AARP: Book 3+ Hotel Nights and Get a $75 Gift Card
AARP members can get a $75 gift card when booking a hotel stay of at least three nights through the AARP Travel Center Powered by Expedia.
The offer is part of AARP’s current U.S. hotel sale, which is also advertising savings of 25% or more at select hotels. Reservations must be booked by August 31, 2026, with travel completed by October 31, 2026.
Offer Details
Here’s how this promotion works:
Must be an AARP member (anyone 18+ can join)
Book an eligible hotel stay of 3 nights or more through the AARP Travel Center Powered by Expedia.
Book by August 31, 2026.
Complete your stay by October 31, 2026.
After completing the trip, receive a redemption email for a $75 gift card.
DIRECT LINK
AARP is also advertising 25% or more off select U.S. hotels as part of the same sale, so some bookings could potentially benefit from both the discounted hotel rate and the $75 gift card.
How the $75 Gift Card Works
The gift card is not issued immediately when you book.
After completing the qualifying stay, AARP/Expedia says you will receive a redemption email from Digital Rewards / Tango Card with instructions for claiming the $75 gift card. The redemption email can take up to 45 days after travel to arrive.
You can redeem for lots of popular brands like Amazon, Walmart and more, Visa/Mastercard gift cards, or even straight cash to Paypal.
Guru’s Wrap-Up
This is a pretty simple AARP travel deal that is especially useful for inexpensive three-night stays.
There is no stated minimum spend on the promotion page, so a cheap three-night booking would get you a $75 gift card. And some hotels are also discounted by 25% or more through the current AARP sale.
The main drawback is booking through Expedia rather than directly with the hotel. For chain hotels, compare what you would give up in points, elite-night credits and status benefits before deciding whether the $75 gift card makes the third-party booking worthwhile.
When DeepSeek unveiled an AI model last year that rivaled America’s best at a fraction of the cost, or when a Chinese hypersonic missile test caught U.S. intelligence off guard to the point where a top U.S. general called it “very close” to a “Sputnik moment”, the reaction each time was the same: that a handful of Chinese firms had suddenly pulled ahead.
But a sweeping new National Bureau of Economic Research study of nearly 14 million Chinese patents suggests that framing misses the real story—and it’s a more unsettling one for the United States.
Harvard Business School’s Josh Lerner and his co-authors dug into who is actually filing the patents behind the 14 technology areas the Pentagon deems critical—advanced computing, space technology, AI, hypersonics and biotech. The answer: Chinese universities account for more than a quarter of the country’s inventions in those fields, 8x the U.S. rate at 3.3%, with state-owned enterprises and the government accounting for just 4%. Fewer than one in 10 Chinese critical technology patents involve an inventor with U.S. work experience, undercutting the assumption that Beijing relies on returning U.S. talent for innovation.
Lerner told Fortune his team was “programmed” to expect a few large corporations like Huawei and Tencent to lead the charge on Chinese innovation through patents similarly to IBM and Samsung in the U.S. Instead, they found Chinese innovation in critical technologies “much more diverse—spread out across the parties,” with universities “more represented” there than anywhere else in the country’s patent system. That’s a reversal of the U.S. pattern, where academic patenting is “more of a sideshow.”
“We’ve clearly seen this dramatic boom in terms of research funding and patenting in China,” Lerner said, “and the natural question being is this bearing fruit? In the software side, Deepseek was certainly something that was really not anticipated, and clearly these open-source Chinese models are getting an enormous amount of traction.”
The findings arrive as the quality gap many assumed would protect American tech leadership seems to be closing, with DeepSeek, Moonshot and Z.AI going toe-to-toe with U.S. frontier labs and beating them on cost.
Using four text-based measures of patent novelty and scientific relevance, the authors found no evidence China’s patent boom came at the cost of quality—Chinese patents have converged with, and in some technologies overtaken, their U.S. counterparts. The share of Chinese critical-technology patents containing “disruptive” technical language jumped from under 2% in the early 1990s to 16% by 2022, closing in on the American share of roughly 20%.
There’s also a seeming difference in dynamics between China and the U.S. with their respective universities, especially as the Trump administration’s international student crackdown strained campuses and raised questions about the future of STEM talent.
The paper describes Beijing’s role as “coordinative rather than directly productive”—steering research through funding and priorities rather than owning the institutions that produce it. Lerner drew a contrast with his own university Harvard’s public standoff with Washington over research funding.
“When you think about the dynamics between our university and the administration, which has been a lot of back and forth in the courts,” he said, “one doesn’t suspect the same kind of interactions would characterize those between a major Chinese university and the state.”
The U.S. has scaled back its federal research grant pipeline. Last year, the Trump administration moved to cut $4 billion from NIH’s reimbursement of universities’ research overhead costs, capping a rate that had typically run 50-60% at just 15%. By April, the administration had formally terminated 1,392 NIH grants worth $539 million in unspent obligations, while the National Science Foundation had cancelled or suspended nearly 2,000 awards of its own: the Brennan Center for Justice puts total NIH and NSF cuts and freezes at more than $3 billion since 2025, with roughly $1.4 billion still frozen or unresolved. Some of the terminations have been reversed by courts, but the fights continue on a grant-by-grant basis.
The potential lag in innovation might not be seen immediately, but it could have a sizable effect on competition with China as the Trump administration has proposed steep cuts to federal science funding and a rewrite of federal grant rules that critics — including groups well outside academia, from farm cooperatives to bankers—warn would let agencies cancel research awards midstream.
“You don’t really see the consequences until perhaps years or even decades afterwards, just given the very long‑run nature of this process,” Lerner told Fortune.
While Lerner’s paper highlights the asymmetry in critical technology patent production between the U.S. and China, Dan Wang, a China analyst at Eurasia Group, is skeptical of how far the patent numbers should be trusted: commercialization rates for Chinese university patents remain low, Wang told Fortune over email, and few are filed overseas, while companies like Nvidia and Google drive “exceptionally strong” R&D in the United States.
The rankings are catching up to the money. In June, Harvard lost the top spot in the Nature Index Research Leaders—a closely watched measure of high-quality research output—for the first time since the index began tracking universities in 2015. Among academic institutions, Zhejiang University (the alma mater of DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng), moved into first place, with Harvard falling to second. Including the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a government research body rather than a university, Harvard falls to third place. Nine of the top 10 academic institutions globally are now Chinese; five years ago, eight of the top 10 were American.
“China is likely to narrow the gap in patent-related indicators, but not in overall technological leadership,” Wang said. “The university innovation system is heavily influenced by administrative process and political mandate, and thus does not leave enough room for self driven research.”
But Wang cautioned that Washington’s fixation on sanctioning a handful of “national champions” in China like Huawei and Tencent overlooks “the real base for China’s technological upgrading”—decentralized networks of universities, suppliers and state-owned enterprises. Wang estimates there are 18,000 state-designated “little giant” firms working on components and materials alone.
“Sanctioning a few major firms alone is unlikely to halt the broader ecosystem,” Wang added.
China surpassed the U.S. in total R&D spending for the first time in 2024, investing $1.03 trillion to America’s $1.01 trillion, and has reached via R&D growth topping 14% annually since 2004, more than double the U.S. pace.
Trailblazers is an MBW interview series that turns the spotlight on music entrepreneurs with the potential to become the global business power players of tomorrow. This time, we meet Juan Carlos Dominguez, founder and CEO of Latin America-focused concert powerhouse Feel The Club and Feel The Tickets. Trailblazers is supported by TuneCore.
Last November, Feel The Club (FTC) partnered with Live Nation on the biggest live music event in Ecuadorian history: three nights of Shakira at Estadio Olímpico Atahualpa in Quito. But getting there required a calculated gamble: FTC founder and CEO Juan Carlos Dominguez faced a dilemma familiar to every promoter. His deal was for two shows — and when the second sold out, he had to decide whether to stick or twist.
“I had to make the decision to do a third one or not,” he says. “If I get another date, I might lose everything that I’m doing on the other two dates.”
The gamble paid off.
“It was amazing,” Dominguez says. “We sold out the same day that we went on sale.”
More than 105,000 tickets were sold across the three nights, grossing $14.4 million, according to Pollstar Boxoffice. The concerts also generated an estimated economic impact of tens of millions of dollars, reinforcing Ecuador’s credentials as a serious market for international tours.
For Dominguez, the achievement validated a theory he’d been pushing for years: that Ecuador, long treated as a market artists routed around, could support the kind of demand usually reserved for the region’s established stadium stops.
“It gives us more confidence and gets into fans’ minds that Ecuador is open for bigger things than just one show,” he says. “Now, I’m sure Ecuador is on the same level for big tours — Bon Jovi, Bad Bunny, Shakira, Karol G, Adele, Justin Bieber — high-tier artists. I’m sure that we can sell two, or even three shows.”
The strength of Dominguez’s conviction is rooted in two decades spent immersed in Latin America’s touring landscape. Born in Panama, he moved to Ecuador at 11 — his stepfather is Ecuadorian — and entered the business in 2001 through dance music, booking electronic acts such as Tiësto and Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike in Latin America while working on Ultra festival shows in the region. He later expanded into arena and stadium touring, where he worked with artists including Metallica, Maroon 5, and Bruno Mars.
This year, Ecuador welcomed Ed Sheeran for the first time (presented by Move & Sight Concerts), while FTC brought Steve Aoki back to Quito and gave The Lumineers their Ecuadorian debut.
Dominguez, who has also lined up Def Leppard in October, and The Strokes’ first-ever Ecuador show for November, says Ecuadorian crowds bring a particular intensity, which he puts down to the fact that seeing major international acts is still a relatively new experience for many fans.
“Crazy,” he says. “For example, Chile, Argentina — of course, their fans are amazing. But this is a little bit more special because it’s the first time.”
FTC has also just confirmed a new venue for the city: Arena Bicentenario, a privately owned, fully covered tent structure at Parque Bicentenario. With a capacity of approximately 8,500, expandable to 15,000-18,000 for outdoor configurations, it is set to officially open in December 2026. The company says it continues to develop a separate, longer-term arena project for Quito.
UN-based estimates placed Ecuador’s population at around 18.3 million people in 2025, but the country’s touring boom has unfolded against a tumultuous backdrop. In January 2024, the government declared a nationwide state of emergency to tackle escalating violence between drug gangs. That measure was scaled back to regional states of exception within a few months, though Ecuador’s government has renewed localized emergency measures repeatedly since. Dominguez says the security situation has improved.
“Knock on wood, this year has been much better,” says Dominguez, who also runs ticketing platform Feel The Tickets. “We’re in a really good position compared to two years before.”
While Ecuador remains FTC’s flagship market, the company’s 2026 calendar stretches across Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru and, for the first time, Mexico, with repeat tours by Ozuna, Hugel, Romeo Santos & Prince Royce, and Martin Garrix.
On August 29, the company will launch its first “original property”: FTC Live al Parque, a one-day festival at Quito’s Parque Bicentenario headlined by Maroon 5, with Yandel Sinfónico, Myke Towers, salsa legends Fruko y sus Tesos and Lost Frequencies filling out the bill. Plans for 2027 are already well in motion.
Here, speaking to MBW from Miami, where he splits his time along with Panama and Ecuador, Dominguez talks through promoting economics, the trouble with rebooking Anglo acts, and why the time is right to launch Ecuador’s next chapter.
SHAKIRA’S THREE NIGHTS SOLD MORE THAN 105,000 TICKETS. HAD ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT BEEN SEEN IN ECUADOR BEFORE?
Never. After the pandemic, we did Bad Bunny — I’m sure I could have sold three stadiums. We did Daddy Yankee, we sold out. We did Feid, we sold out. We did Aventura the year prior to Shakira, and sold two stadiums in the same city for the first time ever — that was our first thermometer. Usually, we did one stadium in Quito, one stadium in Guayaquil. But for the first time, the same artist sold out two stadiums immediately back to back. Then came Shakira.
WHAT’S CHANGED IN ECUADOR TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE?
To be honest, the way we produce the shows, because the standard has been very high since the pandemic. We work a lot with Live Nation, with Loud And Live, with Move. So we need to deliver the best production possible. I was like, listen, we need to raise the bar, and that’s what we’ve done. Every single production manager that goes to Ecuador leaves and says it has been the best surprise of the whole tour — no problems, perfect production, the artist is happy. Even though we don’t have the venues that other countries have, we work it out.
HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE ECUADOR’S VENUE INFRASTRUCTURE?
Terrible. Terrible, terrible. I just bought the biggest structure in the country, it’s like the Yuma Tent in Coachella. We inaugurated it at the FIFA Fan Fest in Quito recently for the World Cup. We have a festival with Hugel on October 16, we have Camilo on December 4, and from December forward our pipeline of events of less than 15,000 people is going to be done there. The rest, we go to the stadium. We have the Coliseo, which is supposedly an arena, but it’s not an arena — it’s a gym, because you cannot hang anything from there.
WITH THE GROWTH OF ECUADOR AND THOSE CENTRAL AMERICAN MARKETS, HOW DIFFERENT DO YOU THINK WORLD TOURS ARE GOING TO LOOK IN A FEW YEARS?
Much bigger, because we’re doing things the proper way. I studied here — I’m American in my thinking, and how I work – you need to give people show business. The thing is, in Ecuador, the production was usually shitty. You would buy a ticket, and nobody would respect your seat. The show started, and people would still be outside. It was very disorganized. And promoters were not promoters — they were people that would get into a casino. If it sells, perfect; if it doesn’t sell, then bye, you won’t see me again. That’s why a lot of fans didn’t trust it — they’d wait to see if the artist actually showed up. That was the modus operandi before. It was a mess until we basically did it the American way. Yes, it’s more expensive, but I’m seeing the results.
I go to the Kaseya Center, American Airlines Arena, Barclays Center, whatever, and there are food and beverage stands everywhere. As soon as you get there, you spend money. It should be the same [in Ecuador] — remember, Ecuador is a dollar economy — but we don’t have that. You have the worst service. It’s a terrible experience. You end up thinking the artist is great, but the whole surrounding is terrible. We’re trying to improve the service, so we can attract more clients. That’s my main goal.
HOW DO COSTS IN ECUADOR COMPARE WITH MARKETS LIKE BOGOTÁ OR MEXICO CITY?
It’s a bit more expensive, because we have to sometimes import the production — certain equipment that we don’t have in Ecuador that we have to bring from Colombia or Peru. That doesn’t mean higher ticket prices — in fact, we need to be a little bit lower than the main markets because of the economic power of the country.
It’s a tricky balancing act. This new government put a 15% tax on top of the ticket price, plus the service fee of the ticket company. Taxes in Ecuador are super high — there’s also a 25% withholding tax on the artist, and 5% for [royalty collection body] SAYCE. It’s tricky, but we find ways to do it.
WHAT CONVINCED YOU THE TIME WAS RIGHT TO LAUNCH A FESTIVAL?
Ecuador was always out of the picture. Then I saw the beginnings of Estéreo Picnic in Colombia — a good friend of mine [from promoter Páramo Presenta] does that. They started to grow, and their leverage and their pull was basically because of the festival in their market — such is the case that Live Nation came and bought them [in 2023]. I remember we would try to get an artist, and they would tell me, “No, we have the Picnic, and we want to work with them,” so they would give priority to the festival, because it was well done.
My idea is to do exactly the same in Ecuador. Maybe not on such a big scale as Colombia, because it’s a bigger market, but a proper scale — a two-day festival, from here to three years, of around 20,000 to 30,000 people per day, that becomes an important festival. We are the number one promoter in Ecuador, so we, as a brand, need a festival.
THIS YEAR’S CALENDAR HAS FTC IN FIVE DIFFERENT CENTRAL AMERICAN COUNTRIES. WAS THAT COORDINATED, OR OPPORTUNISTIC?
That was coordinated. I’m doing Ozuna — he hasn’t toured in ten years, so I’m doing his tour in Central America. I recently did Hugel in Panama, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. I did Feid recently as well. I work a lot in Central America.
WHAT ABOUT PANAMA, BOLIVIA AND VENEZUELA?
Bolivia, I just had Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike in Santa Cruz, and I’m doing Steve Aoki in Santa Cruz and La Paz. I focus more on Anglo acts there. It’s very rare to see big names going to Bolivia — they don’t have the infrastructure, the equipment, and you have problems with money, doing wires from there, it’s very, very complicated.
In Venezuela, I had Andrea Bocelli at the stadium [in Caracas in 2025]. That was massive. I did Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike and I had Gordo, a well known DJ, confirmed for September, but that was before [Venezuelan president Nicolás] Maduro went to jail [in January 2026]. Because of what happened, we are on hold.
Panama, I do very small things. It’s a very complicated market — first, because of the population, it’s very, very small. And second, because it’s a salsa tropical driven market, you can take Marc Anthony and it will sell out, but we lost money when we had Maroon 5, Duran Duran, so it’s a complicated market.
YOU’VE SAID IN THE PAST THAT LOCAL ACTS DON’T SELL, SO YOU FOCUS ON INTERNATIONAL TOURS. IS THAT STILL THE CASE?
Yeah, that’s still the case. It’s not like Colombia. You don’t see many artists coming out of Peru. You don’t see many artists coming out of Ecuador. Go to Colombia, crazy. So yes, local acts don’t sell tickets, to be honest.
HOW’S BUSINESS BEEN OVERALL THIS YEAR?
I would say ticket sales have slowed for the past two years. You have the big tours that, of course, sell out — but it’s one or three tours, no more than that. The rest, we have to work. Tickets are not selling as before. That’s the reality, 100%. I would say it’s always a curve: 2022, ’23, ’24 and ’25 was a peak. Now, I think things are stabilizing a little bit more. The economy is not as [strong]. There’s a saturation of shows as well that you didn’t have before — I don’t know if it’s because everything you promoted these past three years would sell well, but there are promoters and artists everywhere. I think that has also affected ticket sales, because you have too many options.
HAVE YOU LEARNED ANY HARD LESSONS FROM SHOWS THAT DIDN’T WORK?
Yes. My lesson learned: When you book an Anglo act in Ecuador, it usually always works the first time. But if you book it again – let’s say three years after – it doesn’t work. You’ll sell half. That’s not the case with the Latin artists — they go and they go next year and they still book them. I don’t know if the concept is that I already saw them, or if it’s too expensive. But I’ve learned from experience the hard way: don’t book an Anglo act twice in Ecuador. I don’t know why, but that’s been my journey.
IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE THING ABOUT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
The artist fees, because not all tours are profitable. Yes, you can have three, four, even five profitable tours, but you also usually do some events that don’t sell. We are very, very tight on promoter-artist margins — if you don’t sell 90% of the show, you lose money, and they’re getting more expensive every time.
WHERE DO YOU SEE FTC IN FIVE YEARS?
Being in the top three independent promoter companies in Latin America. We’re starting to move forward on that.
WHAT ARE YOUR AMBITIONS FROM HERE?
To keep on growing and try to close the best tours possible for the country. When we got The Strokes, [the government tourism body] said, “We love it, how can we help? You can have billboards, you can have buses.” For the first time we are working together. For example, when I do a show, the city opens the metro for one more hour. It’s quite interesting because there were a lot of articles about [the economic impact of] Shakira’s concert: hotels, restaurants, bars, flights… It was incredible what Shakira left in Quito for those three shows.
ARE PEOPLE GOING TO START LOOKING AT ECUADOR DIFFERENTLY?
After the success of Shakira and Aventura, people are already looking at Ecuador. I would say the confidence of Live Nation and managers has gone to the limit. I’m talking about bringing the biggest tours to Ecuador. So yes, Ecuador is going to change, trust me.
Trailblazers is supported by TuneCore. TuneCore provides self-releasing artists with technology and services across distribution, publishing administration, and a range of promotional services. TuneCore is part of Believe.Music Business Worldwide
Was reading about how Chase plans to hire a staggering 850 new Home Lending Advisors when I stumbled upon their mortgage rates page.
I check rates from big banks and lenders pretty frequently, but was surprised to see their latest offerings.
Instead of displaying rates with a fraction of a point, they’re advertising rates with nearly two discount points required!
For example, a $500,000 loan amount with two points would result in $10,000 in upfront fees.
The idea is you pay more upfront for savings during the life of the loan. But this is unusually high from what I’ve seen in the past.
Big Upfront Points Can Make Mortgage Rates Look Lower
This seems to be a sign of the times. I’ve seen a lot of smaller, online lenders use this tactic after mortgage rates surged higher a few years ago.
But the big banks tend to only advertise rates with some fraction of a mortgage discount point due at closing, such as 0.75%.
It seems Chase is borrowing from that playbook and going with some aggressive point assumptions to display lower-than-market interest rates.
I get it. Times are tough right now and 30-year fixed mortgage rates are nearing 7% again.
This essentially allows lenders to offer below-market rates and keep them looking halfway decent.
However, they require the borrower to pay this prepaid interest at closing to reduce the interest rate during the loan term. And it can get expensive.
For the record, it can make sense if rates are expected to remain elevated or move even higher.
At that point, the borrower who paid a few thousand at closing would perhaps keep the loan long enough to recoup the upfront cost.
But if rates were to come down, maybe due to the conflict with Iran finally coming to an end, it’d be a bad move.
The borrower who paid two mortgage points to snag the 6% 30-year fixed rate wouldn’t be incentivized to give it up.
Even if rates dropped to 5.5%, they’d have to consider eating that big cost if they were to apply for another rate and term refinance.
Do the Math Before You Pay the Points
I recently created a mortgage points calculator to tackle this very issue.
Sometimes it can make sense to pay points upfront, and other times it can be a terrible decision.
Aside from what mortgage rates do after you get your loan, there’s also the matter of tenure.
How long do you plan to stay in the property? If the answer isn’t a very long time, paying points is probably not for you.
If it’s a forever home and mortgage rates likely won’t get better anytime soon (that’s never a guarantee by the way), paying points could be worthwhile.
It might be even more worthwhile if you get the home seller to pay for it via seller concessions. Or the builder to pay for it in the case of a new home.
One last thing though. You should also shop around and see what competing banks and lenders can offer without having to pay points.
Sometimes you can get the low rate (or lowish rate) without having to pay all the points.
The best of both worlds. You just have to put in a little time and perhaps negotiate as well.
Before creating this site, I worked as an account executive for a wholesale mortgage lender in Los Angeles. My hands-on experience in the early 2000s inspired me to begin writing about mortgages 20 years ago to help prospective (and existing) home buyers better navigate the home loan process. Follow me on X for hot takes.
A new Government Accountability Office report found that 94% of Division I athletics programs (330 of 352 colleges) spent more than they generated in revenue in the 2023–24 academic year. Or, to flip that around, only 22 college DI sports programs made enough money to cover their costs.
DI colleges spent $20.8 billion on sports while generating $13.1 billion, and the median school’s gap was $20.6 million — one more force behind why college costs keep rising faster than inflation.
To close those gaps, colleges had to contribute $7.2 billion of their own money to athletics from tuition, student fees, and other unrestricted sources, which can indirectly include federal student aid. That’s on top of the mandatory fees that already catch families off guard on many tuition bills.
Would you like to save this?
We’ll email this article to you, so you can come back to it later!
Why It Matters
GAO estimates the median DI college contribution works out to about $8,500 per undergraduate over a four-year degree, ranging from $3,200 at Power conference schools to $10,800 at Football Championship Subdivision schools. Every student pays, not just athletes, and families don’t really see it broken out when they calculate the real cost of college.
Athletics deficits also feed the opacity problem in college pricing. Schools rarely disclose how much general tuition revenue props up sports, part of the broader black box of how colleges set prices.
The Numbers
Spending outran inflation: Median Power conference athletics spending rose 81% over the past decade (to $166.8 million), against 31% inflation.
The gap is widening: The median Power school’s spending gap grew more than five-fold since 2014–15, from $2.7 million to $15.2 million.
Division II is worse:All DII programs lost money. Generated revenue covered just 14% of expenses, and colleges contributed $2.3 billion, about $11,350 per student over four years at the median.
Debt is piling up: 96% of Power schools carry athletics debt, with a median of $120.3 million.
Student fees: 87% of Non-Power FBS colleges charge students fees for athletics, a median of $550 per student per year.
How This Connects
These subsidies land on students at a time when tuition has risen 914% since 1983 and financial strain is already closing colleges outright. Athletics deficits compete directly with academics, financial aid, and instruction for the same institutional dollars, which affects what families really pay out of pocket.
The report covers finances before the House settlement around NIL dollars took effect. Starting in 2025–26, DI schools can share up to $20.5 million per year with athletes and 310 of 361 DI colleges opted in. That cap rises annually, and GAO notes stakeholders expect the spending gap to keep growing.
But as long as deficits continue, watch for colleges to respond with new student fees, tuition increases, or cuts to non-revenue generating sports.
Update 8/9/26: Looks like promo code DOUBLE10 is also triggering the same $10 off $35+. You can’t stack FAST30 & DOUBLE10 but it does mean you can redeem it a total of five times (3 for FAST30 and 2 for DOUBLE10)
The Offer
Walmart is offering $10 off $35+ when you use promo code FAST30. Works for your next three delivery or pickup orders.
The Fine Print
Offer excludes alcohol and prescription purchases
Our Verdict
Walmart+ offers free shipping otherwise just use the pickup option. Should stack with other Walmart deals such as:
F.A.Q’s
How many times can I do this deal?
Terms say three times, but seems like some people are only able to do two. There might be a velocity limit in place (e.g two orders max within 24 hours).
How much does delivery cost?
$9.95 or free with Walmart+
The promo code isn’t working
Make sure you have $35+ in eligible items in cart.
In April 2025, Amazon launched “Buy for Me,” which lets its AI agent visit brand websites, select products, enter payment details, and complete purchases without the customer ever leaving the Amazon app. By September, OpenAI had introduced “Instant Checkout” with the open-source Agentic Commerce Protocol, enabling purchases directly inside ChatGPT. In January 2026, Google unveiled the Universal Commerce Protocol at the National Retail Federation conference: an open standard, built with Shopify, Target, Walmart, and more than 20 other partners, covering the shopping process from discovery to post-purchase support. Microsoft launched Copilot Checkout at the same conference, and Shopify has since switched on agent-readable storefronts by default across millions of merchants. Gartner now projects that by 2028, 90% of B2B purchases, more than $15 trillion, will flow through AI agent exchanges.
Investors have been treated to a pair of compelling investment opportunities in 2026. Two of the most anticipated initial public offerings in recent memory have experienced share price declines since their IPOs: Quantinuum(QNT -0.29%) and Space Exploration Technologies Corporation(SPCX +15.83%), better known as SpaceX.
Quantinuum is among the latest public companies in the exciting field of quantum computers. It was born out of a merger between Honeywell‘s quantum computing division and U.K.-based Cambridge Quantum. SpaceX made history as the biggest IPO ever.
Their share price pullback presents a potential entry point for those seeking exposure to the frontiers of space exploration and quantum computing. To choose between these newly public companies, here are insights into which one makes a better stock investment.
Image source: Getty Images.
A look at Quantinuum
Quantum computers harness the properties of quantum mechanics to execute complex computations beyond the capabilities of today’s computers. The company claims this enables its machines to achieve breakthroughs in areas such as healthcare, materials science, and energy.
Demand for Quantinuum stock was so large, the company upsized its IPO to $60 per share, raking in $1.7 billion. Since then, the price has sunk as low as $47.06 per share as its sky-high price-to-sales (P/S) ratio contributed to a sell-off. Even so, the stock’s sales multiple of 99 as of Aug. 6 remains elevated, indicating investors maintain high future growth expectations.
Quantinuum’s revenue in the first quarter was $5.2 million, down 73% from $19.1 million in 2025. However, because quantum computers are still an emerging technology with limited customer adoption, it’s typical for companies in the sector to see wide swings in sales, as a single big contract can make a huge difference. In fact, Quantinuum was awarded $100 million by the U.S. government this year in a sign of confidence in its ion-based technology.
A potential concern over the long run is Quantinuum’s rising operating loss, which totaled $77.2 million in Q1 2026, more than double the prior year’s loss of $29.9 million. Developing quantum tech requires substantial research investment, so the company is likely to continue experiencing losses over the next several quarters, if not for years.
Right now, the mounting losses are not a problem. Quantinuum had over $677 million in cash and equivalents at the end of Q1, and combined with the windfall from its IPO, it has enough funds to sustain operations as it builds up sales.
Today’s Change
(-0.29%) $-0.17
Current Price
$58.71
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$15BMarket cap calculated using publicly traded shares outstanding only. Does not include unlisted, private, or dual-class non-traded shares. Implied market cap may vary.
Day’s Range
$58.40 – $62.47
52wk Range
$47.06 – $86.79
Volume
1.1M
Avg Vol
3.3M
The case for SpaceX
SpaceX stock has steadily fallen since its IPO in part because its sales multiple of 73 is high. Yet after the company released its second-quarter earnings report, the first since going public, the stock rose 6% on Aug. 6, the day a share lockup for pre-IPO investors expired.
SpaceX put up solid Q2 2026 results, contributing to its post-earnings share price rise. This includes an impressive 92% year-over-year increase in revenue to $7.8 billion. Its artificial intelligence (AI) division was a key sales contributor with nearly 250% year-over-year growth to $2.6 billion, suggesting SpaceX’s investments in this area are paying off. The company also shrank its operating loss to $143 million compared to a $970 million loss in Q2 2025, a sign of strengthening financial health.
Even so, the company’s rapidly rising capital expenditures are a reasonable concern. Q2 capex totaled $18.4 billion, an enormous increase from the $2.8 billion spent in 2025. While SpaceX may be known for its reusable rockets, $15.8 billion of its capex spending went to AI. Despite this, the company turned to debt to continue funding its AI ambitions with a $25 billion bond issuance.
Space Exploration Technologies
Today’s Change
(15.83%) $18.19
Current Price
$133.11
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$1.7TMarket cap calculated using publicly traded shares outstanding only. Does not include unlisted, private, or dual-class non-traded shares. Implied market cap may vary.
Day’s Range
$114.53 – $133.48
52wk Range
$104.83 – $225.64
Volume
242.1M
Avg Vol
124.1M
Choosing between Quantinuum and SpaceX stock
While both Quantinuum and SpaceX operate in emerging sectors brimming with promise, the latter looks like the better investment right now. SpaceX’s sales are growing, a sign that its offerings are capturing customers, while its operating loss is improving. Also, its P/S ratio of 73 is much lower than Quantinuum’s 99, indicating its share price valuation is more reasonable.
In addition, quantum computing is still a nascent field. It’s too early to tell if Quantinuum’s tech will ultimately win out in a highly competitive industry that includes big players with deep pockets, such as IBM.
SpaceX possesses a differentiated offering in its rocket and satellite-based internet businesses, although it’s also battling in a competitive field when it comes to AI. Its strong sales growth in the artificial intelligence division points to the ability to capture its share of the customer demand driving AI industry expansion. These factors tilt the pendulum in SpaceX’s favor, making it the better long-term stock investment.
British Columbia’s housing minister said her government is working with Ottawa to help fund the infrastructure needed as it pushes to build more homes in the province.
