TheChek News Flow

New research from Splitit and Pymnts highlights consumer sentiments in light of economic uncertainty today.

In its latest research report, Splitit teamed up with Pymnts for a survey of more than 7,000 U.S. consumers to gauge stress levels amid rising economic uncertainty. The report found rising financial strain with anxiety reaching new levels — especially among parents and younger adult consumers — highlighting shifting approaches to financing.

“From trade turbulence to market volatility, Americans are navigating a growing list of financial challenges,” said Nandan Sheth, chief executive officer of Splitit. “Consumers are feeling very anxious at the moment.”

Across all consumers more than 53 percent told the company that they are concerned about affording unexpected expenses in 2023 citing rising anxiety over economic uncertainty. This percentage rises to 63 percent of Gen Z consumers. The authors of the report said the report’s findings are “especially crucial as leading indicators point to a broad decline in consumer confidence, driven by worries over the impact of tariffs on household finances.”

Survey respondents listed emergency car repairs (42.9 percent) and home repair costs (34.3 percent) as just two of the unplanned expenses that “often come with a hefty price tag.” Home repairs are highlighted in the report as the most expensive category, carrying a median spend for consumers of $2,112.

Half of consumers cited the rising costs of goods as the top reason why they expect to make fewer impulse purchases this year. Still, 36 percent of consumers said they made an impulse purchase of at least $250 in the last three months, with a median spend of $497.

Citing consumer anxiety, Sheth said the company “[sees] consumers becoming more strategic in managing unplanned expenses, balancing financial stability with flexible payment options. Credit card-linked installments provide a smart way to handle life’s surprises, allowing shoppers to leverage their existing credit lines while maintaining financial flexibility. With many consumers already accustomed to using their credit cards for these types of purchases, this approach offers a seamless and responsible way to stay in control in today’s uncertain economy.”

Overall, the research found that consumers are relying on both credit cards and alternative financing to manage emergency and impulse spending. According to the report, only 9 percent of consumers use buy now, pay later for emergency purchases, instead defaulting to credit cards. Thirty-eight percent of Baby Boomers said they rely on credit cards for emergency costs.

Importantly, the findings found that “credit accessibility continues to shape purchasing behavior.” Consumers are more likely to finance unexpected expenses when they have strong credit while those who hesitate to make unplanned purchases often have below-average credit and limited financing options.

When asked about their spending behaviors for BNPL, 45 percent of users said that knowing their purchase would be approved was a key factor in their decision to use BNPL. Forty-eight percent of consumers who made their latest impulse purchase with a credit card paid it off in full at the next statement, while 30 percent used installment plans. Unsurprisingly, Gen Z is leading the way in the shift toward credit card-linked installment plans with 24 percent reporting the use of merchant-offered installment plans — a rate that doubles the rate of older generations.

- Full impact of tariffs can play out over long horizon; Need open mind on how long tariff impacts will last

- Tariffs will impact prices

- Consumer goods should see quick pass through from tariffs; Intermediate goods could see slow impact from tariffs

- Definitely a risk of inflation being higher than Fed forecasts

- My forecast that inflation will be relatively stable this year with upside risks

- Uncertainty is very high right now, more concerns about slowing economy

- Won't predict odds of recession, economy is currently very solid amid good job market

- Won't discount weak survey and anecdotal data; Uncertainty appears to be impacting behavior

- Fed won't allow high inflation to take route- Economy doesn't have stagflation right now

- Expects economy to continue to grow but at slower pace than last year

- Monetary policy has been really well positioned; Policy is moderately restrictive

- Fed needs to follow what it learns from data

- Fed needs to keep longer-run inflation expectations anchored; Longer-run inflation expectations are anchored today

- Slowing balance-sheet runoff was natural next step

- Besides tariff rates, there is consumer response

- Suppliers are emboldened, says they'll have to pass on higher prices

- Consumers say they're tired of paying higher prices

- Not convinced that higher prices will be passed on or that there won't be inflation

- To cut rates you need confidence on inflation

- When we use stagflation think of inflation expectations becoming unanchored; we are not seeing that now

- Data right now is okay, but there is a risk on the employment side due to tariffs

- This is not the time to say how many rate cuts I've penciled in for this year; Now is not the time for forward guidance on policy

- Nervous about inflation and employment data

- Reiterates that the Fed is in no hurry to cut rates; Retains a wait and see policy

- The balance sheet runoff could be slower for longer

OpenAI says that it intends to release its first “open” language model since GPT‑2 “in the coming months.”

That’s according to a feedback form the company published on its website Monday. The form, which OpenAI is inviting “developers, researchers, and [members of] the broader community” to fill out, includes questions like “What would you like to see in an open-weight model from OpenAI?” and “What open models have you used in the past?”

“We’re excited to collaborate with developers, researchers, and the broader community to gather inputs and make this model as useful as possible,” OpenAI wrote on its website. “If you’re interested in joining a feedback session with the OpenAI team, please let us know [in the form] below.”

OpenAI is facing increasing pressure from rivals such as Chinese AI lab DeepSeek, which have adopted an “open” approach to launching models. In contrast to OpenAI’s strategy, these “open” competitors make their models available to the AI community for experimentation and, in some cases, commercialization.

In a recent Reddit Q&A, Altman said that he thinks OpenAI has been on the wrong side of history when it comes to open-sourcing its technologies.

“[I personally think we need to] figure out a different open source strategy,” Altman said. “Not everyone at OpenAI shares this view, and it’s also not our current highest priority … We will produce better models [going forward], but we will maintain less of a lead than we did in previous years.”

The collapse of the merger of US grocers Kroger and Albertsons shows the risks when deals go wrong

When Kroger agreed a $25bn deal to buy rival US grocer Albertsons, it hoped to pull off the largest transaction in US supermarket history. Instead it has become one of the ugliest bust-ups in recent memory in mergers and acquisitions.

The merger was blocked temporarily by judges last December, delivering a death blow to the deal. But Albertsons thinks it is still entitled to some of the Kroger bounty. A red-hot legal fight that has since erupted between the parties shines a light on how important the wording of transaction agreements is when things go wrong.

Albertsons, which is partially owned by Cerberus Capital, quickly sued Kroger after the judicial rulings for damages. It alleged that the deal’s legal defeats were the result of Kroger’s inept regulatory strategy, which violated the merger contract. “Kroger derailed the merger after suffering a classic case of buyer’s remorse,” wrote Albertsons in its lawsuit.

As such, Albertsons now demands perhaps billions of the proposed deal premium as a form of damages. Last week, Kroger filed its response, denying wrongdoing and separately alleging Albertsons was liable for its own perceived treachery in the window when the deal sought regulatory sign-off. 

“On information and belief, at the same time, Albertsons began manufacturing a ‘Plan B’ litigation record against Kroger to deflect blame and position Albertsons to sue Kroger if the Merger did not close,” Kroger wrote in its reply. Each side denies wrongdoing.

Negotiations prior to signing a deal are usually done at arms length. The tactics and strategy involved is what makes M&A so compelling. But what happens after signing is almost more interesting: two parties trying to close the transaction but for very different respective outcomes. A merger contract provides for an allocation of risk. If a deal collapses, it should set out each side’s obligations and how any penalties can be assessed. In the Albertsons case, there were some clear tensions from the start.

Albertsons says it agreed to let Kroger take the lead on regulatory approval strategy — but Kroger had to be willing to make any concession the Federal Trade Commission demanded. The only limit was that Kroger would not have to accept more than 650 store divestitures out of the 2,200 it originally agreed to buy. This led to inevitable issues. For Albertsons and its shareholders, the priority was for the deal to close, giving them cash and the chance to move on. The degree of pain in the concessions mattered less.

Divestitures were, however, painful for Kroger. Selling off parts of the chain, where there was too much overlap, could mean losing high-earning stores at cut-rate prices. Kroger ultimately agreed to divest more than 500 stores. Albertsons said that if Kroger had gone up to the contractual limit — 650 — the deal would have had the maximum chance at regulatory success.

For its part, Kroger says this deal was likely doomed no matter what it had done. The then-FTC chair Lina Khan, an antitrust hawk, did not like grocery consolidation and the company believes her agency’s tightened 2023 merger guidelines were not foreseeable in 2022 at the time of the deal’s signing. If a judge overseeing the duelling lawsuits concludes that the combination never had a chance, Albertsons’ claim for damages may not be viable. 

That would still leave a termination fee left to adjudicate. Kroger, according to the contract, owes Albertsons $600mn if the deal had not closed by late 2024. Kroger, however, claims that Albertsons was improperly communicating with a third company, C & S Wholesale, the putative buyer of the divested Albertsons stores. Kroger alleges C & S was trying to take advantage of the regulatory review to get as many stores as it could. Kroger will attempt to show the court that Albertsons violated its own obligations to support it in divestitures and that it should thus not even get the termination fee.

According to the court filings, the two heavyweights of the transaction — Kroger’s longtime chief executive Rodney McMullen and the Cerberus co-founder Stephen Feinberg — had, in 2022, personally negotiated the crucial divestiture requirement clause that is at the centre of the current legal dispute. Their testimony in any coming court case would be riveting.

In retrospect, whatever the agreed-upon risk allocation in this deal, it seems hard to believe today that both Kroger and Albertsons thought rolling the dice on this transaction was a wager worth taking.