research, or subjective decision-making by the advisor or portfolio managers is central to portfolio construction, even if supported by quantitative tools.Active – SystematicStrategies that don’t track an index but are primarily driven by models, rules, or quantitative frameworks for security selection and weighting, with limited or secondary human discretion.Active – OtherStrategies where nontraditional mechanics (such as options overlays, targeted leverage, inverse exposure, or long/short structures) are the primary drivers of returns and are not subordinate to discretionary or systematic stock/bond selection.Passive – Index TrackingStrategies that seek to replicate or track the total return of a specific index, following index composition with minimal active oversight.Passive – OtherStrategies designed to track or replicate single-asset exposures, commodities, or leveraged/inverse structures—often where the reference asset or index is composed of nontraditional securities and/or exposure is achieved synthetically through derivatives.(For a more complete and insightful breakdown, see my colleague Dan Sotiroff’s recent article here.)Though these data points aren’t available to Morningstar.com users just yet (they’re being launched initially in our institutional research product, Morningstar Direct), I’ve been playing around with them and think they impart some useful lessons. Lesson 1: Cost Is a Spectrum, Not a Bright LineIt was probably already obvious to some of you, but there’s always been a range of fees among active and passive funds. Indeed, there are some cut-rate actives as well as some nosebleed-expensive index funds, and vice versa. The new data points bring that into sharper relief. Here are the average fees of active US stock funds based on their Morningstar Category as well as their active/passive classification. (For purposes of this analysis, I’m going to exclude the two “Other” active/passive strategy types, as they’re home to relatively few funds.)Here is the same thing, but this time it’s the asset-weighted average expense ratio by peer group and active/passive classification.In general, the average active-systematic fund was cheaper than the average active-discretionary fund, and that difference was even more pronounced when weighted by net assets.How about passive funds? To really bring out the cost differences among those funds, I’ve used the new “Passive-Index Tracking” data point together with our existing “Strategic Beta” tag (our term for what some in the industry self-servingly calls “smart beta”).Now for the same thing, but this time, weighted by net assets:These charts are a little harder to suss out, but long story short, the average non-strategic-beta index-tracking fund tended to be cheaper than the average strategic-beta index-tracking fund in the blend categories but not the others. Why? Most of the index-tracking funds in the value and growth categories are classified as “strategic beta,” including the biggest and cheapest value and growth funds like Vanguard Value Index and iShares Russell 1000 Growth. Since the category-by-category analysis can be a little noisy, here’s the breakdown for all US equity funds, irrespective of peer group. I’ve derived the average fee for each cohort on both an equal-weighted and asset-weighted basis.What you find, not too surprisingly, is that discretionary active funds cost the most, on average, but it steps down from there, with the average active systematic fund charging markedly less and an even steeper drop-off as you get to the average strategic beta and traditional cap-weighted index-tracking funds. Weighted by assets, the average index-tracking, non-strategic-beta fund recently cost (0.05%) about one-twelfth as much as the average active-discretionary fund (0.59%). Lesson 2: Lower Costs, Better Odds of SuccessThe average cost differences aren’t necessarily a revelation, but the impact becomes even more apparent when you tally up average success rates and excess returns by active/strategy fund type. For this one, I’m going to skip the Morningstar Categories and present the aggregate average results for each grouping: Here are the trailing one-, three-, five-, and 10-year success rates (which I defined as the percentage of active funds that had beaten their style-specific index) for each group as of Sept. 30, 2026.The cheaper groupings—starting with active-systematic—were likelier to outperform over most of these periods than the priciest, active—discretionary. That was even true of the staidest of the staid: index-tracking nonstrategic beta, where funds succeeded more often against the benchmarks than the funds paid to do so, active-discretionary.How could that be? It boils down to index differences: The index-tracking funds might follow a bogy that topped the benchmarks I used to derive each fund’s excess return. For instance, over the 10 years ended Sept. 30, 2026, the S&P 500 gained 15.33% per year, while the Russell 1000 rose 15.05% annually. As such, an S&P 500-tracking fund likely outperformed the Russell index, provided its fees were low and it tracked well. And so forth. I also calculated the groupings’ average excess returns versus their indexes. Here’s how that looked over the decade ended Sept. 30, 2026.Keep in mind that these figures (and the success rates above them) do not reflect the results of dead funds and, thus, are survivorship-biased higher. But because there are far more active funds than passive funds, and given active funds are less likely to survive longer periods than index-trackers, that bias inflates the active-discretionary grouping’s results the most. Notwithstanding that, the same basic trend holds: The cheaper groupings fared better, or at least lagged to a lesser degree, on average than active-discretionary funds. On the bright side for active, note that cheaper active-systematic funds did best of all, underscoring the degree to which lower fees can bend the odds in one’s favor, albeit not enough to generate a positive average annual excess return over this time frame on an equal-weighted basis.Lesson 3: Active Doesn’t Win on Risk, EitherOne argument active-fund proponents make is that active managers can do a better job of avoiding downside and managing risk than a fund tethered to a cap-weighted index can. Formerly, we’d have evaluated this as a binary: all the actives versus all the passives. But with the new data points, we can measure differences across the range of strategies. To that end, I started with the most obvious difference between funds in these groups: the degree to which they deviated from an index, that is, tracking error. As one would expect, active-discretionary funds exhibited the highest tracking error over the 10 years ended Sept. 30, 2026, followed by active-systematic and strategic beta funds (which were similar), and finally by cap-weighted index trackers.Next, I turned to volatility, measuring differences in the average standard deviation of these funds’ monthly returns over the 10 years ended Sept. 30, 2026.All told, active funds—both discretionary and systematic—were slightly more volatile, on average, than index-tracking funds over the decade. Moreover, when I compared the groups based on their maximum drawdown over this period, I found that the average maximum peak-to-trough downturn was slightly shallower for the index-tracking funds than it was for the two flavors of active funds.To bring things together, I calculated the average difference between each grouping’s aggregate Sortino ratio and the ratio of their style-appropriate benchmarks. (A Sortino ratio is similar to a Sharpe ratio; it divides a security’s excess return versus the risk-free rate by the volatility of its returns, but the Sortino ratio plugs in downside standard deviation only.)In summary, the cheaper the grouping, the better its risk-adjusted returns when compared with a relevant benchmark, with nonstrategic index-tracking funds coming out ahead. TakeawaysThis is an admittedly basic analysis: It’s limited to trailing periods as of Sept. 30, 2026, excludes dead funds, and doesn’t consider every possible dimension of risk and return. Nonetheless, there are a few things we can take away:The fund universe is kaleidoscopic, and it’s therefore worth distinguishing between otherwise ostensibly similar funds. For instance, we saw that the average cost and outcomes of active funds varied depending on whether they were fully discretionary or quantitatively driven. The new data points help to highlight those differences.Those distinctions could make the difference between a good fit and a mismatch. Suppose you wanted the wide diversification of an index fund but weren’t sold on a purely cap-weighted indexing approach. In such a scenario, it could make sense to look at cheap active-systematic or strategic beta funds, which tend to strike a balance between pure indexing and full-blown active investing. A binary—active and passive—won’t convey that.Differences aside, there’s no escaping the primacy of cost. The cheaper a grouping was, the better its odds of success were. If you’re a devotee of one type of investing or another, that’s fine. But it’s still worth keeping this relationship front of mind. Start with cost, work your way from there.The juice sometimes isn’t going to be worth the squeeze. The active/strategy groupings arguably double as a complexity map. The least simple approach, by its nature, is active-discretionary. Why so? Agency risk, that is, human beings steer those strategies and so their imperatives, incentives, and tics become yours in a sense. Sometimes that will work in your favor, but it’s almost unquestionable they’ll take more work to research and monitor. It’s at least worth considering, especially if there are other comparable strategies that might be less complicated, if still entailing their own trade-offs.Switched OnHere are other things I’m reading and listening to:Trying to figure out how much you’re paying for that semiliquid fund that invests in other funds? Good luck with that“What if this is the worst time to retire?” with Christine Benz and Ben CarlsonDave Nadig with a good explainer on “perpetual futures” and ETFsETFs are kicking the bucket sooner (via Eric Balchunas at Bloomberg, via Andre Yapp)“Exponential Wealth: Centuries of Stock and Bond Returns” by Roger IbbotsonDwarkesh Patel on why the frontier labs need to release all their models, including the dangerous ones (h/t Kunal Kapoor)Phoebe Bridgers “Lost Weekend” (which has grown on me)Don’t Be a StrangerI love hearing from you. Have some feedback? An angle for an article? Email me at jeffrey.ptak@morningstar.com. If you’re so inclined, you can also follow me on Twitter/X at @syouth1, and I do some odds-and-ends writing on a Substack called Basis Pointing.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 51
  • Page 52
  • Page 53
  • Page 54
  • Page 55
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 340
  • Go to Next Page »

© 2026–2027 OCON Entertainment Group LLC. All rights reserved.
MadMadNews.com is owned and operated by OCON Entertainment Group LLC.
Third-party news, images, videos, and trademarks remain the property of their respective owners.
Copyright, Ownership & Takedown Notice