The White House is pressuring pharmaceutical companies to cut pricing and manufacturing deals.
Markets brace for a potential Fed hike!
Read the latest insights on how energy shocks and inflation risks could reshape monetary policy and housing finance.https://t.co/JC7PcYe8KY#finance #FederalReserve #inflation #markets
— Mortgage Professional America Magazine (@MPAMagazineUS) March 31, 2026
“The strongest‑performing markets include Reading, PA; Rochester, NY; Springfield, MA; Allentown‑Bethlehem‑Easton, PA‑NJ; Rockford, IL; Hartford, CT; Racine, WI; Syracuse, NY; and Manchester, NH, alongside San Jose, CA, which stands out due to its exposure to the tech sector,” Veros said.
Reading led with a 4.2% gain, followed by San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara at 4.1%; Rochester and Springfield at 4.0%; Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton at 3.9%; Rockford and Hartford at 3.8%; Racine and Syracuse at 3.7%; and Manchester–Nashua at 3.6%.
By contrast, Veros said “several Sun Belt markets that saw rapid growth during the pandemic [were] now facing headwinds.”
Cape Coral–Fort Myers, Fla. (‑2.7%), Naples–Marco Island, Fla. (‑1.7%), Austin–Round Rock–San Marcos, Texas (‑1.4%), Panama City–Panama City Beach, Fla. (‑1.1%) and Pueblo, Colo. (‑1.1%) were among the weakest markets.
They were joined by Corpus Christi, Sherman–Denison and Lake Charles (all ‑1.0%), Urban Honolulu (‑0.9%) and North Port–Bradenton–Sarasota (‑0.8%).
Direct link to offer (our affiliate link)
Limit of 35 gallons, you can fill up multiple vehicles in one transaction as well. Make sure to price compare to ensure you’re getting a good deal. Not as good as the $1 or $0.25 deals but every little bit helps.
Hat tip to MtM
Budget hawks in Washington have their eyes trained on April 3, when the White House is scheduled to release its fiscal year 2027 budget request, centering on a significant “historic” defense spending increase to $1.5 trillion. The national debt crossed $39 trillion just weeks ago and is alarming figures as varied as Elon Musk and Jerome Powell.
Musk, the world’s richest man and, briefly, an advisor to the White House who was involved with the Department of Government Efficiency before departing in 2025, put it bluntly at a conference appearance last September: “If you look at our national debt, which is insanely high, the interest payments exceed the Defense Department budget—and they keep rising.” His conclusion: “If AI and robots don’t solve our national debt, we’re toast.”
President Donald Trump’s response to this situation is to fix the fact that interest payments exceed military budgets by taking out more debt to boost the military budget, according to a top watchdog calculation.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog, estimated Monday boosting the defense budget by the expected amount would increase total defense discretionary spending by $5.8 trillion from FY 2027 through 2036, and add $6.9 trillion to the national debt once interest costs are factored in. The group noted the projection was revised upward from an earlier estimate owing to an additional year in the budget window and higher prevailing interest rates.
The proposal, which Trump first floated on Truth Social in January, would represent “by far the largest year-over-year increase in defense spending in the post-WWII era,” the CRFB said. The group noted that the request “should be fully offset by other proposals in his budget” and called on lawmakers to reduce other spending, raise revenue, or enact some combination of the two if they wish to accommodate the president’s ask.
On Monday, no less an authority than Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell chimed in with similar comments. In a moderated discussion before roughly 400 Harvard economics students, Powell said that while he doesn’t consider the nation’s $39 trillion debt load to be immediately dangerous, its trajectory demands urgent action.
“The level of the debt is not unsustainable,” Powell said, “but the path is not sustainable. It will not end well if we don’t do something fairly soon.”
Powell drew a sharp distinction between the stock of debt and its rate of growth.
“What’s clear is that our debt is growing much faster; the federal government debt is growing substantially faster than our economy,” he said. “And that ratio is going up. And in the long run, that’s kind of the definition of unsustainable.”
The numbers behind Powell’s concern are stark. Net interest payments on the national debt are now projected to exceed $1 trillion in fiscal year 2026—nearly triple the $345 billion the government paid in 2020. In just the first three months of the current fiscal year, interest payments reached $270 billion, already surpassing the nation’s defense spending during the same period. The Congressional Budget Office projects debt held by the public will surge from 101% of GDP today to 120% of GDP by 2036, eclipsing the post–World War II record.
Powell put the ball in Congress’s hands, as to how to solve this issue.
“We don’t have to pay the debt down,” he said. “We just need to have primary balance and begin to have the economy actually growing more quickly than the debt.”
He also acknowledged his warnings about the debt, consistent for roughly a decade serving at the top of the central bank, have historically gone unheeded in Washington: “I pretty much limit myself to those high-level points,” he said, “which essentially everyone ignores.”
Whether Congress will heed the CRFB’s call to offset the defense buildup remains to be seen. But the fiscal arithmetic is unforgiving: Layering nearly $7 trillion in additional debt on top of a $39 trillion base, with interest rates higher than they were just a few years ago, narrows the margin for error considerably—and makes the path Powell warned about much steeper.
Mark Cuban is an American billionaire entrepreneur, television personality, and media proprietor whose net worth is an estimated $4.3 billion. Many know him from shark tank. In this video, Mark Cuban talks about what you should study at college if you want to start a business. Obviously you do not need to go to college to start a business. But should you make the choice to pursue further education, here is the advice Mark Cuban has to offer when choosing what to study and major in so that you can come out the most prepared to start a business. What do you think of Mark Cuban?
Here at Invested, we discuss all things entrepreneurial, financial and psychological that can impact your chances of being successful in small and short summaries. So don’t forget to leave a like and subscribe!
#Shorts
source
Key Points
Five senior Senate Democrats sent a letter (PDF File) on April 1, 2026 to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demanding they immediately rescind the Trump administration’s plan to transfer federal student loan administration from the Department of Education (ED) to the Treasury Department.
The senators (Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, and Tammy Baldwin) called the arrangement an “illegal scheme” that threatens to plunge millions of borrowers into further confusion.
The letter targets a recently announced interagency agreement (IAA) between ED and Treasury, signed on March 19, 2026. The agreement would shift ED’s core responsibilities for managing student loans and federal student aid to Treasury in three phases, starting with defaulted loan collections and potentially expanding to oversight of the entire federal student loan portfolio and FAFSA form.
“This latest illegal scheme from the Trump Administration threatens to trap student loan borrowers, students, and families in chaos and bureaucracy, all while American taxpayers are left to foot the bill,” the lawmakers wrote.
The ED-Treasury IAA is structured in three phases:
The lawmakers point out that this is ED’s third such interagency agreement since the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026.
Previous IAAs transferred career and technical education programs and adult education grant programs to the Department of Labor. Those earlier transfers have already resulted in over $1 million in extra program costs and weeks-long delays in grant disbursements, according to the letter.
The senators argue that Congress specifically rejected this approach.
The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act states that ED has no authority to “transfer its fundamental responsibilities under numerous authorizing and appropriations laws, including through procuring services from other Federal agencies.” The statement further warns that receiving agencies “do not have experience, expertise, or capacity to carry out these programs” and that the transfers will “create inefficiencies, result in additional costs to the American taxpayer, and cause delays.”
The senators also pressed both secretaries for basic cost information. ED has refused to provide Congress with estimated costs for any IAA beyond the initial career and technical education and adult education transfers. Those earlier transfers alone have added over $1 million in extra program costs and FSA’s operations are orders of magnitude larger.
The IAA itself acknowledges the cost uncertainty, stating that ED and Treasury will work with the Office of Management and Budget “to validate that funds are available and obligated” before starting work. The senators call this reckless, arguing that entering a transfer of this magnitude without any cost transparency puts taxpayers on the hook for an open-ended expense.
The questions asked include: How much will it cost? How many Treasury staff will be responsible? What efficiency analysis supports the move? Will Treasury maintain ED’s moratorium on forced collections? And how will Treasury’s performance be measured against ED’s?
The letter demands answers by April 15, 2026.
Perhaps the most striking detail in the letter is a reference to a pilot study conducted during the Obama administration. Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS) was given responsibility for collections and loan rehabilitation for several thousand student loan borrowers in default. By the end of the trial, BFS had completed rehabilitations for just eight borrowers. ED, working with an equally sized comparison group, completed more than fifteen times as many rehabilitations.
The senators also note that Treasury’s capacity has shrunk since then. Mass firings at BFS last year eliminated over 160 employees, leaving the agency even less equipped to take on the complex work of student loan administration. Treasury itself has acknowledged that it “does not administer any financial assistance, loan, or loan guarantee programs to individuals or businesses” and does not service any federal loans.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), the office within ED that currently handles these responsibilities, is the department’s largest office with close to 800 employees. FSA manages multibillion-dollar loan servicing contracts and administers billions in student aid each year. Handing that workload to an agency with no relevant experience is, in the senators’ view, a recipe for disaster.
43 million Americans have federal student loan debt, and over 7 million are currently in default.
The senators warn that moving collections to Treasury could worsen an already bad default crisis.
The lawmakers argue the administration has made matters worse for borrowers through a series of actions: firing hundreds of FSA employees, replacing the SAVE repayment plan with the more expensive Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), charging interest on loans in forbearance, and mass-rejecting hundreds of thousands of income-driven repayment applications.
If Treasury takes over and stumbles (as the pilot study suggests it might) borrowers in default could face longer wait times, less guidance on how to get back on track, and greater risk of aggressive collections from contractors unfamiliar with ED’s existing consumer protections.
The later phases of the IAA raise even bigger concerns. Administrative errors in FAFSA processing or financial aid distribution could delay or block access to Pell Grants and other aid for millions of students and families. The senators note that FSA’s responsibilities will now be split across two departments, creating more bureaucracy rather than less.
“Treasury’s lack of expertise in the federal student aid system could be disastrous,” the senators wrote, “as the federal student aid system is highly complex and administrative errors could endanger access to financial aid or statutory debt cancellation.”
Don’t Miss These Other Stories:
Editor: Colin Graves
The post Senators Fight Student Loan Transfer To Treasury appeared first on The College Investor.
In this episode of the Duct Tape Marketing Podcast, John Jantsch interviews Deborah Farone, founder of Farone Advisors and author of Breaking Ground: How Successful Women Lawyers Build Thriving Practices.
The conversation explores why traditional approaches to business development often fail—especially in professional services—and how authenticity, relationships, and strategic positioning can lead to sustainable success.
Deborah Farone shares insights from her work with top-performing professionals and highlights how business development is less about selling and more about building trust, creating meaningful connections, and developing a niche. While her research focuses on women in law, the lessons apply broadly to consultants, agency owners, and service-based professionals.
Deborah Farone is the founder of Farone Advisors and a leading expert in legal business development and marketing. She has held senior business development roles at major law firms and has spent her career helping professionals grow their practices through strategic relationship-building.
Her book, Breaking Ground, draws on interviews with successful women lawyers around the world to uncover practical strategies for building a thriving, authentic practice.
Most professionals resist sales because it feels inauthentic. The most successful practitioners focus on helping, supporting, and providing value rather than asking for business directly.
Strong networks—not just direct prospects—drive opportunities. Often, the people who refer or connect you matter more than immediate buyers.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach. The best strategy is one aligned with your personality and interests, making it sustainable and repeatable.
These elements consistently show up in successful business development strategies.
Introverts can excel by choosing methods that feel natural—like small meetings, coffee chats, or shared-interest activities.
Business development is a skill that improves over time. Begin with low-pressure conversations and gradually expand your comfort zone.
Connections from school, early jobs, and indirect relationships often become valuable sources of opportunity later in your career.
Success comes from identifying the intersection of:
Then going deep to become known for that expertise.
Many professionals jump into tactics (events, speaking, outreach) before defining their positioning. Clear strategy must come first.
Waiting until professionals reach senior levels to develop business skills is too late. Early training builds habits and networks that compound over time.
00:02 – The Real Barrier to Growth
Why outdated rules—not lack of talent—hold professionals back.
01:08 – Why Deborah Farone Wrote This Book
The gap in role models and business development training.
02:15 – Why Professionals Resist Sales
Reframing sales as helping rather than pitching.
03:36 – The Power of Relationships and Networks
Why your broader network is more valuable than you think.
05:28 – Authenticity as a Competitive Advantage
Why personalized approaches outperform standardized methods.
06:02 – Creative Ways to Build Client Relationships
Examples of professionals using personal interests to connect with clients.
08:13 – How Introverts Can Succeed in Business Development
Practical ways to start small and build confidence.
10:00 – The Leadership Gap in Law Firms
Why lack of representation impacts growth and mentorship.
11:53 – The Three Elements of Trust
Expertise, authenticity, and empathy as core drivers.
13:15 – Why Niche Matters
The importance of strategic positioning before tactics.
13:56 – Where Firms Get It Wrong
The cost of delaying business development training.
17:04 – Internal Networking Matters First
Building relationships inside your organization as a foundation.
“The most successful professionals don’t ask for business—they show how they can help.”
“There is no one-size-fits-all approach to business development. You have to find what works for you.”
🔃 Update: This offer expired on March 24, but one of your Facebook Group members was able to call in and still get the 150K bonus. They also got an extra 25K bonus points for booking within 45 days and staying by end of August.
There’s also this new offer for 125K that is available through April 27, 2026.
Hilton Honors members can get a 3-night stay at several destinations and 150,000 bonus points, starting at just $199. We see these Hilton Grand Vacations offers from time to time, and you can often negotiate something better. But this is the highest bonus we have ever seen.
There are 11 destinations in total to choose from, including three in Hawaii. There’s a small catch however, a timeshare presentation that you must attend. Let’s see how these offers work and also check out my experience in Las Vegas with a similar offer from Marriott Vacation Club.
Guests must purchase one of the following packages:
OFFER LINK
You may purchase a package now through March 24, 2025, but you have up to 12 months from purchase date to travel. Travel can begin 30 days after purchase of vacation package.
We have seen many versions of these offers in the past. The number of days can vary, the price, and even the bonus points. It’s a good idea to call 833-970-0010 and see if you can receive a better offer, but points-wise this is as high a bonus as we have seen.
You can often negotiate a better price or maybe even inquire about additional destinations not listed in the offer page.
Three credit cards offer Hilton credits:
You can trigger the Hilton credit if you use one of these cards to pay for the stay. When booking via phone you can even possibly split a purchase to use two or more of these credits and make this Hilton timeshare offer a much better deal.
OFFER LINK
This is the best ever bonus offered for a Hilton timeshare presentation. There are 11 destinations to choose from, starting at $199 for a 3-night stay. And you also get 150,000 Hilton Honors points which are valued at about $650. So it’s basically a free vacation and a nice profit at most destinations. Or you can choose a 4-night stay is Hawaii for $899 or $999 which is still a great deal when combined with the 150K bonus points. It makes sense even for a staycation if you’re in one of the eligible cities.
Normally you can also call and ask for a better offer, but I doubt you’ll get anything more in this case. It could be worth asking for more destinations though.
However, all these types of offers come with a mandatory sales pitch for Hilton Grand Vacations. You have to sit through that for two hours. They can’t force you to buy anything, but again not everyone can say “no” over and over. And they make those deals sound pretty good. If that’s something you’re not comfortable with, it might be best to skip this Hilton Grand Vacations offer. But if you’ve done this before, or are confident that you will resist the temptation, then could be a good opportunity.
If you are really looking to buy a timeshare, then it is better to look at time share resellers where you will get a much better price. I still do not think it is a good idea, but always see for yourself, add up the costs, and then make a decision.
Have you participated in similar timeshare presentations in the past? How did it go and what tips do you have for other readers?
HT: ToP
With higher fine limits now in place, regulators say recent penalties may only reflect the early stages of a stricter regime
The Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC +0.01%) and the Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (PBJ 0.26%) both offer exposure to U.S. consumer staples companies, but their approaches and portfolios look quite different. This comparison explores each ETF’s fees, performance, risk, and holdings to help investors decide which may be a better fit for their goals.
| Metric | VDC | PBJ |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Vanguard | Invesco |
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.61% |
| 1-yr return (as of 4/1/26) | 4.4% | 7.9% |
| Dividend yield | 1.95% | 1.61% |
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.72 |
| AUM | $9.9 billion | $89.7 million |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
VDC is significantly cheaper, with an expense ratio of 0.09%, compared to PBJ’s 0.61%. VDC also offers a higher dividend yield at 1.95%, while PBJ pays 1.61% — a notable gap for income-focused investors.
| Metric | VDC | PBJ |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | -16.56% | -15.83% |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,421 | $1,321 |
PBJ focuses narrowly on 30 or so U.S. food and beverage companies, making it far less diversified than many sector ETFs. Its top holdings — including Corteva (CTVA +0.20%), Kroger (KR +2.68%), and Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM +1.56%) — show a tilt toward agricultural inputs and food distribution.
VDC, by contrast, covers more than 100 stocks spanning the entire consumer defensive sector, with heavy weights in Walmart (WMT +0.23%), Costco Wholesale (COST +1.06%), and Procter & Gamble (PG 0.44%). This broader approach includes not just the food and beverage category, but also household and personal products, offering broader diversification across the consumer staples sector.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
Consumer staples — the category covering everyday essentials like food, beverages, and household products — tend to hold up relatively well during economic downturns, which is a big part of their appeal. But not all ETFs are built the same.
The cost gap alone is striking. PBJ’s 0.61% expense ratio is nearly seven times higher than VDC’s 0.09%. For long-term investors, that expense drag compounds quietly over time — and becomes harder to justify when VDC also delivers a higher dividend yield. Income-oriented investors, in particular, will likely find VDC the more rewarding choice.
The trade-off with PBJ is focus. If you have strong conviction that food and agricultural supply chains are poised to outperform broader consumer spending — perhaps due to commodity price trends, food inflation, or structural shifts in how Americans eat — PBJ’s concentrated bet could make sense. Its stronger 1-year return suggests it can outperform in the right environment.
For most investors, though, VDC’s combination of low cost, higher yield, greater diversification, and stronger long-term track record makes it the more sensible option. It captures the defensive characteristics investors seek from the consumer staples sector without doubling down on any single corner of it.
As always, the best ETF is the one that fits your broader portfolio — not just the one with the flashiest recent return.
