Do you worry about drinking coffee on an empty stomach? You’re not alone – it’s one of the most persistent beliefs in the wellness world, with many convinced it triggers acidity, disrupts hormones, or harms gut health. But in a post that…
Author: admin
-

How CEPI’s Digital Transformation Project Win Will Impact Cognizant Technology Solutions (CTSH) Investors
-
On November 20, 2025, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) selected Cognizant Technology Solutions to lead a multi-year digital transformation project, including the implementation of a new core HR and Expense Management System and enhancement of CEPI’s Salesforce platform.
-
This win underscores Cognizant’s recognized expertise in digital transformation and AI-enabled enterprise architecture across the healthcare and non-profit sectors.
-
We’ll look at how this significant multi-year client engagement bolsters Cognizant’s investment narrative and future growth prospects.
Find companies with promising cash flow potential yet trading below their fair value.
To own shares of Cognizant, an investor needs to believe in the company’s ability to stay ahead in digital transformation and AI-driven enterprise services, despite an industry marked by rapid change and cost pressures. The newly announced multi-year CEPI digital transformation deal reinforces Cognizant’s relevance in healthcare and non-profit sectors, supporting the current short-term catalyst of robust, recurring client wins, while the key risk remains the acceleration of AI and platform automation potentially eroding demand for traditional services. So far, this news adds positive evidence but does not change the largest risk facing the business.
Among recent announcements, the launch of the ONE Bridge automation accelerator with Ataccama stands out as especially relevant. This tool enables clients to migrate data platforms more efficiently, which aligns with Cognizant’s strategy to win large digital transformation projects and could reinforce growth in recurring revenue if the company maintains its innovation pace.
However, investors should keep in mind that if enterprise adoption of agentic AI accelerates faster than Cognizant’s ability to adapt its services offering…
Read the full narrative on Cognizant Technology Solutions (it’s free!)
Cognizant Technology Solutions’ outlook anticipates $23.5 billion in revenue and $2.9 billion in earnings by 2028. This is based on a forecast annual revenue growth rate of 4.7% and an earnings increase of $0.5 billion from the current earnings of $2.4 billion.
Uncover how Cognizant Technology Solutions’ forecasts yield a $84.86 fair value, a 12% upside to its current price.
CTSH Community Fair Values as at Nov 2025 Eight members of the Simply Wall St Community estimate Cognizant’s fair value between US$66.06 and US$126.19 per share. While many focus on AI-powered deal wins, the ongoing risk of technology shifting client demand patterns could influence the company’s future growth path in several ways.
Continue Reading
-
-

Does Moody’s Recent Fintech Partnerships Justify Its Share Price in 2025?
-
Wondering if Moody’s current share price reflects real value or just market hype? You’re not alone, and we’re about to break it down in plain terms.
-
After mostly holding steady this year, Moody’s stock has ticked up 1.4% year-to-date and gained over 80% in the last five years. This suggests long-term growth but also raises questions about future upside.
-
Recent headlines have focused on Moody’s expanding its risk assessment coverage and forming new partnerships in the financial technology space. These moves are driving fresh conversations about the company’s competitive position and its potential to navigate a shifting regulatory landscape.
-
Right now, Moody’s valuation score sits at 0 out of 6 checks for being undervalued, according to our framework. Let’s look at how different valuation methods approach the stock, and keep in mind there is an even more useful perspective coming up at the end of this article.
Moody’s scores just 0/6 on our valuation checks. See what other red flags we found in the full valuation breakdown.
The Excess Returns Model helps investors understand whether a company creates value above its cost of capital. It measures how much profit Moody’s can generate from its investments in comparison to the minimum return shareholders require, or the cost of equity.
For Moody’s, the average return on equity is an impressive 62.98%. The company’s stable earnings per share are estimated at $17.17, with a cost of equity at $2.25 per share. This results in a robust excess return of $14.93 per share. The latest book value sits at $22.18 per share, and projections point to a stable book value of $27.26 per share, based on weighted estimates from multiple analysts.
This model estimates Moody’s intrinsic share value at $327.15. Compared to the current market price, this implies the stock is about 46.6% overvalued. While Moody’s strong excess returns highlight its ability to create shareholder value, the current price appears to overshoot what the fundamentals justify.
Result: OVERVALUED
Our Excess Returns analysis suggests Moody’s may be overvalued by 46.6%. Discover 917 undervalued stocks or create your own screener to find better value opportunities.
MCO Discounted Cash Flow as at Nov 2025 Head to the Valuation section of our Company Report for more details on how we arrive at this Fair Value for Moody’s.
For profitable companies like Moody’s, the price-to-earnings (PE) ratio is a widely accepted gauge of value. It tells investors how much they are paying for each dollar of current earnings, which is especially relevant for established businesses with reliable profits.
Continue Reading
-
-

What Aeva Technologies (AEVA)’s Shift to 4D LiDAR Solutions and $100M Funding Means for Shareholders
-
Aeva Technologies announced an exclusive partnership with D2 Traffic Technologies to deliver 4D LiDAR-based smart infrastructure solutions across the U.S. and secured a US$100 million investment from funds managed by Apollo Global Management to accelerate the sales and deployment of its LiDAR technology.
-
These actions mark a shift for Aeva from a LiDAR sensor supplier to a full-solution provider, offering integrated sensing, perception, and analytics for transportation infrastructure.
-
We’ll explore how this move toward comprehensive traffic management solutions shapes Aeva Technologies’ broader investment narrative.
Trump has pledged to “unleash” American oil and gas and these 22 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit.
For investors considering Aeva Technologies, the underlying story continues to hinge on whether its advanced LiDAR platform can achieve meaningful commercial adoption and drive sustainable revenue growth. The recent exclusive partnership with D2 Traffic Technologies and US$100 million backing from Apollo Global Management signal a push beyond hardware into full-stack smart infrastructure solutions, which could reshape the company’s near-term catalysts. These developments bring new momentum at a time when high growth, particularly in traffic management and automotive sectors, is top of mind. However, previous data indicated a highly volatile share price, rising losses, and a price-to-sales ratio far above peers, suggesting Aeva remains a high-risk proposition. While the new capital and partnerships may address concerns over funding and market reach, investors now need to reassess whether the commercial pipeline can grow rapidly enough to offset persistent losses and justify today’s valuation. Yet, it’s the competitive pressures and uncertain path to profitability that most demand careful consideration.
In light of our recent valuation report, it seems possible that Aeva Technologies is trading beyond its estimated value.
AEVA Community Fair Values as at Nov 2025 Ten fair value estimates from the Simply Wall St Community show a striking span from US$1.02 to US$52.96 per share, underlining wide disagreement on potential upside or risk. With recent moves aimed at full-solution delivery, the company’s ability to convert partnerships into sustained revenue remains a key focus for many market participants seeking clarity.
Explore 10 other fair value estimates on Aeva Technologies – why the stock might be worth over 5x more than the current price!
Continue Reading
-
-

Tense calm in far north as Israel prepares to ‘finish the job’ against Hezbollah | Israel
Noam Erlich looks out over what was his beer garden. Beyond the disordered chairs and tables and the sign instructing neighbours and friends to “pay whatever you like”, the ridge falls away to fields, then a fence, then hills littered with…
Continue Reading
-

Noles to Host Illinois for Seminole Heritage on Sunday
TALLAHASSEE – The Florida State women’s basketball team (3-3) will return home to host Illinois (3-1) on Sunday at the Donald L. Tucker Center at 2 p.m. for Seminole Heritage.
Illinois will visit Tallahassee for the first time in series…Continue Reading
-
Chinese buyers downplay Japan tensions at auto show – Reuters
- Chinese buyers downplay Japan tensions at auto show Reuters
- Japanese carmakers taking biggest hit from new Chinese entrants Fleet News
- Japanese carmakers face difficulties in Chinese market news.cgtn.com
- International Business: Chinese buyers downplay Japan tensions at car show Gdnonline
- Japanese manufacturers “losing ground” to Chinese entrants motortrader.com
Continue Reading
-

Study uncovers role of mechanical forces in human gastrulation
Only two weeks after fertilization, the first sign of the formation of the 3 axes of the human body (head/tail, ventral/dorsal, and right/left) begins to appear. At this stage, known as gastrulation, a flat and featureless sheet of…
Continue Reading
-

World’s first kiss was between THIS species, evolved 20 million years ago; scientists reveal emotions behind kissing
Kissing is an emotional expression of love when one feels extremely close to the other person due to passionate emotions. Researchers are of the view that such behaviours have deep biological roots and are not a result of any cultural invention.
…
Continue Reading
-

Differences in the utilization of physical therapy for outpatients with non-specific shoulder pain labels and specific shoulder pain labels | BMC Health Services Research
D R. Towards an integrated clinical framework for patient with shoulder pain. Arch Physiother. 2018;8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-018-0050-3.
Juel NG, Pedersen SJ, Engebretsen KB, et al. [Non-traumatic shoulder pain in the primary health service]. Tidsskr Den nor Laegeforening Tidsskr Prakt Med Ny Raekke. 2019;139(7). https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.19.0116.
Ludewig PM, Kamonseki DH, Staker JL, Lawrence RL, Camargo PR, Braman JP. CHANGING OUR DIAGNOSTIC PARADIGM: MOVEMENT SYSTEM DIAGNOSTIC CLASSIFICATION. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12(6):884–93.
Ludewig PM, Saini G, Hellem A, et al. Changing our diagnostic paradigm part II: movement system diagnostic classification. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2022;17(1):7–17. https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.30177.
May S, Chance-Larsen K, Littlewood C, Lomas D, Saad M. Reliability of physical examination tests used in the assessment of patients with shoulder problems: a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2010;96(3):179–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2009.12.002.
Lädermann A, Collin P, Zbinden O, Meynard T, Saffarini M, Chiu JCH. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for subscapularis tears: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(9):23259671211042011. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211042011.
Hegedus EJ, Goode AP, Cook CE, et al. Which physical examination tests provide clinicians with the most value when examining the shoulder? Update of a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(14):964–78. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091066.
Longo UG, Berton A, Ahrens PM, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Clinical tests for the diagnosis of rotator cuff disease. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2011;19(3):266–78. https://doi.org/10.1097/JSA.0b013e3182250c8b.
Barreto RPG, Braman JP, Ludewig PM, Ribeiro LP, Camargo PR. Bilateral magnetic resonance imaging findings in individuals with unilateral shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(9):1699–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.001.
Eliason A, Harringe M, Engström B, Sunding K, Werner S. Bilateral ultrasound findings in patients with unilateral subacromial pain syndrome. Physiother Theory Pract. 2022;38(13):2568–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2021.1962462.
Miranda H, Viikari-Juntura E, Heistaro S, Heliövaara M, Riihimäki H. A population study on differences in the determinants of a specific shoulder disorder versus nonspecific shoulder pain without clinical findings. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(9):847–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi112.
Weber S, Chahal J. Management of rotator cuff injuries. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(5):e193–201. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00463.
Kelley MJ, Shaffer MA, Kuhn JE, et al. Shoulder pain and mobility deficits: adhesive capsulitis: clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of Functioning, Disability, and health from the orthopaedic section of the American physical therapy association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(5):A1–31. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.0302.
van den Dolder PA, Ferreira PH, Refshauge KM. Effectiveness of soft tissue massage and exercise for the treatment of non-specific shoulder pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(16):1216–26. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090553.
Peek AL, Miller C, Heneghan NR. Thoracic manual therapy in the management of non-specific shoulder pain: a systematic review. J Man Manip Ther. 2015;23(4):176–87. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042618615Y.0000000003.
Song A, Kim P, Ayers G, Jain N. Characteristics of Non-Spine musculoskeletal ambulatory care visits in the united States, 2009–2016. PM R. 2021;13(5):443–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12484.
Sidhar K, Lim HJ, Gutierrez L. A simplified approach to evaluate and manage shoulder pain. J Am Board Fam Med. 2024;37(6):1156–66. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240114R2.
Cadogan A, McNair PJ, Laslett M, Hing WA. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination and imaging findings for identifying subacromial pain. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12):e0167738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167738.
Somerville LE, Willits K, Johnson AM, et al. Clinical assessment of physical examination maneuvers for rotator cuff lesions. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(8):1911–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514538390.
Zoga AC, Kamel SI, Hynes JP, Kavanagh EC, O’Connor PJ, Forster BB. The evolving roles of MRI and ultrasound in First-Line imaging of rotator cuff injuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;217(6):1390–400. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.21.25606.
Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging:, Small KM, Adler RS, et al. ACR appropriateness Criteria® shoulder Pain-Atraumatic. J Am Coll Radiol JACR. 2018;15(11S):S388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.032.
Karel YHJM, Scholten-Peeters WGM, Thoomes-de Graaf M, et al. Current management and prognostic factors in physiotherapy practice for patients with shoulder pain: design of a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-62.
Feleus A, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Miedema HS, Verhaar JAN, Koes BW. Management in non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder complaints: differences between diagnostic groups. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(9):1218–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0710-1.
Peurois M, Bertin M, Fouquet N, Adjeroud N, Roquelaure Y, Ramond-Roquin A. Factors associated with referral to physiotherapists for adult patients consulting for musculoskeletal disorders in primary care; an ancillary study to ECOGEN. BMC Prim Care. 2023;24(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-01970-5.
Machlin SR, Chevan J, Yu WW, Zodet MW. Determinants of utilization and expenditures for episodes of ambulatory physical therapy among adults. Phys Ther. 2011;91(7):1018–29. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100343.
Doiron-Cadrin P. Shoulder rotator cuff disorders: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and semantic analyses of recommendations. p.29.
Mertens MG, Meert L, Struyf F, Schwank A, Meeus M. Exercise therapy is effective for improvement in range of Motion, Function, and pain in patients with frozen shoulder: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;103(5):998–e101214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.07.806.
Abdulla SY, Southerst D, Côté P, et al. Is exercise effective for the management of subacromial impingement syndrome and other soft tissue injuries of the shoulder? A systematic review by the Ontario protocol for traffic injury management (OPTIMa) collaboration. Man Ther. 2015;20(5):646–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2015.03.013.
Zadro JR, Michaleff ZA, O’Keeffe M, et al. How do people perceive different labels for rotator cuff disease? A content analysis of data collected in a randomised controlled experiment. BMJ Open. 2021;11(12):e052092. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052092.
Zadro JR, O’Keeffe M, Ferreira GE, et al. Diagnostic labels and advice for rotator cuff disease influence perceived need for shoulder surgery: an online randomised experiment. J Physiother. 2022;68(4):269–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2022.09.005.
Cuff A, Littlewood C. Subacromial impingement syndrome – What does this mean to and for the patient? A qualitative study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2018;33:24–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.10.008.
Continue Reading
