Consumer News: New IRS webpage makes it easier to report fraud

The measure would stop hedge funds from buying single-family homes

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced legislation aimed at preventing private equity firms from purchasing single-family homes.

• Lawmakers say the measure is designed to ease housing affordability pressures and curb investor-driven price spikes.

• The proposal reflects growing concern in both parties over Wall Streets expanding role in the residential housing market.

Its not often these days that Republicans and Democrats in Congress can agree that a bill needs to be passed. However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are cosponsoring a bill to bar private investment firms from buying up single-family homes.

In his State of the Union address last week, President Trump also lent his support to the idea.

Supporters argue that large-scale investor purchases have intensified competition for homes, driving up prices and rents and putting homeownership further out of reach for middle-class families.

Wall Street has exploited the American housing crisis, turning the nations housing stock into a portfolio of rental properties, Hawley said in a statement. Families deserve to be able to buy their own homes and achieve the American dream without competing with big investment companies that irrevocably drive up housing prices. Thats why I am introducing legislation to ban Wall Street from buying single-family homes once and for all.

Small investors not affected

The legislation would apply specifically to private equity firms and other institutional investors that manage pooled funds on behalf of outside investors. Individual landlords and smaller-scale real estate investors would not be subject to the ban. Lawmakers say the goal is to curb large-scale acquisitions that can shift entire neighborhood markets, rather than penalize small property owners.

Under the proposal, covered firms that currently own single-family rental homes would be required to sell those properties within a set timeframe, potentially three to five years. Penalties for noncompliance could include financial fines and restrictions on future real estate activity.

The legislation would reverse a trend that began during the housing market crash of 2009-10, when millions of subprime foreclosures flooded the market with homes, dragging down prices. Seeing bargains, large investors bought up thousands of homes for rental property, effectively taking them off the market and creating shortages, which in turn drove up prices.

The issue of affordability

Housing affordability has become an increasingly urgent issue nationwide. Home prices surged during the pandemic-era buying boom, fueled by low interest rates and limited housing supply. Although mortgage rates have since risen, prices in many markets remain elevated, and inventory continues to lag demand.

Supporters of the bill argue that when private equity firms purchase homes in bulk often making all-cash offers they can outcompete individual buyers and contribute to upward pressure on prices. Some research suggests institutional investors account for a significant share of purchases in certain markets, though nationally they still represent a minority of total homeownership.

The push-back

Industry groups have pushed back on similar proposals in the past, arguing that institutional investors provide rental housing options and professional property management at scale. They also contend that the primary driver of high housing costs is insufficient new construction, not investor ownership.

Real estate and private equity trade associations are expected to oppose the measure, saying it could reduce rental supply and discourage investment in housing development. They may also raise concerns about potential legal challenges, particularly regarding property rights and retroactive divestment requirements.

The bills prospects in Congress remain uncertain. While bipartisan sponsorship increases its visibility, housing policy proposals that directly restrict private investment often face strong lobbying opposition and procedural hurdles. Still, the introduction of the legislation underscores a rare area of cross-party agreement: that housing affordability has become a political and economic flashpoint demanding federal attention.

The real grocery crisis isnt price its paycheck

• States like Mississippi and West Virginia rank highest because groceries take a bigger bite of lower incomes.

• Consider cutting convenience foods, swap to store brands, and reduce waste. Even a small drop in how much of your paycheck goes to groceries can save hundreds a year.

• Check unit prices every time. Bigger isnt always cheaper. Compare cost per ounce, pivot when items spike, and swap in frozen or alternate proteins to stay flexible.

Grocery prices are up over 20% since 2019, according to USDA data. However, heres the twist that most people miss:

The states where groceries cost the most arent necessarily the states with the highest food prices.

In actuality, they are the states where incomes are the lowest.

A new analysis from WalletHub found that residents in states like Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas spend the highest percentage of their income on groceries, even though many of those states actually have relatively low food prices.

For example:

• Mississippi households spend about 2.6% of their median monthly income on groceries the highest in the nation.
• West Virginia follows closely at 2.54%.
• Arkansas takes third and clocks in at 2.44%.

Meanwhile, residents in Massachusetts and New Jersey spend just around 1.5%, even though their grocery prices are often higher.

That begs the obvious question: Whats the difference?

Income. It all boils down to a states median income.

When incomes are lower, even those cheap groceries tend to feel expensive for families.

Heres an actionable playbook for you to try if groceries are eating a big chunk of your paycheck every month.

1. Stop budgeting groceries last budget them first

Most people build a budget around their fixed expenses like rent, insurance, and utilities. Then they see whats leftover and try to estimate what they can realistically spend on food.

Try flipping that script on its head.

Set a weekly food number first, then reverse-engineer your shopping list to fit it. That will inevitably end up forcing better buying decisions in the grocery aisle.

Pro tip: Start by creating a staples first rule. This would include protein, produce, rice, pasta, and beans. Then add your luxury items only if theres room left in your budget.

2. Focus on percentage of income not just price tags

If your income is tight, the goal isnt just to find the cheapest store. Its to actually reduce how much of your paycheck goes to food overall.

That means:

• Fewer impulse convenience foods
• More bulk basics
• Swapping name brands for store brands
• Reducing food waste

Even small wins like trimming your grocery share from 2.6% to 2.2% of income can free up hundreds per year.

3. Track unit price closely

Inflation has made comparison shopping mandatory.

Always check:

• Cost per ounce
• Cost per pound
• Cost per serving

Buying in bulk from Costco and Sams Club doesnt automatically mean better deals. Sometimes the smaller size wins, which means you need to be checking unit price, otherwise youre just guessing.

4. Watch income creep before grocery creep

In higher-income states, grocery costs take up a smaller percentage of earnings, even if the prices are higher.

Theres a lesson hidden there.

As your income rises, resist the urge to upgrade every food purchase to a more expensive brands. Keep buying like you did before the raise and bank the difference.

5. Adjust by season, not by habit

If eggs spike in your state (West Virginia, for example, ranks higher in egg prices), pivot to alternative proteins temporarily.

When produce is high, lean into cheaper frozen veggies.

Grocery prices are dynamic and constantly changing. Your shopping strategy should be too.

More than 650,000 units are affected

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Nearly 651,000 gallons of bottled water recalled in Illinois and Wisconsin over sanitary concerns.

• FDA classifies the action as a Class II recall, citing products bottled under insanitary conditions.

• Recall remains ongoing; no press release has been issued by the company.

Valley Springs Artesian Gold, LLC is recalling nearly 651,000 units of bottled water distributed in Illinois and Wisconsin after federal regulators determined the products were bottled under insanitary conditions. Some bottles may have also been distributed to other states.

The recall, identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as Event ID 98410, was initiated voluntarily by the Portage, Wisconsin-based company on Feb. 6, 2026. The FDA classified the action as a Class II recall on Feb. 26, indicating that use of the product could cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, though the risk of serious harm is considered remote.

The recall covers three one-gallon (128 fl. oz.) plastic jug products with plastic caps:

• Valley Springs 100% Natural Bottled Water (UPC 0 31193-00701 9), totaling 379,868 units.

• Valley Springs 100% Natural Bottled Water with Fluoride Added (UPC 0 31193-01301 0), totaling 7,840 units.

• Valley Springs Steamed Distilled Water (UPC 0 31193-00601 2), totaling 263,440 units.

What to know

In total, 651,148 units are affected. The FDA report lists water was bottled under insanitary conditions as the reason for the recall. The agency did not specify the exact nature of the sanitary deficiencies in its enforcement report.

The company notified consignees and/or the public using multiple communication methods, including combinations of email, fax, letter, press release, telephone, or in-person visits, according to the FDA filing. However, the enforcement report notes that no formal press release was issued specifically for the recall.

As of the FDAs latest update, the recall remains ongoing and has not been terminated.

Consumers who purchased one-gallon Valley Springs bottled water products in Illinois or Wisconsin are advised to check the UPC codes and discontinue use of affected items. Retailers and distributors have been instructed to remove the products from sale.

Oil prices have jumped, but so far, there has been little effect at the pump

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

• Its been a fast-moving 48 hours in global energy markets following major developments involving Iran and renewed tensions in the Middle East.

• With so many headlines hitting at once, its important to separate what is actually happening from what is simply being speculated.

• Early market reactions are driven more by risk pricing than confirmed supply disruptions but uncertainty itself is now a key driver of energy costs.

The U.S. and allied military strikes on Iran over the weekend have roiled global energy markets, immediately pushing crude oil prices higher as traders price in geopolitical risk and the specter of further escalation. While the Strait of Hormuz a maritime chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of the worlds oil supply passes remains open, fears around its potential closure or disruption have intensified price volatility.

In the wake of the attacks, benchmark crude prices surged sharply when trading resumed, with Brent and U.S. oil futures climbing sharply amid concern over regional stability.

Analysts note that markets are currently pricing in elevated geopolitical risk rather than confirmed cuts in production or exports. According to recent industry analysis, while leadership turmoil in Tehran adds uncertainty, it does not at this stage equate to lost supply. Strategic risk premiums are being built into oil pricing, pushing wholesale fuel costs up before any physical disruptions occur.

Interestingly, the national average gasoline price has edged lower in some areas due to routine price cycling, GasBuddy said in an analysis over the weekend. That relief is likely temporary.

Short-term gas prices may rise

Despite some localized short-term price relief driven by routine gas station price cycling, experts say this softness is likely temporary. As oil markets reopen fully and wholesale costs adjust to the heightened risk environment, pressure on pump prices is expected to return.

Recent projections suggest the national average U.S. gasoline price could creep back above $3.00 per gallon, with room for an additional 1015 cent increase over the coming week or two depending on broader oil market behavior.

This aligns with forecasts from GasBuddys analytics team, who caution that without physical supply disruptions, increases will likely be incremental rather than explosive barring escalation beyond current tensions.

Why the Strait of Hormuz matters

The Strait of Hormuz remains a focal point for global energy flow, and its status greatly influences market psychology. Although shipping continues for now, the threat of Iranian attempts to disrupt tanker traffic or even warnings that have already caused some vessels to anchor outside the strait have introduced additional costs and risk premiums into the market.

Analysts say the key factor for prices isnt the current flow of oil but what might happen if the conflict escalates and significantly impacts oil distribution routes. Historically, markets have tended to spike on fear and uncertainty long before any physical constraints occur.