Reynolds Consumer Products (REYN) has recently seen some movement in its stock price. Investors might be curious about how the company’s fundamentals stack up and whether the current valuation offers opportunity or risk in today’s market.
See our latest analysis for Reynolds Consumer Products.
Reynolds Consumer Products has seen its share price slip over 12% since the start of the year, with a one-year total shareholder return of -18% reflecting fading momentum despite a modest bounce in recent months. While the business continues to generate steady growth, the market’s risk appetite for the stock appears softer than it was last year. This suggests investors are still weighing up the balance between stability and opportunity.
If you’re curious where else the market’s strength is showing, it’s a great moment to broaden your search and discover fast growing stocks with high insider ownership
Given the recent slump and some signs of steady growth, is Reynolds Consumer Products now trading below its true worth? Or has the market already priced in the company’s prospects for the coming year?
Reynolds Consumer Products’ last close of $23.42 sits noticeably below the most-followed narrative’s fair value estimate of $26.25. This gap highlights growing expectations for future profitability and revenue growth, despite recent share price volatility.
Ongoing product innovation, particularly in sustainable and convenience-focused products such as Hefty ECOSAVE compostable cutlery, air fryer liners, and unbleached parchment, is expected to drive future revenue growth as Reynolds captures premium pricing and gains share among environmentally conscious and convenience-seeking consumers.
Read the complete narrative.
Curious about what assumptions push this higher fair value? The narrative relies on a bold mix of bigger profits, stronger margins, and demographic tailwinds. Consider pricing power and future growth that most do not anticipate. Ready to find out what projections are behind that number?
Result: Fair Value of $26.25 (UNDERVALUED)
Have a read of the narrative in full and understand what’s behind the forecasts.
However, if input costs spike or consumer demand weakens, Reynolds’ projected margin and revenue gains could face significant challenges.
Find out about the key risks to this Reynolds Consumer Products narrative.
If you want to take a closer look or think differently about Reynolds Consumer Products, you can dive into the numbers and shape your own story in just a few minutes. Do it your way
A great starting point for your Reynolds Consumer Products research is our analysis highlighting 3 key rewards and 1 important warning sign that could impact your investment decision.
Smart investors don’t stop at one opportunity. Expand your horizons and get ahead of the crowd by checking out these hand-picked lists where innovation and value meet real potential.
Tap into future breakthroughs and potential market movers by scanning these 27 quantum computing stocks, a resource where quantum computing advancements are poised to redefine industries.
Maximize your search for income and stability by uncovering these 17 dividend stocks with yields > 3%, a list featuring companies with consistently high yields over 3% and robust fundamentals.
Explore the next wave of disruptive tech trends with these 27 AI penny stocks, a selection sourced for rapid growth and leadership in artificial intelligence.
This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Companies discussed in this article include REYN.
Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com
Encephalomalacia is a gross pathological term derived from Greek etymology that describes the softening of the brain.1 It is characterized by loss of brain tissue due to liquefactive necrosis and degeneration. This chronic injury…
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted various aspects of life, including social structures, healthcare systems, and public health policies. Vaccines lower the risk of severe cases and death. However, post-COVID-related…
Anthropic has unveiled a new feature called Skills, designed to let developers extend Claude with modular, reusable task components. Each Skill is a self-contained capability that Claude can call upon during a conversation, such as…
Arvid Lindblad has admitted to feeling “quite nervous” ahead of his Free Practice 1 outing at the Mexico City Grand Prix, with the British racer mindful of the championship situation as he prepared to take the wheel of title hopeful Max…
Compagno, L. J. V. Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). in Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date vol. Vol. 2 269 (FAO Species Catalogue…
(Alliance News) – Petrofac Ltd’s board is holding emergency talks this weekend as it has lined up Teneo for an administration process which could be confirmed as early as Monday morning, Sky News reported Saturday.
A potential collapse of the energy infrastructure company with core markets in the Middle East and North Africa could lead to the loss of over 2,000 jobs in Scotland.
One industry executive said a decision to file for administration was likely to be taken before the stock market opens on Monday, Sky News said.
On Thursday, Petrofac had announced that its planned restructuring was “no longer deliverable in its current form,” adding that it was in close and constant dialogue with key creditors and other stakeholders as it pursued alternative options for the company.
This was after TenneT, an operator of electricity grids, cancelled a contract.
Petrofac shares have been suspended in London since May 1 as it has not published its 2024 results.
By Tom Budszus, Alliance News slot editor
Comments and questions to newsroom@alliancenews.com
Copyright 2025 Alliance News Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Amazon strategised about keeping the public in the dark over the true extent of its datacentres’ water use, a leaked internal document reveals.
The biggest owner of datacentres in the world, Amazon dwarfs competitors Microsoft and Google and is planning a huge increase in capacity as part of a push into artificial intelligence. The Seattle firm operates hundreds of active facilities, with many more in development despite concerns over how much water is being used to cool their vast arrays of circuitry.
Amazon defends its approach and has taken steps to manage how efficient its water use is, but it has faced criticism over transparency. Microsoft and Google regularly publish figures for their water consumption, but Amazon has never publicly disclosed how much water its server farms consume.
When designing a campaign for water efficiency, the company’s cloud computing division chose to account for only a smaller water usage figure that does not include all the ways its datacentres use water so as to minimise the risk to its reputation, according to a leaked memo seen by SourceMaterial and the Guardian.
Amazon as a whole consumed 105bn gallons of water in total in 2021, as much as 958,000 US households, which would make for a city bigger than San Francisco, according to the memo.
Asked about the leaked document, Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan described it as “obsolete” and said it “completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage strategy”.
“A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” she said. “Meetings often reshape documents or reveal flawed findings or claims.” Callahan would not elaborate on which strategic elements of the document were “obsolete”.
The memo was dated one month before Amazon Web Services (AWS), the company’s cloud computing division, debuted a new sustainability campaign in November 2022 called “Water Positive”, with a commitment to “return more water than it uses” by 2030.
In the memo, ahead of the campaign’s launch, executives grappled with whether to include public disclosures about “secondary” use – water used in generating the electricity to power its datacentres.
They warned that full transparency was “a one-way door” and advised keeping AWS’s projections confidential, even as they feared that their advice could invite accusations of a cover-up. “Amazon hides its water consumption” was one negative headline the authors anticipated.
Callaghan said efficiency savings have already been achieved and pointed out that other companies also don’t count secondary water use.
Executives opted to use only the relatively smaller figure of primary use, 7.7bn gallons per year, roughly equivalent to 11,600 Olympic swimming pools, when calculating progress towards internal targets because of “reputational risk”, fearing bad publicity if the full scale of Amazon’s consumption was revealed, the document shows. Ultimately as part of the campaign for water efficiency, Amazon aimed to cut its estimated 7.7bn gallon primary consumption to 4.9bn by 2030 – without addressing secondary use.
Using the higher of two water usage estimates, the one that would include secondary use, “would double the size and budget” of the campaign “without addressing meaningful operational, regulatory or reputational risks”, they warned, adding that there was “no focus from customers or media” on water used for electricity.
“We may decide to release water volumes in the future,” the document said. “But … we should only do so if the lack of data undermines the programme or is required by regulators.”
Scientists balked at the selective disclosure and the choice not to include secondary use of water in the total.
“In environmental science, it is standard practice to include both to more accurately capture the true water cost of datacentres,” said Shaolei Ren, associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Riverside.
Amazon’s Water Positive campaign is still active and does not take into account secondary use, while the company continues to keep its current overall water consumption confidential.
As US tech companies ride the wave of AI investment and pursue greater heights of computational power, the $2.4tn corporation is building new datacentres in some of the world’s driest areas, SourceMaterial and the Guardian revealed in April.
Feeling water positive
In November 2022, Amazon Web Services debuted its new Water Positive sustainability campaign, with a commitment to “return more water than it uses by 2030”. The campaign only applies to Amazon Web Services. The wider Amazon group, including the world’s biggest online retail business, has an overall water consumption that is far higher, 105bn gallons per year.
“The models referenced in this document were preliminary and unvetted,” said Amazon’s Callahan, who declined to provide any alternative figures.
The document’s authors advised the company not to release data about the wider company, but they also warned that selective disclosure could lead to accusations of a cover-up. There was “reputational risk of publicly committing to a goal for only a portion of Amazon’s direct water footprint”, they wrote. They even suggested negative headlines that might result including “Amazon disappoints, failing to take full responsibility for water”.
“It would be better if they could own up to it,” said a current Amazon software developer, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “Even if they said it was a low priority, at least that would be honest.”
In a sustainability report in August, AWS claimed it had achieved 53% of its Water Positive goal. The division’s plan for reaching the target relies mostly on “water replenishment” projects, some in partnership with Water.org, a non-profit organisation co-founded by actor Matt Damon. The strategy document refers to these projects as “offsets”, describing initiatives like using Amazon computer technology to help utilities prioritise which pipes to fix in order to minimise leaks.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
But of the $109m AWS planned to spend on offsets, around half would have been spent anyway, either to meet regulatory requirements or because the projects would help AWS operations by making water more available, the document shows. Experts said this amounted to incomplete accounting.
“Regardless of what sort of offsetting or replenishment you do, it doesn’t necessarily nullify the water footprints of your own operations,” said Tyler Farrow, standards manager at the Alliance for Water Stewardship. “Calling your operations water positive or water neutral is misleading.”
Amazon’s Callahan said that the “replenishment spending”, which other tech companies also undertake, is a voluntary, not a regulatory, requirement.
“We’ve expanded well beyond what was imagined in the document because it’s the right thing to do for the world and for the communities in which we operate,” she said.
Amazon is also engineering industry standards to downplay its water use and avert scrutiny, said Nathan Wangusi, a former water sustainability manager at the company.
The corporation has funded efforts by the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute non-profits, alongside LimnoTech, a consultancy, “to create a globally accepted methodology for quantifying the benefit of watershed restoration projects”.
Responding to questions from SourceMaterial, all three organisations defended their integrity and independence, insisting that Amazon had no undue influence on any methodologies they had created.
“They spend a lot of time creating methodologies that are used to obfuscate the water footprint,” Wangusi said, referring to Amazon.
Callahan said Wangusi’s claim was “contradicted by facts”. “Amazon’s water use reporting is based on third-party assured data from actual utility bills, not estimates or self-reporting,” she said. Wangusi’s claim, though, was not about Amazon’s water-use reporting, but about measuring the effects of water offsets.
Callahan said these efforts were “standard practice” and that Amazon’s “customers expect us to hold ourselves accountable to credible guidance and best practices”.
As well as choosing not to disclose water use from electricity generation, Amazon has estimated its larger “indirect” water footprint, the document shows. This extra usage, which falls under a classification known as “scope 3”, includes water for production and construction – in Amazon’s case, mostly irrigation of cotton plantations supplying its fashion brands, and vegetables for its grocery arm, Amazon Fresh.
Here, too, Amazon decided to keep its consumption confidential, even though “indirect water use represents roughly 90% of Amazon’s total water footprint”, according to the document.
AWS avoided establishing targets for indirect water use because that figure would be “much more significant for the rest of Amazon, especially in the agricultural supply chain, and the team does not want to establish a standard for addressing scope 3 water use that the rest of Amazon would need to follow, given the larger resource implications”, the authors wrote.
“You don’t need to obscure or obfuscate,” said Wangusi, who believes he was “hounded out” of Amazon for criticising the company’s approach. (Amazon declined to comment on his departure.)
“It doesn’t make you more profitable,” he said. “It makes you less trustworthy.”
