Category: 3. Business

• On November 6, 2025, NOF Corporation announced a share repurchase program to buy back up to 2,000,000 shares (0.87% of shares outstanding) for ¥5,000 million and revised its earnings and dividend forecasts upward for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026.

• This move signals management’s confidence in its business outlook, further supported by the company’s commitment to boosting shareholder returns under its Mid-Term Management Plan.

• We’ll examine how NOF’s focus on capital returns through its share buyback shapes its investment case going forward.

Trump’s oil boom is here – pipelines are primed to profit. Discover the 22 US stocks riding the wave.

Anyone considering NOF stock today needs to weigh management’s renewed focus on shareholder returns against persistent sector headwinds and valuation challenges. The recent upsized share buyback, paired with higher earnings and dividend forecasts, may help bolster confidence in NOF’s capital allocation discipline, giving short-term momentum to the investment case. However, with the stock’s price-to-earnings ratio already above its peer average, and forward profit growth forecasts only modest, this new buyback program isn’t likely to fundamentally shift the main catalysts or risks right away. Investors are still watching for visible improvements in profitability and margin recovery, especially as recent results showed a drop in operating profit. While the buyback signals confidence, it doesn’t by itself change the need for sustained earnings growth and a manageable payout commitment by management. On the other hand, rapid changes in the global chemicals market can still impact NOF’s outlook.

NOF’s shares are on the way up, but they could be overextended by 37%. Uncover the fair value now.

The Simply Wall St Community has just one fair value estimate for NOF, at ¥2,139.88, pointing to a consensus on potential overvaluation. With earnings growth remaining modest, see how this collective view lines up with the company’s latest buyback and upward guidance.

Explore another fair value estimate on NOF – why the stock might be worth 27% less than the current price!

Disagree with this assessment? Create your own narrative in under 3 minutes – extraordinary investment returns rarely come from following the herd.

• A great starting point for your NOF research is our analysis highlighting 1 key reward that could impact your investment decision.

• Our free NOF research report provides a comprehensive fundamental analysis summarized in a single visual – the Snowflake – making it easy to evaluate NOF’s overall financial health at a glance.

Don’t miss your shot at the next 10-bagger. Our latest stock picks just dropped:

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 4403.T.

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

Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the UK energy myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

Britain’s energy regulator has given one of the largest household suppliers more time to meet its capital buffer target in an effort to relieve pressure on the company. 

Ofgem has told Ovo that as long as it is working towards the objective it will be given the breathing space, according to people familiar with the matter.

The targets have been in force since March to try to avoid a repeat of the energy crisis that began in late 2021 when around 30 suppliers collapsed because they could not withstand surging gas prices. 

The move will give Ovo more time to speak to potential investors about fundraising, but is likely to stoke anger among the company’s rivals which have already met their targets. 

One person close to the situation said that Ovo was working on a new business plan that would satisfy Ofgem. The regulator is taking a constructive approach to Ovo’s negotiations, they said. 

Ovo, founded by the entrepreneur Stephen Fitzpatrick, serves around four million UK households. 

The rules require companies to hold a certain amount of cash or other assets per customer in a bid to cushion them from wholesale price volatility or other market surprises. 

Companies must be above a capital buffer “floor” and meet or be working towards a “target” level. If they are not yet meeting the target level, they have to agree a plan with Ofgem for how to achieve it. 

One person familiar with the situation said that Ovo could be a profitable business but the “pressure the regulator was putting on the firm was becoming a self-fulfilling problem”. They added that it made it harder to raise funds from investors as they considered it “dead capital” that had lower returns than a guaranteed profitable infrastructure investment. 

Ofgem’s rules say the plan must be “time-bound with a defined end date”.

Ovo admitted last month that it is one of three companies that is yet to meet the capital target, alongside Octopus, the UK’s largest household energy supplier and one other company that has not been named. 

In September it warned in its annual accounts that there was a “material uncertainty” over its ability to continue as a going concern, due to uncertainty over the “timing and extent” of its capitalisation plan. 

“Certain elements of the plan are outside of the control of the group,” the company said. It has been talking to investors about another fundraise but so far this has not materialised. 

This week, the chief executive of the company’s household retail unit David Buttress resigned, along with his former finance chief James Davies, who held the same role at Monzo before joining Ovo in October 2024. 

Ofgem is keen to avoid pushing Ovo into a corner through the capital adequacy rules when it is passing monthly financial stress tests, according to people familiar with the matter. 

However, rivals are likely to view the regulator’s move as giving an unfair advantage to companies which have not saved the cash to meet their capital targets. 

One industry figure said it was “outrageous behaviour” by Ofgem. 

In a post on LinkedIn this week, Centrica’s chief executive Chris O’Shea said the capital requirements are “not being implemented consistently or transparently” and called on Ofgem to “act urgently to protect consumers and provide transparency”.

Ofgem declined to comment.

• Amazon.com recently announced strong third-quarter 2025 results, highlighted by a surge in AWS revenue and the signing of a landmark multi-year, US$38 billion cloud services agreement with OpenAI to support advanced AI workloads.

• This collaboration marks OpenAI’s first major cloud partnership outside of Microsoft, underscoring Amazon’s strengthening position in artificial intelligence infrastructure and cloud computing.

• We’ll explore how the new OpenAI partnership and AWS growth momentum could reshape Amazon’s investment narrative around cloud and AI innovation.

Uncover the next big thing with financially sound penny stocks that balance risk and reward.

To own Amazon.com shares, you have to believe the company can translate its scale in e-commerce and technology into leadership in cloud and AI, offsetting regulatory and cost pressures. The landmark US$38 billion multi-year cloud partnership with OpenAI and recent surge in AWS revenue offer a clear short-term growth catalyst, but the demands of rapid innovation and rising capital intensity remain the primary risk to margins and overall earnings. The announcement helps the catalyst, but does not materially erase the risk.

Among announcements, the expanded collaboration between AWS and Verizon to provide resilient, high-capacity infrastructure for AI workloads stands out. This builds on AWS’s momentum by supporting large-scale deployments for clients pursuing advanced AI applications, reinforcing the thesis that Amazon is making meaningful progress capturing the next wave of cloud and AI adoption.

However, increased capital needs and supply constraints tied to supporting these ambitious partnerships are risks investors must not ignore…

Read the full narrative on Amazon.com (it’s free!)

Amazon.com’s outlook suggests revenues of $905.9 billion and earnings of $111.9 billion by 2028. This is based on an assumed annual revenue growth rate of 10.6% and represents an increase in earnings of $41.3 billion from the current $70.6 billion.

Uncover how Amazon.com’s forecasts yield a $287.57 fair value, a 18% upside to its current price.

142 fair value estimates from the Simply Wall St Community place Amazon.com’s worth between US$173.76 and US$294.90 per share. With AWS’s growing capital demands and heightened competition, your outlook on future margin resilience may tip your own view on the company’s true value.

Explore 142 other fair value estimates on Amazon.com – why the stock might be worth 29% less than the current price!

Disagree with existing narratives? Create your own in under 3 minutes – extraordinary investment returns rarely come from following the herd.

Don’t miss your shot at the next 10-bagger. Our latest stock picks just dropped:

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 AMZN.

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

Over 26 weeks, the complement C5 inhibitor gefurulimab showed its ability to produce statistically significant improvements in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) total score, a clinically meaningful result, as well as reduce Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) total scores at week 4 and week 26.¹ These new top-line results from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PREVAIL study (NCT05556096) were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine Annual Meeting by Kelly G. Gwathmey, MD, associate professor at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of Medicine, director of the VCU amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinic, and Division of Neuromuscular chief. She is also principal investigator of PREVAIL.

Compared with conventional monoclonal antibodies, which typically require intravenous infusion by a health care professional, gefurulimab has the added convenience of being available as a prefilled syringe or autoinjector, Gwathmey explained. Gefurulimab is administered subcutaneously, with its low molecular weight and ability to extend the half-life of albumin—its dual-binding activity blocks C5 activation and binds to the liver-produced protein—key to its weekly administration.²

The adult patients evaluated in PREVAIL had anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody-positive (Ab+) generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG).¹ They also had to have Myasthenia Foundation of America (MGFA) class II-IV disease, an MG-ADL score of 5 or higher, and be stable on standard-of-care therapy. They were randomized 1:1 to self-administered weekly gefurulimab (n = 131) or placebo (n = 129) for 25 weeks. The primary end point is change from baseline in MG-ADL total score at week 26, and the secondary end point is change from baseline in QMG total score at week 26. Most patients were female (59.5% who received gefurulimab, 61.2% who received placebo), older than age 50 at first dose, age 43 at first clinical presentation of MG, and a White race (52.7% and 57.4%, respectively).

Overall, most patients had MGFA class II disease (36.6% and 34.9%) or class III disease (58.0% and 59.7%), mean (SD) MG duration of 9.2 (8.45) and 8.2 (8.79) years, mean MG-ADL score of 9.0 years (across both groups), and mean QMG score of 14.9 (4.38) or 14.7 (4.39). The least squares mean (LSM) change in MG-ADL was –4.2 (0.29) from gefurulimab and –2.6 (0.27) from placebo, for a treatment difference of –1.6 (0.40) (95% CI, –2.4 to –0.8; P < .0001). The early MG-ADL score improvement seen in week 1 after the loading dose was sustained through week 26.

For QMG change, the treatment difference seen by week 4 (LSM, –1.8 [0.37]; 95% CI, –2.5 to –1.1; P < .0001) rose through week 26 (LSM, –2.1 [0.50]; 95% CI, –3.1 to –1.1; P < .0001). As with the treatment cohort, the improvement first seen at week 4 was sustained through week 26.

“People living with gMG face fluctuating and often debilitating symptoms, including loss of muscle function and severe weakness, Gwathmey said in a statement.² “Results from the PREVAIL phase 3 trial demonstrating early and lasting benefits in MG-ADL and QMG scores support the potential for gefurulimab to offer an efficacious and convenient self-administered treatment option that may help address the unpredictability of this disease.”

Treatment-emergent adverse events were typically injection site reactions (9.9%), headache (9.9%), and back pain (7.6%) among the gefurulimab group and headache (12.4%), diarrhea (8.5%), and upper respiratory tract infection (7.8%) among the placebo group. There were more TEAEs in the gefurulimab vs the placebo group (75.6% vs 80.6%), but these rates were considered similar overall.

Of the patients from the original PREVAIL treatment group, 4 discontinued treatment during the study, and all remaining 127 patients entered the open-label extension (OLE) analysis, which is investigating gefurulimab over a maximum of 202 weeks. Of the placebo group, 7 discontinued treatment and all remaining 122 patients entered the OLE analysis.

“Based on these clinical benefits and the advantage of self-administered [subcutaneous] weekly dosing,” the study authors concluded,” gefurulimab may offer patients with AChR-Ab+ gMG a convenient and effective treatment option.”

References

1. Gefurulimab demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) at week 26 with clinically meaningful improvement seen as early as week one in adults with gMG in PREVAIL phase III trial. News release. AstraZeneca. October 30, 2025. Accessed November 7, 2025. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2025/positive-results-from-prevail-phase-iii-trial-at-aanem-mgfa-scientific-session.html
2. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous self-administered gefurulimab in generalized myasthenia gravis: topline results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (PREVAIL). Presented at: American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine Annual Meeting; October 29-November 1, 2025; in San Francisco, California.

Administering PD-1 inhibitor ezabenlimab with modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (mDCF) reached the primary end point of clinical complete response (CR) among patients with stage III squamous cell anal carcinoma (SCAC), according to findings from the phase 2 INTERACT-ION trial (NCT04719988) published in The Lancet Oncology.¹

Among those who were evaluable for the first radiological assessment following induction therapy, data showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 93% (n = 49/53), which included clinical CRs in 25% (n = 13/53) and partial responses (PRs) in 68% (n = 36/53). Subsequently, 75% (n = 38/51) proceeded to receive involved-node chemoradiotherapy (INRT), and 26% (n = 13/53) received standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT).

At 40 weeks across the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 77.8% (95% CI, 66.5%-86.7%) achieved a clinical CR, with corresponding rates of 86.8% among those who received INRT and 69.2% in those who received concurrent CRT. With a median follow-up of 23.0 months (95% CI, 16.5-29.1), data showed that the median progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were not estimable. Post hoc analysis findings showed 12-month and 24-month rates, respectively, of 85.2% (95% CI, 76.2%-95.2%) and 81.4% (95% CI, 71.7%-92.5%) for PFS, 86.1% (95% CI, 77.1%-96.2%) and 80.0% (95% CI, 66.6%-96.0%) for DFS, and 94.4% (95% CI, 88.5%-100.0%) and 84.3% (95% CI, 73.6%-96.5%) for OS.

“[T]his phase 2 study met its primary endpoint, showing antitumor activity (clinical [CR] rates) and a manageable safety profile for ezabenlimab and mDCF induction when given with INRT in patients with locally advanced SCAC,” lead study author Stefano Kim, MD, from the Department of Medical Oncology at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon in Besançon, France, wrote with coauthors in the publication.¹ “These promising activity outcomes support further investigation, and ongoing ancillary immunomonitoring analyses might provide insights into immune modulation and help to better understand the potential synergistic effect of this combination strategy.”

In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial, 54 patients received at least 1 cycle of treatment in the modified ITT population. Patients were assigned to receive induction therapy with docetaxel at 40 mg/m² on day 1, cisplatin at 40 mg/m² on day 1, and fluorouracil at 1200 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 plus ezabenlimab at 240 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for 3 cycles. Those who did not experience a response and had progressive disease per RECIST v1.1 criteria received standard concurrent CRT; those without progressive disease continued with 2 additional cycles of mDCF and 1 additional cycle of ezabenlimab. Those with a major response and pathological CR or near-CR following these additional cycles then received INRT plus ezabenlimab maintenance at 240 mg every 3 weeks for 7 cycles; patients without a major response underwent standard concurrent CRT.

The trial’s primary end point was the clinical CR rate at 40 weeks. Secondary end points included pathological CR or near-CR rate, biological CR rate, ORR, OS, PFS, DFS, and safety.

Patients 18 years and older with histologically confirmed SCAC, locally advanced disease, and an ECOG or WHO performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for enrollment on the trial.² Having adequate hematologic and end-organ function was another requirement for study entry.

The median age was 64.0 years in the modified ITT population, and most patients were female (76%). Additionally, most of this group had an ECOG performance status of 0 (56%), positive HPV circulating tumor DNA status (74%), stage T3 disease (44%), and stage N1a (33%) or N1c disease (33%).

Three patients discontinued induction therapy following investigator’s decision (n = 1); grade 3 febrile neutropenia, grade 3 typhlitis, and sepsis (n = 1); and progressive disease (n = 1). Additionally, 5 discontinued maintenance therapy due to disease progression (n = 1) or treatment-limiting toxicities (n = 4).

At least 1 adverse effect (AE) occurred in 100% of patients who received induction therapy, 97% for INRT, 100% for standard concurrent CRT, and 80% for ezabenlimab maintenance. Across these treatment phases, 17% to 92% experienced at least 1 grade 3 or higher AE, 63% to 100% experienced a treatment-related AE, and 14% to 92% had a grade 3 or higher TRAE.

Grade 3 TRAEs during ezabenlimab maintenance included increased lipase (3%), cytomegalovirus colitis (3%), and lichen planus (3%). Data showed no treatment-related deaths. Investigators noted no safety signals exceeding the Pocock-type boundary for dose-limiting toxicities when monitoring the safety of ezabenlimab and mDCF.

References

1. Kim S, Boustani J, Iseas S, et al. Ezabenlimab and induction chemotherapy followed by adaptive chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage 3 squamous cell anal carcinoma (INTERACT-ION): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. Published online November 4, 2025. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00605-9
2. Anti-PD-1 and mDCF followed by chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III squamous cell anal carcinoma. (INTERACT-ION). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated December 12, 2024. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/p58tf3n2

Story Continues

Story Continues