I get more emails from disappointed home warranty customers than I care to count.

Home warranties only apply to normal wear on your appliances and systems. They often limit how much they’ll pay, always have exclusions and never guarantee that they’ll make a repair before diagnosing the issue. But they can save you money if you know how and when to use them.

Here are seven common misunderstandings that customers have about their home warranties.

A true warranty repairs manufacturing defects, and homeowners insurance pays for items that are damaged suddenly. Home warranties do neither.

Home warranties are service contracts that cover normal wear and tear. This includes issues that pop up from everyday use and are normal for appliances and systems as they age.

A lot of people confuse home warranties with insurance because some companies advertise that customers pay a “deductible.” That’s not accurate. Home warranties charge service fees, which you pay before you know whether or not your claim has been approved. The fee isn’t a guarantee of coverage; it pays for the technician to diagnose the problem, not make the actual repair.

With insurance, a deductible comes into play after a claim is approved. It’s your share of the repair cost, and the insurance company will cover the rest.

Home warranties cover systems and appliances in a way that manufacturers’ warranties and insurance don’t. This is a good thing if you’re wanting that type of everyday-wear-and-tear coverage. But that means home warranties also have different terms. And if your claim fits with their coverage, you could save money on big repairs.

One of the ways home warranty companies make money while still paying for repairs is by limiting coverage to a certain dollar amount, known as a coverage limit. These can range from $150 to $7,000, depending on the covered item, type of repair, plan and company.

Many home warranty companies also refuse to cover certain situations, such as pre-existing conditions or wear and tear caused by neglecting to maintain your systems.

Regardless of how a home warranty limits coverage, it’s probably a safe bet that it has policies that protect the company from paying for all of the repairs you request.

Some customers have legitimate claims that can cost home warranty companies thousands of dollars. In those cases, customers benefit more than the companies and probably get more out of the warranty than the company that sold it to them.

So even though your home warranty company is betting they’ll spend less on you than you’ll pay them, that’s not always how it works out. You might save money with a home warranty instead.

One of the most common customer complaints I see is that a home warranty didn’t pay for a replacement appliance or system. Instead, the company paid a customer a portion of the actual cost to replace an item. That left the homeowner paying the rest of the bill for a replacement.

If your home warranty can’t fix your water heater, it’s not going to send you a check for whatever it costs to buy a new version of your water heater. Instead, many of them calculate how much your old water heater (or stove or dishwasher) is worth.

Similar to how cars go down in value over time, appliances and systems depreciate as well. That means your 12-year-old water heater might only be worth $100, and that’s how much a home warranty is likely to give you to buy a replacement.

It doesn’t matter that a new one could cost more than $3,000 with installation and labor. You might be on the hook for the remaining $2,900.

Even if you have to pay for labor or costs over your coverage limit, your home warranty can keep you from paying the full cost of major repairs.

Let’s say your home warranty agrees to replace your dishwasher. If the company pays $400 of the $800 price tag, you still only had to pay half of the price tag even though your plan didn’t pay for the full replacement.

If you’d already paid $876 and your home warranty paid only $400 for a replacement dishwasher at the end of that year, you’d be out at least $476. Probably more by the time you paid your service fee for the dishwasher claim.

In cases like this, you can actually save money by not having a home warranty.

Each customer will have a different set of claims, a specific plan and a mix of appliance and system models. That means no two situations are the same.

Some customers might lose money with a home warranty, but others will save money with one. If you get one or two major repair claims approved, you could come out ahead with a home warranty.

A home warranty company can make you pay a service fee and then deny your claim.

The service fee is similar to the house-call fee that a repair company might charge you when you schedule an appointment with them directly. It’s how they ensure they make some money in case you decide not to have them repair whatever they came to look at.

The difference here is who can decide if a technician is going to make the repair. If you hire the company directly, you decide if you want them to repair your water heater. In that case, you’ll probably get to apply your house call fee toward the total cost of your repair.

With a home warranty, the company decides if it wants to pay someone to repair your water heater. If your claim is denied, you could lose your service fee.

A few home warranty companies are skipping service fees, so their customers don’t pay for a technician to visit their homes. That way they’re not paying out of pocket before they know if a claim will be approved. If you consider a company that doesn’t charge service fees, check how that might affect the monthly rate compared to prices other companies offer.

Your contract has to say what your home warranty will and won’t cover. But service agreements tend to be long and full of technical language, which can make them difficult to understand. So a lot of people don’t read them before agreeing to the terms.

Look, I’m not judging. I have no idea what I agreed to when Spotify last updated its terms, but I checked that “I agree” box immediately so I could keep streaming Sarah McLachlan’s newest album without interruption.

But your home warranty company is going to follow the terms that you agreed to when you signed up for a plan. So it’s a smart move to read those terms before paying for coverage that you might not understand.

I know reading pages of fine print to find out which parts of your heat pump are covered by your plan doesn’t sound like a relaxing Saturday afternoon. But your home warranty company will quote sections of the contract to you when you ask why your claim was denied.

Knowing the policies and exclusions in advance will help you avoid frustrating situations.

Many home warranty contracts have clauses that say you can’t sue the company. Instead, you have to go through arbitration, which is a way to resolve disputes without going to court. These clauses usually keep you from filing a class action lawsuit as well.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, arbitration is worse for consumers than for companies. This is because customers tend to lose more often than the companies, and end up paying arbitration fees.

Even when a home warranty company doesn’t follow its contract, it’s difficult for a customer to prove their case because of how arbitration works. Most successful cases against home warranty companies are filed by a state’s attorney general after they’ve investigated a lot of customers’ complaints.

When a state successfully sues a home warranty company, it usually makes the news. This gives other customers a way to learn about their rights and which home warranty companies haven’t been honest with their coverage.

If you’re thinking of buying a home warranty, search for any news about the company being involved in lawsuits. And if you are having trouble with your home warranty and need a resolution, contact your state attorney general’s office to file a complaint.

Addas a preferred source on Google

Source link

Bitcoin’s largest buyers are no longer behaving like a reliable backstop for the largest cryptocurrency.

The exchange-traded funds, public-company treasuries, and Bitcoin-linked equities that helped define the market’s institutional era are showing signs of strain, just as the world’s largest digital asset struggles to hold above $60,000, one of its most closely watched price levels.

This persistent drawdown has prompted a broader reevaluation of the cryptocurrency’s role in institutional portfolios, raising questions about whether the current environment reflects a temporary profit-taking exercise or a structural retreat from digital assets.

Related Reading

Bitcoin’s $60,000 support is still a bet on the dollar breaking

Glassnode says Bitcoin’s $60,000 support may need DXY below 99 or 10-year yields near 4.2% before recovery can firm.

Jun 11, 2026 · Gino Matos

Bitcoin ETF demand turns into a headwind

The clearest reversal has come from US spot Bitcoin ETFs, which entered 2026 as one of the market’s most important drivers of demand.

For much of the period after their January 2024 debut, the funds were treated as evidence that traditional financial investors were steadily adopting Bitcoin.

Their inflows helped create a simple bull-market thesis that showed that access to Wall Street would bring more capital into a fixed-supply asset, giving Bitcoin a durable source of upward pressure.

However, that thesis has been tested heavily in recent weeks.

Data from SoSoValue shows US spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded a five-week outflow streak totaling more than $5 billion.

This is further corroborated by Glassnode data, which shows the 30-day moving average of net ETF flows has fallen to -2,450 BTC per day, the fastest sustained pace of outflows since the products launched.

The size of that flow is significant because it exceeds the network’s daily supply of newly created Bitcoin.

After the 2024 halving, miners produce about 450 BTC per day. A sustained ETF outflow of 2,450 BTC a day is more than five times that new supply, turning what had once been a source of absorption into a source of pressure.

Short bursts of ETF selling are not unusual in volatile markets. A negative 30-day moving average carries more weight because it smooths out daily noise and captures broader changes in positioning. Until that trend improves, institutional flows are less likely to provide support for Bitcoin prices.

Moreover, trading in the ETFs has also cooled. The 30-day moving average of daily volume in US spot Bitcoin ETFs has fallen to about $960 million from $4.4 billion in October, a 78% decline, Glassnode reported.

That decline points to more than simple profit-taking. It shows that speculative demand from traditional market participants has thinned even as redemptions have accelerated.

Lower volume can make price moves harder to absorb because fewer buyers are available when selling intensifies.

BTC DATs lose momentum

The ETF reversal has coincided with a slowdown in another major source of Bitcoin demand: digital asset treasury companies.

These firms, often listed publicly, raise capital or use balance-sheet resources to accumulate Bitcoin as a treasury asset. Their rise helped extend institutional adoption beyond ETFs, giving investors another way to express demand for Bitcoin through equity markets.

Like the ETFs, their buying has faded in June.

Glassnode analysts noted that while these companies remain net buyers overall, their daily accumulation has slowed to a fraction of the pace seen earlier in the quarter.

According to them:

“Corporate treasury accumulation has slowed sharply, with net inflows falling from peaks above $500 million per day to near-zero levels since June.”

This slower buying removes one of the market’s clearest sources of incremental demand at a time when ETF flows are also negative.

Some of the concerns have centered on Strategy, the largest public corporate holder of Bitcoin. The company disclosed that it sold 32 BTC in the final week of May, a small amount relative to its overall holdings but a symbolically important move because of its role in popularizing the corporate Bitcoin treasury model.

Strategy later returned to the market during the selloff, buying about $100 million worth of Bitcoin. However, the purchase did not stop the price from falling below $60,000.

Other BTC-focused companies have also drawn attention. Fold and Nakamoto have sold part of their Bitcoin holdings, adding to concern that the treasury-company trade is becoming less one-directional than it appeared during the rally.

While these sales do not amount to a broad retreat by corporate buyers, they show that some treasury firms are becoming more selective, more liquidity-conscious, and more willing to adjust positions as market conditions worsen.

That shift matters because the corporate treasury model depends partly on confidence. When share prices are strong, and investor demand is high, companies can raise capital, buy Bitcoin, and benefit from the perception that they are leveraged proxies for the asset.

However, when Bitcoin falls and demand for equities weakens, the model becomes harder to sustain.

Meanwhile, that slowdown is also evident in trading activity in these companies’ equities.

Glassnode data show that the total daily trading volume for major publicly listed Bitcoin-holding companies, measured by the 30-day simple moving average, has dropped by 49% over about six months. Their volume fell from $34.2 billion in December to $17.4 billion as of press time.

That decline suggests investors are pulling back from the broader Bitcoin proxy trade, not just from the asset itself.

During stronger market periods, public Bitcoin holders often attract investors seeking leveraged exposure. Their shares could rise faster than Bitcoin’s when sentiment improves because they combine treasury holdings, operating businesses, and capital-market optionality.

That made them popular vehicles for traders who wanted equity-market exposure to crypto without directly holding tokens. But as Bitcoin corrected, that demand has significantly weakened.

Exchange inflows signal broad market anxiety

The institutional distribution has created a climate of widespread market unease, affecting participants across the wealth spectrum.

Data from CryptoQuant indicates a significant rise in exchange deposits from both large-scale holders and retail investors. Typically, such deposits are associated with an intent to sell.

As Bitcoin briefly breached the $60,000 floor, large holders, or “whales,” accelerated their movement of assets to trading platforms.

Over the past three months, whale inflows to the Binance exchange have averaged 5,280 BTC per day, a sharp increase from the 1,900 BTC daily average observed in March. Retail investors have mirrored this behavioral shift, with their average daily exchange inflows climbing to 410 BTC.

This parallel movement highlights how macroeconomic uncertainty levels the playing field regarding investor psychology.

The current environment marks the second major episode of elevated exchange deposits this year. A similar pattern emerged in early February, when Bitcoin tested the $60,000 threshold, with whale inflows spiking to 6,200 BTC and retail inflows reaching 570 BTC.

Such periods of heightened market stress historically facilitate the transfer of assets from short-term speculators to long-term holders, though the immediate effect is substantial downward price pressure.

A thinner market waits for a catalyst

This overall market has arrived as broader crypto trading activity has also cooled.

Santiment data show trading volume across the largest non-stablecoin crypto assets has fallen to levels last seen in mid-2024. The decline reflects a market in which many traders appear unwilling to chase prices higher or sell aggressively amid recent liquidations, macro uncertainty, and geopolitical risks.

For Bitcoin, that creates a two-sided setup.

On one side, a thin volume can leave the market vulnerable. When participation is low and large buyers are less active, even moderate selling can have an outsized effect on price. A negative ETF flow trend, slower treasury accumulation, and weaker proxy-stock demand can therefore weigh more heavily than they would in a stronger liquidity environment.

On the other side, low volume can also indicate exhaustion. Some of crypto’s stronger rebounds have followed periods when trading activity, attention, and conviction were weak. Markets often recover when positioning has already been reduced and sidelined capital begins to return.

That possibility keeps the current setup from being a straightforward bear-market call. Bitcoin continues to have institutional holders, public-company buyers, and long-term investors. Development across the broader digital asset industry has not stopped, and the ETF market remains an established bridge between Bitcoin and traditional finance.

But the immediate question is narrower. Bitcoin does not need institutions to abandon it to face pressure. It only needs the largest buyers to slow down, sell selectively, or stop absorbing supply at the same pace.

That is what the market is confronting now.

Until ETF flows stabilize, treasury-company demand recovers, or trading activity returns to Bitcoin-linked equities, the market may remain exposed to a more difficult reality: the institutional bid is still there, but it is no longer strong enough to carry the trade on its own.

Source link

Steve Eisman, the investor who became famous for his prescient bet against subprime mortgages ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, says he wants no part of the upcoming SpaceX IPO — and the company’s own prospectus is his primary exhibit.

Eisman, host of “The Real Eisman Playbook” podcast and former Neuberger Berman senior portfolio manager, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Monday that he is simply “not a fan” of the offering, which is expected to price as soon as Friday.

According to Eisman:

“Let’s see. If you read the prospectus, I mean, there’s some amusing stuff in the prospectus. Like my favorite part of the prospectus is that one of the things that SpaceX wants to do is asteroid mining. I thought that was kind of funny.”

His more substantive concern is the company’s pivot into AI. Eisman noted that capex as a share of revenue jumped from 42% in fiscal year 2023 to 215% in the most recent first quarter, driven by AI infrastructure spending. He called Grok, SpaceX’s AI product, “not a world class AI company” and warned that AI output broadly is “very commoditized” with “no moats.”

Eisman pointed to the SpaceX S-1’s total addressable market figure of $28.5 trillion, with 85% attributed to AI, noting that “the entire company is being bet on AI in terms of its future, not on SpaceX and not on Starlink.”

According to Eisman:

“What I love about the S-1 is that it reads like a science fiction novel. It really does.”

He clarified he has no interest in shorting the stock. “I have no interest in shorting this. I’m just not playing,” he said.

Eisman previously bet against Tesla before abandoning the short position in 2020. “If you are short, you’ve got to walk away. There’s no glory in losing money,” he said at the time.

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

Featured Image: Shutterstock/Rana Ali Hasan Arif/Nikelser Kate

Source link