Author: admin

The German bank will take about twice as much space in the YY building on South Colonnade as Revolut, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Sign up here.

Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the report. Canary Wharf Group referred Reuters to asset manager Oaktree Capital Management, which owns the building, when asked for a comment. Oaktree declined to comment.

Oaktree bought the building in a joint venture with real estate firm Quadrant Estates in 2019, according to Quadrant’s website. Quadrant could not be reached for comment.

($1 = 0.7502 pounds)

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Accenture (ACN) has been grinding higher recently, with the stock up about 7% over the past month despite a rough year for shareholders. That move has investors rechecking whether today’s price still lines up with fundamentals.

See our latest analysis for Accenture.

The recent rebound follows a tough stretch, with a negative year to date share price return and a roughly 12 month total shareholder return still in the red. This hints that sentiment is improving but not fully repaired.

If Accenture has you rethinking your tech exposure, this could be a good moment to explore high growth tech and AI stocks for other potential opportunities riding similar digital transformation themes.

With earnings still growing and the share price lagging its recent peak, investors now face a key question: is Accenture quietly offering value at today’s levels, or is the market already pricing in its next leg of growth?

According to FCruz, the narrative implies a fair value well below Accenture’s last close of $266.59, setting up a tension between quality and price.

Bottom line (fundamental stance) I’m moderately constructive over 12 to 18 months. Accenture combines (i) scaled exposure to GenAI-led reinvention with tangible bookings, (ii) high-quality margins, returns, and FCF, and (iii) a reset valuation near historical norms. The near-term swing factor is bookings momentum; if that stabilizes or improves, upside to the Street’s mid-30s EPS multiple case becomes more plausible.

Read the complete narrative.

Want to see how modest revenue growth, steady margins and a premium future earnings multiple still argue for a much lower fair value than today? The full narrative walks through those moving parts step by step, but keeps one core valuation lever front and center. Curious which assumption does most of the heavy lifting, and how sensitive the outcome is if it shifts?

Result: Fair Value of $202.38 (OVERVALUED)

Have a read of the narrative in full and understand what’s behind the forecasts.

However, persistent weakness in bookings or a sharper slowdown in consulting spend could quickly challenge the case for Accenture’s current premium valuation.

Find out about the key risks to this Accenture narrative.

While the most popular narrative sees Accenture as roughly 31.7% overvalued, our valuation work using a simple earnings multiple lands in a different place. At 21.5 times earnings, the stock trades well below the US IT industry average of 30.3 times and peers at 25.3 times, and also below a fair ratio of 36.7 times that the market could drift toward over time.

That gap suggests investors are paying a noticeable discount for a business with high quality earnings and strong returns on equity, which could limit downside if growth stays steady. However, it also raises a tougher question: what if the market never fully closes that valuation gap?

See what the numbers say about this price — find out in our valuation breakdown.

If you see the story differently or prefer your own due diligence, you can build a personalized view in just minutes with Do it your way.

A good starting point is our analysis highlighting 5 key rewards investors are optimistic about regarding Accenture.

Before you move on, lock in an edge by scanning fresh opportunities with the Simply Wall Street Screener so your next decision is intentional and not reactive.

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 ACN.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

Story Continues

Head to the Valuation section of our Company Report for more details on how we arrive at this Fair Value for First Quantum Minerals.

For cyclical and capital intensive businesses like miners, price to sales is often a more reliable yardstick than earnings based multiples, because profits can swing wildly with commodity prices while revenue tends to be more stable and reflective of underlying scale.

In general, faster expected growth and lower perceived risk justify a higher price to sales multiple, while slower growth or elevated risk warrant a discount, so there is no single “right” number that fits every company or cycle.

First Quantum Minerals currently trades at about 3.98x sales, a shade below the Metals and Mining industry average of roughly 6.41x and slightly under the 4.12x peer group average. This suggests the market is still assigning it a modest discount despite the strong share price performance.

Simply Wall St’s proprietary Fair Ratio framework estimates what a reasonable price to sales multiple should be for First Quantum, given its growth outlook, margins, industry, size and risk profile. This approach is more tailored than simple peer comparisons because it adjusts for company specific strengths and weaknesses.

On this basis, First Quantum’s Fair Ratio comes out at about 4.42x, which sits above the current 3.98x sales. This indicates the shares still screen as undervalued on a sales multiple basis.

Result: UNDERVALUED

PS ratios tell one story, but what if the real opportunity lies elsewhere? Discover 1442 companies where insiders are betting big on explosive growth.

Earlier we mentioned that there is an even better way to understand valuation, so let us introduce you to Narratives, a simple way to connect your view of First Quantum Minerals with the numbers behind it. A Narrative is your story for the company, where you spell out how you think its revenue, earnings and margins will develop, and link that story directly to a financial forecast and then to a fair value estimate. On Simply Wall St’s Community page, used by millions of investors, Narratives are an easy to use tool that help you assess opportunities by constantly comparing your fair value view to the current share price. They update dynamically as new information such as news or earnings is released, so your investment thesis does not sit still while the world moves on. For example, one Narrative for First Quantum Minerals might assume strong copper demand and place fair value far above today’s price, while another builds in higher political and project risk and concludes that the stock is already fairly valued.

Do you think there’s more to the story for First Quantum Minerals? Head over to our Community to see what others are saying!

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 FM.TO.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

By Charles Passy

America’s retirement system desperately needs reform

President Trump suggested the U.S. should consider the Australian retirement-savings model.

Could America’s signature retirement-savings program look a lot like Australia’s one day?

That’s the idea President Trump hinted at earlier this week, saying the Australian model is a “good plan” that has “worked out very well.”

“We’re looking at it very seriously,” Trump said.

In a nutshell, the Australian plan takes some of what’s already baked into the American 401(k) retirement-savings model, but expands upon it in significant ways that assure more people have more savings by the time they reach retirement age. Called the “superannuation” (or “super”) model, the program requires employers to make a 12% contribution to a retirement fund on behalf of the employee. The employee can also contribute an amount beyond that.

‘We’re looking at it very seriously.’President Donald Trump, on the U.S. possibly adopting the Australian retirement-savings model

In the U.S., the 401(k) model works by giving employees the chance to participate in a retirement-savings program through their employer, with tax benefits to employees for doing so. But the employer is not obligated to offer a 401(k) plan – and even if they do, there’s no requirement they make any kind of contribution to it.

Indeed, research has shown that 56 million private-sector workers in the U.S. lack access to a retirement-savings plan. And even among employees who have a 401(k), the employer contribution is typically in the form of a match, which often equates to 4% to 6% of an employee’s salary – far below that 12% Australian figure.

Australia’s program, with the mandatory employer-contribution aspect, has been in place since 1992, but it didn’t start at 12%. In fact, it began with just 3%, but over time the figure grew incrementally to the current 12%. Still, it has resulted in Australian workers, on average, accumulating the equivalent of around $115,000 (that’s roughly $173,000 in Australian currency (AUDUSD)).

Those enrolled in U.S. 401(k) plans actually have a bit more than that; the average 401(k) balance is $148,153, though it should be noted that wages and the cost of living are lower in Australia.

Perhaps the more relevant data point, however, is the fact that 78% of Australians participate in the “super” program. By contrast, just 59% of Americans have a retirement-savings plan, be it a 401(k), 403(b) or an individual retirement account (IRA), according to a Gallup survey.

But some financial experts say it might be politically tough to push through an Australian-style program in the U.S., especially given the financial burden it places on companies – and small ones in particular.

A plan that mandates that businesses contribute to employee retirement plans at such a high level “will never happen,” said Teresa Ghilarducci, a noted retirement authority who’s an economics professor at the New School in New York City.

Plus, even those who give the Australian system high marks point to issues within it. A key one: Even though the system helps ensure that workers save a significant sum for retirement, it doesn’t necessarily guide them on how to tap that money once they retire – by turning it into, say, a monthly income stream they can parse out carefully over time as they deal with any number of medical or other issues they may face as they age.

“The system still struggles to help retirees navigate longevity risk, inflation and cognitive decline,” said Tomas A. Geoghegan, founder of Beacon Hill Private Wealth in New Jersey.

That said, the American 401(k) model doesn’t offer any systemized way of parsing out, or annuitizing, one’s retirement savings, either.

In any case, there’s little question that the current retirement-savings system in the U.S. needs to be revamped. Without an improved safety net, Americans will be relying more heavily on Social Security than ever, experts note. And as Americans are constantly reminded, Social Security is under threat as it is.

“We absolutely have to do something,” said Holly Verdeyen, a partner at Mercer, a consulting firm that focuses heavily on retirement planning.

Mercer rates retirement systems throughout the world, and gives the Australian model a solid B+. By contrast, the U.S. gets a C+.

The U.S. has already been looking at ways to revamp its retirement-savings model, regardless of whether or not it considers the Australian one.

For starters, under what’s commonly referred to as the Secure 2.0 Act, Congress authorized such changes as letting employers automatically enroll employees into 401(k) plans and allowing employees between the ages of 60 and 63 to increase their maximum retirement contributions.

On top of that, a number of states are looking at ways for employees to access retirement-savings programs.

But more sweeping national reform is still needed, many argue. And some say it could come in the form of the Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA), which is currently making its way through Congress. It calls for a program that would broaden accessibility to tax-advantaged retirement-savings accounts and would have the federal government match contributions for workers below certain income levels.

In the meantime, the Australian model is still out there.

White House spokesman Kush Desai wouldn’t get into specifics about how the model could work in the U.S., but told MarketWatch: “The administration is closely examining all options to help Americans build wealth and achieve prosperity.”

-Charles Passy

This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires

  12-06-25 0800ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.