Category: 3. Business

The combination of elranatamab-bcmm (Elrexfio) and iberdomide (CC-220) demonstrated early efficacy in the form of responses with safety that aligned with known toxicities of the individual agents in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, according to data from part 1 of the phase 1b MagnetisMM-30 trial (NCT06215118) presented during the 2025 ASH Annual Meeting.¹

At a median follow-up of 7.8 months (range, 0.7-11.3), the doublet induced an objective response rate (ORR) of 95.5% (95% CI, 77.2%-99.9%) in all evaluable patients (n = 22), which included a complete response (CR) or better rate of 45.5% and a very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate of 77.3%. Moreover, responses occurred early, with a median time to response of 1.4 months (range, 0.5-2.7).

When broken down by dose level, in those who received elranatamab at 76 mg once weekly plus 1.0 mg of iberdomide (DL1; n = 13), the ORR with the combination was 92.3% (95% CI, 64.0%-99.8%) at a median follow-up of 9.4 months (range, 0.7-11.3); the CR or better rate was 46.2% and the VGPR or better rate was 69.2%. In patients given elranatamab at 76 mg once every 2 weeks plus 1.0 mg of iberdomide (DL-1; n = 9), the ORR achieved with the doublet was 100.0% (95% CI, 66.4%-100.0%) with 44.4% of patients experiencing a CR or better and 88.9% of patients experiencing a VGPR or better. The median follow-up for this group was 5.2 months (range, 4.5-6.4).

When examining ORR by cytogenetic risk, those with standard risk (n = 11) experienced a confirmed ORR of 100% (95% CI, 71.5%-100.0%) by investigator assessment, which included CR or better and VGPR or better rates of 36.4% and 72.7%, respectively. In those determined to have high cytogenetic risk (n = 9), the ORR with the combination was slightly lower, at 88.9% (95% CI, 51.8%-99.7%); in this group, the CR or better rate was 44.4% and the VGPR or better rate was 77.8%. Two patients were noted to have missing cytogenetic risk data; these patients both experienced a CR with the regimen.

In evaluable patients (n = 17), 4 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed; 2 occurred at DL1 (grade 3 anorexia and grade 4 neutropenia) and 2 at DL-1 (grade 3 febrile neutropenia and grade 4 neutropenia). The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) experienced with the regimen included hematologic effects, particularly neutropenia (n = 17, 77.3%); infections (n = 9, 40.9%); and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (n = 15, 68.2%). Notably, most infections were grade 2 or lower as were all cases of CRS and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) that were reported.

“[The data] demonstrate that the combination of elranatamab and iberdomide is effective and manageable in BCMA-naive patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma,” Attaya Suvannasankha, MD, of Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indiana University, in Indianapolis, Indiana, said in a presentation of the data. “Even with a median follow-up of just 7.8 months, the overall response rate of 95.5% and CR rate or better [rate] of 45.5% appears to favorably [compare with] the single-agent outcomes in a different population, as well as also some emerging combinations with CELMoDs.”

What inspired the launch of the phase 1b MagnetisMM-30 study?

Making Sense of MagnetisMM-30: Elranatamab Plus Iberdomide in R/R Multiple Myeloma

• Early data from MagnetisMM-30 indicated that the combination of elranatamab and iberdomide induced an ORR of 95.5% with rapid, deep, and potentially durable responses in patients with BCMA-naive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

• The safety profile of the regimen was reported to be manageable, with expected toxicities such as neutropenia, infections, and low-grade CRS/ICANS aligning with known profiles of each agent.

• The early results support the continued evaluation of the doublet in MagnetisMM-30, where part 2 will refine dosing to optimize the balance between efficacy and tolerability.

In August 2023, the FDA granted accelerated approval to the bispecific BCMA-directed CD3 T-cell engager elranatamab for use in adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have previously received at least 4 lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.² The decision was supported by data from the phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359) in which the agent induced an ORR of 57.7% (95% CI, 47.3%-67.7%) in evaluable patients (n = 97), with 82% remaining in response for at least 9 months. Updated data showed an ORR of 61.0% with a CR or better rate of 37.4%, as well as a median progression-free survival of 17.2 months and a median overall survival of 24.6 months.^3,4

Suvannasankha added that iberdomide is an oral CELMoD that has been shown to lead to better immunomodulatory activity and antiproliferative and proapoptotic activity in myeloma cells compared with IMiDs.¹ Preclinical data have shown that the agent promotes the activation and proliferation of T cells and leads to stronger T-cell engagement and better T-cell fitness, she added.

“So, based on the complementary mechanism of action, it would be rational to think that the combination may improve efficacy—particularly in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma,” Suvannasankha said. “This provided a scientific rationale for the MagentisMM-30 study.”

What is the design of the MagnetisMM-30 study?

The phase 1b, open-label, multicenter, prospective study is comprised of 2 parts: the dose-escalation and dose-optimization portions of the research. The trial enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with multiple myeloma per International Myeloma Working Group criteria and who had an ECOG performance status ranging from 0 to 1. These patients had previously received 2 to 4 lines of therapy, including at least 1 IMiD and at least 1 PI, and were relapsed or refractory to their last line of therapy. “Of note, all patients were BCMA naive,” Suvannasankha said.

Those who underwent stem cell transplant within 12 weeks of enrollment or who had active graft-vs-host disease were excluded, as were those with ongoing peripheral sensory or motor neuropathy that was grade 2 or higher or a history of peripheral motor neuropathy that was grade 3 or higher.

“In all of the dose levels, patients would first receive the standard step-up dosing of subcutaneous elranatamab according to the approved protocol,” she explained. “Then, after they completed the step-up dosing, the combination would start.” For DL1, patients received elranatamab at 76 mg once weekly paired with iberdomide at 1.0 mg once daily for 21 days out of a 28-day cycle. For DL-1, the dose of elranatamab was reduced to 76 mg every 2 weeks and the iberdomide dose was the same.

The primary end point for part 1 is DLTs during the DLT observation period. Key secondary end points include safety in the form of adverse effects (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities, ORR, CR rate, time-to-event end points, minimal residual disease negativity rate, and immunogenicity. Part 2 is designed to further examine the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination at 2 dosing regimens.

At the ASH Annual Meeting, Suvannasankha shared preliminary findings from part 1 of the trial.

What should be known about the MagnetisMM-30 patient population?

At a data cutoff date of September 19, 2025, a total of 22 patients who have been enrolled at centers throughout the United States, Canada, and Australia. The median patient age was 68.0 years (range, 46-83); 45.5% of patients were male, more than half (68.2%) were White, and 54.5% had an ECOG performance status of 1. Moreover, patients had stage I (22.7%), II (63.6%), or III (4.5%) disease by Revised International Staging System criteria.

“Key characteristics also include 40.9% of patients with high-risk cytogenetics, 18.2% had extramedullary disease, 50% of patients were already triple-class refractory, [and] a high proportion, 77.3% of patients, had had high-dose chemotherapy and [prior] stem cell transplantation,” Suvannasankha noted. “Also, 86.4% were refractory to their prior line of therapy.”

Of the 22 patients, 13 received elranatamab at DL1 and 9 received it at DL-1. In the DL1 group, 5 patients discontinued treatment due to an AE (n = 2), progressive disease (n = 2), or death (n = 1), which was noted to not be associated with study treatment. A total of 8 patients in the DL1 group were still receiving treatment at cutoff. In the DL-1 group, all patients were still receiving treatment.

The relative dose intensity for elranatamab and iberdomide in the overall population was 78.2% (range, 33.3%-100.4%) and 74.3% (range, 36.1%-100.0%) respectively. Dose interruptions for elranatamab were required in 81.8% of patients; 81.8% of patients also required dose interruptions of iberdomide. Moreover, 54.5% of patients required dose reductions of iberdomide.

“In comparing the DL-1 and the DL1, it was clear that elranatamab relative dose intensity according to plan, was better, suggesting a better safety profile and tolerability,” Suvannasankha said.

What was learned about the toxicity profile of elranatamab plus iberdomide in this population of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma?

Suvannasankha noted that 59.1% of patients were given granulocyte colony-stimulating factor at some point in their treatment course with the combination.

Any-grade TEAEs occurred in all patients, and 86.4% of cases were grade 3 or 4 in severity. The most common TEAEs were neutropenia (any grade, 77.3%; grade 3/4, 72.7%), CRS (68.2%; 0%), fatigue (63.6%; 0%), diarrhea (50.0%; 0%), headache (45.5%; 0%), cough (45.5%; 0%), nausea (40.9%; 0%), injection site reaction (40.9%; 0%), decreased appetite (36.4%; 4.5%), anemia (31.8%; 13.6%), and lymphopenia (18.2%; 18.2%). Broken down further, in terms of CRS, 54.5% of cases were grade 1 and 13.6% were grade 2; grade 1 or 2 ICANS occurred in 4.5% and 4.5% of patients, respectively.

Moreover, 40.9% of patients experienced any-grade infections; 2 cases were grade 3, with one patient experiencing gastroenteritis Escherichia coli and the other experiencing a skin infection. The most common infections included upper respiratory tract infection (27.3%), Candida infection (13.6%), and urinary tract infection (9.1%).

What was learned about response and PFS with elranatamab plus iberdomide in myeloma?

“It is clear that the responses occurred early and continue to deepen over time. Even with a short follow-up on the DL-1, there are already several patients who have, in fact, achieved complete remission. For the DL1 patients who achieved remission, [they] continue to sustain that remission,” Suvannasankha explained. “Patients who stopped therapy include those who had very early progression, who were not even able to start the combination and already passed away from progression of disease, patients who had pancreas cancer, and also patients who progressed and eventually died from the cancer. Two patients discontinued therapy for other reasons unrelated to progression, and they continue to enjoy remission.”

What is next for MagnetisMM-30 and elranatamab plus iberdomide in this disease?

The study is ongoing and continues to recruit patients for part 2. “[We] aim to incorporate a larger number of patients and also evaluate different dose and schedule of elranatamab and iberdomide to try to balance efficacy and toxicity,” Suvannasankha concluded.

Disclosures: Suvannasankha serves in a consultancy role for Karyopharm, Bristol Myer Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, Jannsen, and Janssen Oncology. Research funding was provided by Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Janssen Oncology, and Sutro.

References

1. 1.Suvannasankha A, Kaufman JL, Badros A, et al. Safety and efficacy of elranatamab in combination with iberdomide in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: results from the phase 1b MagentisMM-30 trial. Presented at: 2025 ASH Annual Meeting; December 6-9, 2025; Orlando, FL. Abstract #100.
2. 2.FDA grants accelerated approval to elranatamab-bcmm for multiple myeloma. FDA. August 14, 2023. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-elranatamab-bcmm-multiple-myeloma
3. 3.Lesokhin AM, Tomasson MH, Arnulf B, et al. Elranatamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: phase 2 MagnestisMM-3 trial results. Nat Med. 2023;29(9):2259-2267. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02528-9
4. 4.Tomasson MH, Ida S, Niesvizky R, et al. Long-term survival and safety of elranatamab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Update from the MagnetisMM-3 study. Hemasphere. 2024;8(7):e136. doi:10.1002/hem3.136

Businesses can turn a looming wave of old tech into a powerful driver of impact and climate action by rethinking what happens to their Windows 10 devices. As support for the operating system ends, companies face a choice between scrapping millions of usable machines or putting them back to work for people and communities who are currently locked out of the digital world.

Almost half of all Windows computers still run Windows 10, including millions used in UK businesses, leaving many devices at risk of becoming obsolete overnight as official support falls away and cyber risks rise. For IT and sustainability leaders, this is more than a technical upgrade issue. The way these assets are handled will shape corporate Scope 3 emissions performance and trust with stakeholders who are paying increasing attention to how businesses manage their social and environmental footprint.

Within this context, the European Week for Waste Reduction in November created a timely reminder for companies looking to demonstrate that they take a genuinely circular approach.

SocialBox.Biz, a UK based community interest company, is a leading initiative putting this approach into practice. It works with businesses to collect surplus laptops and IT equipment, install open-source software and redistribute the devices through national charity partners. This relatively simple switch in thinking reframes redundant laptops from before becoming waste liabilities into tools that help people learn, find work and stay connected. For example, rather than defaulting to recycling or IT disposal in the City of Westminster in London and beyond, Socialbox.biz is leading a growing movement to prioritise local reuse, keeping equipment in circulation for longer and maximising its social value.

The personal story of SocialBox.Biz founder Peter Paduh, who arrived in the UK as a Bosnian child refugee, underscores why this matters. Receiving an old computer was a turning point that enabled him to study, apply for jobs and integrate into British society. That lived experience now underpins a model that allows today’s businesses to open similar doors for others with equipment they no longer need.

From “old kit” to lifeline
Partner organisations include Age UK branches, the Passage and the C4WS Homeless Project, who use repurposed devices to support people experiencing homelessness, older adults and others at risk of social exclusion. One beneficiary, Elaine, received a donated laptop while rebuilding her life after homelessness and was then able to enrol in college and continue her studies. Stories like this bring to life the human impact hidden inside corporate IT cupboards.

Access to a working computer and the internet is now a basic requirement for participation in modern life, from applying for jobs and housing to accessing healthcare and public services. When businesses treat devices as disposable, those already facing disadvantage are often hit hardest by the resulting digital divide. Local reuse models help close this gap in ways that respond to specific community needs and build resilience.

SocialBox.Biz highlights a particular demand for Chromebooks and larger screen MacBooks that can better serve older recipients and people with visual impairments. This emphasis on matching devices to users reinforces an important principle for any just and inclusive transition. Solutions must be designed with, not simply for, the people they aim to support.

Climate gains companies can count
Recycling will always play a role in responsible end of life management, but for many IT assets disposal it is far from the most sustainable first option. In the UK, the absence of dedicated IT smelters means that devices are often transported over long distances for energy intensive processing. By contrast, local reuse keeps value in the community, cuts transport emissions and makes better use of the embedded carbon already spent on manufacturing.

“Call Before You Scrap It” Campaign
SocialBox.Biz’s “Call Before You Scrap It” campaign captures this logic with a simple behavioural nudge to facilities, IT and procurement teams. Before equipment is consigned to recycling, staff are encouraged to ask whether it could instead be safely wiped, refurbished and passed on. In practice, this one extra step can shift a company’s relationship with its hardware from linear to circular.

For companies seeking to strengthen their corporate impact story, structured reuse programmes create benefits across environmental, social and governance pillars. Environmentally, they cut emissions and waste. Socially, they drive digital inclusion for groups such as refugees, people experiencing homelessness and older adults, offering a lifeline at moments of acute vulnerability. From a governance perspective, partnering with specialist organisations can help ensure data security, regulatory compliance and transparent reporting.

Build a culture that sees social impact as part of everyday business
SocialBox.Biz supports corporate partners with tailored impact plans, communications materials and case studies, which can feed into annual reports and stakeholder engagement. Beyond formal reporting, involving employees in identifying surplus devices, supporting donation drives or mentoring beneficiaries can build a culture that sees social impact as part of everyday business, not a peripheral add on.

The question is whether companies use this moment and the end of support for Windows 10 devices to reinforce a throwaway culture or to build new forms of partnership that keep technology, opportunity and carbon value in circulation for longer.

For more information and to participate (even companies without access to items at this time can still participate in the Socialbox.biz impact plans.

The bull case: Aggregation networks will use the arbitrage window to build defensible positions, then graduate from tactical plays to structural alternatives.

The bear case? Networks are temporary stop-gaps that will get crushed the moment the next wave of data centers begin operating.

The honest assessment? These networks will gorge themselves during the feast years, then adapt to leaner times, remaining profitable, just not explosive.

For investors, that means treating this as what it is: a defined-window arbitrage play with asymmetric upside if the shortage persists longer than expected, and manageable downside if you size positions appropriately and respect the exit timeline.

The AI infrastructure buildout is real. The computing shortage is real. The 2027-’29 constraint window is real. The question is whether you’re positioned to profit from the temporary dislocation before the market normalizes.

Read: AI has real problems. The smart money is investing in the companies solving them now.

More: The AI boom is over – here’s your bubble survival guide

-Jurica Dujmovic

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 1412ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

By Jurica Dujmovic

The shortage is a lucrative opportunity – but the window is brief

AI computing workloads could consume around 500 terawatt-hours annually by 2027 – about twice the U.K.’s total electricity consumption in 2023.

Rising infrastructure costs and mounting capital constraints are deflating the AI boom. The hyperscalers can’t solve their computing problems fast enough, and that’s creating a rare arbitrage opportunity.

The solution right now isn’t building data centers. The current investment opportunity lies in the temporary gap between exploding AI demand and the physical constraints of centralized infrastructure expansion. A handful of companies are exploiting this window – which likely will be a 24-to-36- month opportunity. For investors who understand the timing, it’s a compelling hedge against the AI infrastructure bottleneck.

Physical barriers

40% of AI data centers will face power constraints by 2027.

AI’s limiting factor is no longer algorithms or data – it’s the brute-force physics of data-center expansion. Training large models demands tens of thousands of GPUs, dedicated networking and enormous power consumption. Gartner forecasts that 40% of AI data centers will face power constraints by 2027.

The math is brutally simple: AI computing workloads could consume around 500 terawatt-hours annually by 2027 – about twice the U.K.’s total electricity consumption in 2023. This demand spike is already showing up in the grid.

Dominion Energy (D), the biggest utility company in Virginia, nearly doubled its data-center power capacity under contract between July and December 2024, and the trend has persisted.

Even with Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL), Amazon.com (AMZN) and Meta Platforms (META) spending a combined $370 billion on capex in 2025, they can’t build fast enough. Construction and commissioning typically take 12 to 36 months, but when you include permitting and power-grid build-outs, a full data-center project can stretch to three to six years.

Time and money

The economics are compelling during this shortage window

This time gap is the entire investment thesis.

When essential resources become expensive and concentrated, parallel markets emerge. We saw this with electricity co-ops in the early 20th century, independent oil producers during OPEC’s reign and broadband resellers in the early internet era.

With AI, the scarce resource is GPU computing. Several companies are building marketplaces that aggregate idle capacity – consumer GPUs, academic clusters, enterprise overstock – and resell it at a fraction of centralized data-center costs.

The economics for these companies are compelling during this shortage window:

Cost structure advantage: Alternative networks don’t finance data centers with debt. They pay participants directly for computing capacity through incentive structures, converting spare capacity into productive assets. The cost of scaling shifts from massive capex to distributed incentives.

Speed to market: While hyperscalers wait 18 to 36 months for new facilities, these networks can add capacity node by node, with no billion-dollar commitments up front.

Arbitrage pricing: These companies are capturing demand from the smaller labs, indie studios, emerging markets and others that are priced out of AWS GPU pricing but still need computing.

The catch? The explosive growth window is finite. These networks will remain viable alternatives even after constraints ease – serving cost-sensitive workloads, emerging markets and indie developers – but the opportunity for substantial investment gains compresses as growth normalizes and hyperscalers’ capacity comes online.

Read: AI data centers need juice. The next hot stocks give it.

How to play the computing shortage

Again, this isn’t a moonshot bet. It’s an infrastructure hedge with a defined window. Here are three approaches, ranked by risk profile:

Render Network: Aggregates idle GPU capacity from individuals and studios, reselling to the highest bidder for rendering and AI workloads. Think of it as Airbnb for GPUs – idle capacity that would otherwise sit dormant gets monetized, and users get computing at a fraction of data-center pricing. Rather than operating expensive data centers, Render pays a fraction of that cost to harvest capacity from thousands of computers.

io.net: Focuses on generic GPU computing for AI training and inference. The platform aggregates capacity from data centers, crypto miners and consumer hardware, creating a distributed alternative to centralized cloud providers. Its network is newer and more speculative than Render, but it’s capturing demand from AI startups that can’t afford or access hyperscaler GPU allocations.

Akash Network: Takes the concept broader, offering a marketplace for general cloud computing and storage beyond just GPUs. This positions it as infrastructure for the full stack, not just AI-specific workloads. Akash is a privately held company but it does have a tradeable crypto token, AKT. This is the highest-risk play in this category, but offers the most diversified exposure if decentralized computing extends beyond AI.

These are crypto token plays – not stocks

Before going further, understand what you’re actually buying. All three of these networks operate through native cryptocurrency tokens, not traditional equity. There is no stock ticker, no brokerage-account access and no public-equity wrapper for these businesses.

Direct exposure requires navigating cryptocurrency exchanges:

— Render Network (RENDER) trades on Coinbase, Binance and Kraken.

— is listed on select crypto exchanges such as Binance and Gate.io, with liquidity varying by venue and region.

— Akash Network (AKT) trades on Coinbase, Kraken and similar venues.

This means dealing with crypto custody – whether through exchange accounts or self-custody wallets – and accepting the regulatory uncertainty that comes with token investments. If you’re not comfortable with that infrastructure, this thesis won’t work for you.

For investors who prefer traditional equity exposure, the closest alternatives are second-order beneficiaries of the same capacity constraint:

— Data-center operators: Equinix EQIX, Digital Realty Trust DLR

— Power infrastructure: Dominion Energy, Duke Energy DUK, NextEra Energy NEE

— GPU supply chain: Nvidia NVDA, Broadcom AVGO, Super Micro Computer SMCI

But here’s the critical distinction: These publicly traded companies benefit from the shortage itself – not from the temporary arbitrage window created by aggregating idle distributed capacity. They’ll do well regardless of whether decentralized computing succeeds. What they won’t give you is direct exposure to the specific dislocation that is going on now.

Risk factors

Let’s be clear about what could go wrong with this arbitrage strategy:

Performance and reliability: Distributed GPU networks face inherent challenges with performance variance, latency and quality control. Enterprise customers paying for AI infrastructure demand reliability. If these networks can’t match centralized performance, the arbitrage doesn’t matter – customers won’t switch.

Security and compliance: Regulated industries won’t run sensitive workloads on unknown hardware scattered globally. These networks are limited to specific use cases where data sovereignty and compliance aren’t blockers.

Hyperscaler catch-up timeline: The base case assumes these constraints ease through 2027-’29 as new data centers and power infrastructure come online. If power constraints extend beyond 2029, the high-growth window for these companies stays open.

Regulatory uncertainty: Several of these networks operate in regulatory gray areas. If governments decide to regulate decentralized computing infrastructure, costs increase and flexibility decreases.

Crypto market contagion: These tokens trade on crypto exchanges and correlate with broader crypto markets. A bitcoin crash or crypto regulatory crackdown could affect these assets regardless of fundamentals.

The investment timeline

The window runs from early 2026 through 2027-’28, which is the core 24-to-36-month period. The broader infrastructure constraint lasts longer, but the outsized arbitrage compresses as hyperscalers come online. This aligns with the infrastructure constraint timeline I’ve been tracking, but extends beyond the initial shortage as power-grid limitations persist.

Q1 2026: Begin building positions as the 2027 power constraint window becomes consensus view. Dollar-cost average to smooth volatility.

Q2 2026-Q2 2027: Peak growth opportunity as AI demand continues accelerating while centralized capacity remains severely constrained. These networks capture maximum long-tail demand priced out of hyperscaler infrastructure.

Q3 2027-Q2 2028: Growth continues, but begins normalizing as new data centers come online and power-grid upgrades progress. Monitor hyperscaler capacity announcements closely – each major facility completion incrementally compresses the arbitrage.

Q3 2028-Q4 2029: Maturation phase. These networks settle into specialized roles – emerging markets, cost-sensitive workloads, indie developers. They remain viable businesses but growth normalizes.

It is important to understand that this isn’t a binary “it works until it doesn’t” thesis. It’s a maturation curve where networks transition from high-growth arbitrage plays to steady-state infrastructure alternatives.

The broader implication

If GPU aggregation networks prove they can deliver reliable computing at competitive prices during the 2026-’28 constraint period, they will establish legitimacy. Even if hyperscalers eventually recapture market share, these networks will have carved out niches in emerging markets, indie studios and cost-sensitive workloads.

(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires

12-06-25 1412ET

Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Aker BP (OB:AKRBP) has quietly outperformed the broader market over the past year, and with the share price hovering around NOK 253, investors are asking whether the current level still offers value.

See our latest analysis for Aker BP.

That recent 2.76% 7 day share price return, alongside an 8.67% year to date share price gain, sits on top of a robust 28.34% one year total shareholder return. This suggests momentum is still broadly building despite short term swings.

If Aker BP’s run has you rethinking your energy exposure, this could also be a good moment to scan other resilient players across aerospace and defense stocks for fresh ideas.

With solid earnings growth and the shares trading only slightly below analyst targets, the key question now is whether Aker BP is still undervalued on fundamentals or if the market is already pricing in future growth.

Aker BP’s latest close of NOK 253.10 sits modestly below the narrative’s NOK 262 fair value, framing a small but notable upside grounded in execution.

Aker BP aims to sustain production above 500,000 barrels per day beyond 2030, driven by their 2 billion barrel opportunity and projects like Yggdrasil and Johan Sverdrup. This supports long-term revenue growth through extended production capacities.

Read the complete narrative.

Curious how modest top line growth, rising margins and a reset earnings multiple still add up to upside from here? The narrative hides a surprisingly bold earnings trajectory, powered by disciplined volumes and a valuation reset that leans on future profitability rather than heroic growth. Want to see how those moving parts combine into that fair value call?

Result: Fair Value of $262 (UNDERVALUED)

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

However, structural risks, such as rising emissions costs and heavy reliance on key fields, could undermine margins and challenge the current fair value case.

Find out about the key risks to this Aker BP narrative.

On earnings, Aker BP looks far less forgiving, trading on an 18.8x price to earnings ratio versus a fair ratio of 11.2x; 11.7x for the wider European oil and gas group; and 9.2x for peers. That premium narrows the margin of safety, so how long can sentiment stay this strong?

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

If you would rather challenge these views or dig into the numbers yourself, you can build a personalised take in just minutes: Do it your way.

A great starting point for your Aker BP research is our analysis highlighting 2 key rewards and 3 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.

Do not stop at a single stock when Simply Wall Street’s Screener can quickly surface fresh, data backed opportunities that others overlook and you can act on first.

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 AKRBP.OL.

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

Argan (AGX) has pulled back sharply this week, slipping about 12% in a single session and over 20% in the past week, even though the shares remain significantly higher over the past three months.

See our latest analysis for Argan.

Even after this week’s slide, Argan’s 1 year total shareholder return of around 115% and enormous 3 year total shareholder return appear to signal strong underlying momentum. At the same time, the recent pullback suggests investors are reassessing short term risk after a powerful run.

If Argan’s surge has you rethinking your watchlist, it could be a smart moment to explore fast growing stocks with high insider ownership to research other fast moving opportunities with strong insider conviction.

With Argan still trading below analyst targets and implying a hefty intrinsic discount, investors now face a pivotal question: Is the stock still undervalued, or is the market already pricing in years of future growth?

With Argan closing around $313.70 versus a narrative fair value of roughly $295.75, the most followed view sees recent strength pushing into premium territory.

Record backlog and continued project wins across gas, renewables, water treatment, and recycling plants provide multi-year revenue visibility, indicating potential for increased operating leverage and higher gross margins as larger projects are executed successfully.

Read the complete narrative.

Curious how multi year double digit expansion, moderating margins, and a richer future earnings multiple still add up to upside in this framework? The growth math behind that conclusion is not what most investors would expect from a construction contractor. Want to see which long term revenue and profit assumptions quietly justify paying up from here? Explore the full narrative to unpack the projections that support this valuation view.

Result: Fair Value of $295.75 (OVERVALUED)

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

However, the thesis leans heavily on large gas projects, so any delays, cancellations, or faster than expected decarbonization could quickly pressure earnings.

Find out about the key risks to this Argan narrative.

Our SWS DCF model suggests Argan is trading about 42.7% below its fair value of $547.36, a sharp contrast to the narrative view that sees the stock as slightly overvalued. If cash flows point one way and sentiment another, which signal do you trust?

Look into how the SWS DCF model arrives at its fair value.

Simply Wall St performs a discounted cash flow (DCF) on every stock in the world every day (check out Argan for example). We show the entire calculation in full. You can track the result in your watchlist or portfolio and be alerted when this changes, or use our stock screener to discover 906 undervalued stocks based on their cash flows. If you save a screener we even alert you when new companies match – so you never miss a potential opportunity.

If you see the story differently or want to dig into the numbers yourself, you can build a custom view in minutes: Do it your way.

A great starting point for your Argan research is our analysis highlighting 3 key rewards and 1 important warning sign that could impact your investment decision.

Before the market’s next move leaves you catching up, put Simply Wall Street’s Screener to work and uncover focused opportunities that match your exact investing style.

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 AGX.

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

Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) in combination with R-CHOP (rituximab [Rituxan], cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) displayed preliminary activity in patients with treatment-naive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with activation of the BCR signaling pathway and certain genetic mutations, according to data from a phase 2 study (NCT05290337) presented during the 2025 ASH Annual Meeting & Exposition.¹

Efficacy-evaluable patients who received the combination (n = 58) achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 91.4%, including a complete response (CR) rate of 79.3%. The estimated 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 80.3% (95% CI, 70.5%-91.5%) and 89.1% (95% CI, 81.2%-97.8%), respectively.

Phase 2 Study of Zanubrutinib Plus R-CHOP in Untreated DLBCL With Specific Gene Expression: Key Takeaways

• Efficacy-evaluable patients who received zanubrutinib plus R-CHOP (n = 58) achieved an ORR of 91.4%, with a CR rate of 79.3%.

• The estimated 3-year PFS and OS rates were 80.3% (95% CI, 70.5%-91.5%) and 89.1% (95% CI, 81.2%-97.8%), respectively.

• The most common any-grade AEs included infection (61.0%), leukopenia (54.2%), and neutropenia (52.5%).

“Previous studies indicated that for those with specific gene mutations, R-CHOP demonstrated limited efficacy,” Qunling Zhang, MD, of the Department of Medical Oncology at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center in Shanghai, China, and colleagues noted in the presentation. “However, promising response rates with BTK inhibitors suggest the potential for combined therapeutic regimens within this patient cohort.”

How was the phase 2 study designed?

The phase 2 trial enrolled patients who were 18 to 75 years old with newly diagnosed DLBCL with activation of the BCR signaling pathway whose disease harbored a mutation in MYD88, CD79B, NOTCH1, or TP53, or carried a MYC gene translocation, at a single center in China.^1,2 Other key eligibility criteria included an ECOG performance status of 0 to 1, a life expectancy of over 3 months, at least 1 measurable target lesion, a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, and normal hematological, hepatic and renal function.²

Patients received 1 cycle of R-CHOP followed by 5 cycles of zanubrutinib in combination with R-CHOP.¹The primary end point was the 3-year PFS rate. Secondary end points included ORR, event-free survival, OS, and safety.

At baseline, the mean age in the overall population (n = 59) was 53.9 years (SD, 12.2). Most patients were male (62.7%), had disease that originated from non-Germinal center B-cell like cells (55.9%), and presented with stage III to IV disease (52.5%). The baseline IPI scores were 0 (30.5%), 1 (22.0%), 2 (22.0%), 3 (16.9%), and 4 (8.5%).

Among the 58 patients who completed treatment and underwent tumor assessment, genetic alterations were found in MCD (42.4%), A53 (27.1%), BN2 (8.5%), MYC (rearrangement, 8.5%), N1 (5.1%), other (5.1%), and ST2 (3.4%).

What were the subgroup and safety data?

Additional findings from the phase 2 trial revealed that efficacy-evaluable patients with MCD mutations (n = 25) achieved a CR rate of 84%. The 3-year PFS rate was 96.0% (95% CI, 88.6%-100.0%) among these patients and the 3-year OS rate was 100%.

Efficacy-evaluable patients with the A53/MYC/other subtype (n = 30) achieved a 3-year PFS rate of 71.6% (95% CI, 56.7%-90.5%). Patients with N1 disease (n = 3) had a 3-year PFS rate that was not reached; the 2-year PFS rate in this subgroup was 33.3%. The 2-year OS rates in the A53/MYC/other and N1 subgroups were 85.4% (95% CI, 73.0%-99.8%) and 33.3% (95% CI, 6.7%-100%), respectively.

In terms of safety, any-grade adverse effects included infection (61.0%), leukopenia (54.2%), neutropenia (52.5%), alopecia (40.7%), thrombocytopenia (28.8%), anorexia or poor appetite (25.4%), nausea (20.3%), weight loss (16.9%), febrile neutropenia (15.3%), and elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (10.2%). Grade 3 to 4 AEs consisted of neutropenia (45.8%), leukopenia (42.4%), infection (27.1%), thrombocytopenia (20.3%), and febrile neutropenia (15.3%).

Disclosures: Zhang listed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. Zhang Q, Jiang S, Liu Y, et al. The phase II study of zanubrutinib combined with R-CHOP in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients with specific gene-expression. Blood. 2025;146(suppl 1):57. doi:10.1182/blood-2025-57
2. ZR-CHOP in DLBCL with specific gene abnormality. ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated March 22, 2022. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05290337

Story Continues

China on Friday launched its first large artificial intelligence (AI) model dedicated to monitoring and protecting arable land, and it will serve as a new digital tool for the national strategy of storing grain in the land and in technology.

Released by the Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning under the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) on World Soil Day, the model aims to upgrade China’s farmland management from quantity-focused preservation to quality improvement — a task that traditional manual monitoring can no longer handle efficiently.

Developed by a team led by Tang Huajun, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, the system integrates a central foundation model with dedicated “vertical models” designed for specific tasks such as field segmentation, crop classification and engineering quality inspection.

Wu Wenbin, director general of the CAAS Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, said that the AI model goes beyond passive observation. It can diagnose soil health, predict trends and autonomously generate management plans, offering full-life-cycle management for high-standard farmland.

Nationwide, there are more than 66.7 million hectares of high-standard farmland, where soil fertility has been well-preserved with technological advancements and scientific farm management.

In a pilot program in Kunshan, east China’s Jiangsu Province, the model successfully created a closed-loop system by adjusting fertilization dynamically based on weather and crop growth cycles.

Industry experts have said the launch provides a technical driver for the sustainable management of agricultural resources, the improvement of arable land quality and the development of high-quality farmland in China.