Wall Street thinks you don’t own enough stock. Not “you,” specifically, but investors as a collective are viewed as too lightly exposed to equities given the S & P 500 is three years into a bull market and is back to within 1% of its all-time peak from a month ago. Deutsche Bank’s comprehensive investor positioning gauge is hovering around neutral. John Flood, head of Americas equities sales trading at Goldman Sachs, says: “Our sentiment indicator has spent most of the year in negative territory reflecting relatively conservative institutional investor positioning. The wall of worry has been extremely high this year and remains omnipresent (this is a bullish signal).” The reason to note such assessments is that we’ve entered the season when “flow-of-funds” trends and the mechanical maneuvering of investors toward a final scorecard for the year tend to form the core of the bulls’ argument. Essentially all earnings for 2025 are in the books. Recent Federal Reserve messaging has restored expectations of a rate cut on Dec. 10. Business-news flow is set to slow down as holidays encroach. Which leaves market handicappers trying to sort out how much latent buying power remains among investors. Through this lens, the S & P 500′s first 5% setback in seven months, culminating a week ago Friday, was a big help in shaking out anxious investors, resetting investor sentiment and testing the key fundamental premises that have animated the bull market. Was that all that was needed to refresh a market uptrend that had grown pretty overheated with speculative momentum, complacency about the macroeconomic picture and low-quality-stock leadership into late October? Warren Pies, founder of 3Fourteen Research, last week upgraded equities to an overweight in part because he believes the answer to that question is “Yes.” He noted that into the third week of November, volume in “inverse” ETFs – those that profit from falling stock prices – surged above 40% of total volume in both inverse and leveraged-long ETFs. This has only happened four times in the past couple of years, each one coinciding with a forceful rally near a tactical bottom in the indexes. Among other things, this suggests that retail traders as a group did not lead the way in buying the November dip and driving the five-day, nearly 5% sprint higher in the S & P 500 through Friday, which turned a 4.5% intra-month loss to a small gain for November. .SPX 1M mountain SPX 1-month chart (Most likely the nasty tailspin in bitcoin from $124,000 to around $80,000 at its recent low, left retail portfolios in no position to add more risk aggressively. Bitcoin correlates more closely with shares of unprofitable tech companies than with any macro indicator or other asset market.) Along with sharp retrenchments by hedge funds that use systematic strategies based on volatility and momentum, the crescendo of interest in inverse ETFs prompted Pies to call for further upside from here: “Three big buckets of investors— retail, vol-target funds, and CTAs— derisked during the selloff. On the other side of the ledger, corporations are gearing up to buy the market into year-end” by flexing their share-repurchase budgets. This kind of seasonal reasoning and supply-versus-demand case for expecting a further rally makes sense at the essential level, where prices are purely a function of the relative urgency of buyers and sellers. Still, on a more structural level, U.S. equity allocations by private investors have rarely been higher, based on data from Bank of America’s private-client group, the Federal Reserve and other sources. And keep in mind that we heard similar talk of a “year-end chase higher” a year ago as the S & P 500 emerged from a similar pullback in late November. Yet that late-2024 comeback rally peaked a week into December before a sloppy three-week retreat into the close of that year. Those disclaimers aside, the tape action itself has been reassuring and largely in keeping with how stocks have behaved in the months following 15%-or-greater corrections such as the S & P 500 suffered from February into April. Strategas Research plotted the current recovery path against the average and median recovery trajectories from all prior such setbacks. Note the 2025 performance is better than the norm, though typically around this point the advance at least starts to flatten out. Reviewing the sturdy finish to November this year after a three-week gut check, Tony Pasquariello, head of hedge fund coverage at Goldman Sachs, observed that “given the starting point of some scorching rallies in October, and, for as high-velocity as November was, the fact that S & P finished this month in the green is notable.” To go a step more granular, the S & P 500 proved resilient in a month when Nvidia fell 12.5%, something not many would likely have predicted four weeks ago. It’s as if the market heard the constant complaints that its run to a record high looked “too narrow” and too focused on the same AI winners and responded by coming back from a three-week stress test with a series of very broad rally days not led by the usual “Magnificent Seven” favorites. That said, the amount of market cap being accumulated and disgorged daily by the massive tech platform companies isn’t entirely comforting. The market’s attempt to discern relative winners and losers, rather than indiscriminately reward every company involved, is an admirable, necessary exercise. But Alphabet going from “AI victim” to “presumed winner” while adding nearly $2 trillion in market capitalization over seven months’ time might also reflect an erratic mixture of fickleness, desperation and herding among investors. The Street’s official play callers appear unconcerned by such extreme mood swings, or by much of anything, as they project ahead into next year. About a dozen Wall Street strategists have set their end-of-2026 S & P 500 targets. All of them see at least some further upside, with the median target of 7,500 and the average near 7,580 bracketing a 10% climb from Friday’s closing level. Not wildly optimistic, especially given consensus forecasts for around 13% S & P 500 earnings growth next year. But as these things go, a 10% collective projection qualifies as rather upbeat – the average strategist target has been at or below the index level most of this year. And, as the past few weeks have shown, attitudes have a way of overshooting and eventually throwing investors off-balance, even in what’s generally been a sure-footed bull market.
Category: 3. Business
-

Why Analysts See Lundin Gold’s Story Shifting With Higher Price Targets and Gold Forecasts
The consensus analyst price target for Lundin Gold has risen slightly from CA$92.17 to CA$93.42, highlighting modestly increased expectations for the company’s fair value. This change comes amid more optimistic forecasts for gold and silver prices, and it reflects recent analyst reassessments of the sector. Stay tuned to find out how investors and analysts can keep informed about the evolving outlook for Lundin Gold.
Analyst Price Targets don’t always capture the full story. Head over to our Company Report to find new ways to value Lundin Gold.
🐂 Bullish Takeaways
-
BMO Capital increased its price target for Lundin Gold to C$104 from C$93 and maintained a Market Perform rating. This price target revision signals recognition of recent operational execution and market performance.
-
CIBC made a more substantial adjustment by raising its price target to C$116 from C$85. This reflects higher future gold and silver price forecasts, with CIBC now projecting gold at $4,500 per ounce and silver at $55 per ounce in 2026 and 2027.
-
These target increases are largely attributed to industry-wide updates in commodity price outlooks, rewarding Lundin Gold’s year-to-date stock outperformance and ongoing resilience in cost management.
🐻 Bearish Takeaways
-
Despite the revised, more aggressive price targets, both CIBC and BMO Capital have maintained neutral stances (Neutral and Market Perform ratings, respectively). This indicates that some analysts believe current valuation already reflects much of the near-term upside.
-
CIBC notes that recent recommended price changes are in part a “catch-up” to reflect recent gold price movements, rather than a fundamental shift in expectations for the company’s execution or intrinsic value.
Do your thoughts align with the Bull or Bear Analysts? Perhaps you think there’s more to the story. Head to the Simply Wall St Community to discover more perspectives or begin writing your own Narrative!
TSX:LUG Community Fair Values as at Nov 2025 -
Lundin Gold reported strong results from exploration drilling at Fruta del Norte, making progress toward an initial Mineral Reserve estimate expected in early 2026. The company also achieved Reserve replacement in both 2023 and 2024, highlighting ongoing resource growth.
-
Positive drilling outcomes were announced at the Sandia, Trancaloma, and Castillo targets, with the discovery of new high-grade mineralized zones and further expansion potential in all directions.
-
For the third quarter and year-to-date 2025, Lundin Gold posted higher ore processing and gold recovery rates. Despite these improvements, the average head grade and doré output were slightly lower compared to the previous year.
-
A leadership change was announced. Ron Hochstein will step down as President, CEO and Director, with Jamie Beck appointed as new CEO effective November 7, 2025.
Continue Reading
-
-

Examining Eni’s Valuation After a 19.8% Share Price Surge in 2025
-
Wondering if Eni’s recent run puts the stock at a discount or if the best value days are already behind it? You’re not alone, as investors everywhere are asking the same question right now.
-
Eni’s share price has climbed 19.8% so far this year and 29.1% over the past 12 months, indicating renewed optimism and possible growth ahead.
-
Much of this excitement has been fueled by recent positive developments in the energy sector, including moves toward cleaner production and new international projects. News highlighting Eni’s investment in low-carbon initiatives and overseas exploration has caught investors’ attention and contributed to the stock’s upward momentum.
-
On the valuation front, Eni scores a 3 out of 6 based on our undervaluation checks. Next, we will explore the methods behind that score and provide insights to help better understand Eni’s real value.
Eni delivered 29.1% returns over the last year. See how this stacks up to the rest of the Oil and Gas industry.
The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model estimates a company’s value by projecting its future cash flows and discounting them back to today’s value. This approach helps investors gauge the present worth of all expected future cash the business will generate, using current financial data and reasonable growth assumptions.
For Eni, the most recent Free Cash Flow stands at approximately €4.40 billion. According to analyst consensus and Simply Wall St extrapolations, these cash flows are forecast to grow moderately, with projections reaching roughly €5.19 billion by 2028 and continuing upwards through 2035. Early estimates rely on analyst forecasts, while later years use logical estimates based on prevailing growth trends in the sector.
Using these inputs, the DCF analysis values Eni at an intrinsic fair value of €22.02 per share. This suggests that the current market price is about 26.7 percent below what the company’s future cash flows are worth today, indicating the stock is significantly undervalued according to this model. For investors seeking growth and value, this assessment may indicate a promising entry point.
Result: UNDERVALUED
Our Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis suggests Eni is undervalued by 26.7%. Track this in your watchlist or portfolio, or discover 920 more undervalued stocks based on cash flows.
ENI 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 Eni.
The Price-to-Earnings (PE) ratio is a well-known method used to value profitable companies like Eni, as it connects the market price to the company’s actual earnings. This metric is especially relevant for established businesses with positive earnings, offering a straightforward way to compare value across the sector.
Continue Reading
-
-

What Catalysts Could Shift the Story for TI Amid Margin Pressures and Tariff Uncertainty
Texas Instruments’ price target remains steady, reflecting confidence in the company’s long-term fundamentals despite shifting economic conditions. Analyst sentiment incorporates a mix of optimism around disciplined inventory management as well as cautiousness due to margin pressures and muted growth visibility. Stay tuned to see how you can monitor ongoing updates to the Texas Instruments investment narrative.
Analyst Price Targets don’t always capture the full story. Head over to our Company Report to find new ways to value Texas Instruments.
Recent analyst commentary on Texas Instruments reflects a diverse range of perspectives on the company’s current positioning and outlook. Below, we synthesize the main themes from the latest research updates.
🐂 Bullish Takeaways
-
Rosenblatt maintains a Buy rating for Texas Instruments, noting disciplined management even in the face of operational headwinds. Despite lowering the price target to $200 from $245, the firm points to inline results and confident handling of inventory and manufacturing assets as strengths.
-
JPMorgan keeps an Overweight rating and adjusted its price target to $210 from $225, citing solid September quarter revenue and a continued belief in Texas Instruments’ long-term positioning. The “conservative” forward outlook is seen as a prudent response to macro uncertainty rather than a signal of execution issues.
-
Wolfe Research remains constructive, reiterating an Outperform rating with a $230 price target. The firm recognizes that recoveries are underway in most major end markets, with the exception of automotive, and sees prudent inventory and wafer start management as indicative of operational discipline.
-
Morgan Stanley suggests potential upside if low customer inventories drive replenishment, even as it takes a more reserved view overall. The firm acknowledges the flat recovery slope but points to eventual positive momentum as order trends improve.
🐻 Bearish Takeaways
-
Mizuho downgraded Texas Instruments to Underperform, dropping the price target significantly to $150 from $200. The analyst raises concerns about the lack of near-term catalysts, premium valuation, slowing auto sales, ongoing competition in China, and tariff headwinds. Additionally, the company’s smaller footprint in high-growth segments like AI data centers is seen as a limitation.
-
Truist lowered its price target to $175 from $196 while maintaining a Hold rating, citing mixed quarterly results and fading margins. The analyst notes that while inventory levels have normalized, demand has not rebounded, and customers are not actively restocking, which limits prospects for near-term recovery.
-
Rosenblatt, while positive overall, highlights that margin pressures linked to reduced fab utilization are likely to persist in the short term as management seeks to balance inventory levels.
-
Morgan Stanley keeps an Underweight rating with a reduced target of $192 from $197, expressing caution over the underwhelming outlook for the September quarter and the challenging recovery trajectory presently facing the analog semiconductor sector, of which Texas Instruments is a key part.
Continue Reading
-
-

Does Deutsche Bank’s 95% Stock Surge Signal More Room to Grow in 2025?
-
Curious whether Deutsche Bank’s stock is still good value after its recent rally? Let’s break down what seasoned investors need to know.
-
The stock has soared an eye-catching 95.7% over the last year and is up 82.1% year-to-date, though it dipped slightly by 1.5% over the past month.
-
Much of this momentum has been fueled by renewed optimism around the banking sector, as well as Deutsche Bank’s ongoing restructuring efforts. These efforts have garnered positive media attention and investor confidence worldwide.
-
For those focused on fundamentals, Deutsche Bank scores a 4 out of 6 on our valuation checks. This is a solid signal, but let’s dig deeper into traditional valuation approaches before revealing an even more insightful way to assess whether the stock is a bargain.
Deutsche Bank delivered 95.7% returns over the last year. See how this stacks up to the rest of the Capital Markets industry.
The Excess Returns valuation model helps investors assess whether a company is creating value above its cost of capital by comparing its return on equity to the required return. This approach focuses on both the efficiency of Deutsche Bank’s investments and its future growth prospects, rather than just current earnings or cash flows.
Deutsche Bank’s Book Value stands at €40.49 per share, while its Stable EPS is projected at €3.61 per share, based on weighted return on equity estimates from 11 analysts. The bank’s Cost of Equity is €3.78 per share, resulting in a small negative Excess Return of €-0.17 per share. With an average return on equity of 9.52%, the company’s ability to generate returns just trails the required rate, and the Stable Book Value is forecast to be €37.88 per share according to 7 analyst projections.
Using the Excess Returns method, Deutsche Bank’s intrinsic value implies the stock is currently 14.6% undervalued compared to its market price. This suggests the market may not yet be fully appreciating Deutsche Bank’s efforts to improve its earnings and capital efficiency.
Result: UNDERVALUED
Our Excess Returns analysis suggests Deutsche Bank is undervalued by 14.6%. Track this in your watchlist or portfolio, or discover 920 more undervalued stocks based on cash flows.
DBK 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 Deutsche Bank.
The Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio is widely considered a key tool for valuing profitable companies like Deutsche Bank, as it directly reflects how much investors are willing to pay for each euro of earnings. For established banks with steady profits, the P/E ratio can quickly indicate whether the stock price is in line with its financial performance.
Continue Reading
-
-

The OncFive: Top Oncology Articles for the Week of 11/23
Welcome to OncLive®’s OncFive!
Every week, we bring you a quick roundup of the 5 top stories from the world of oncology—ranging from pivotal regulatory decisions to key pipeline updates to expert insights on breakthroughs that are moving the needle in cancer care. This resource is designed to keep you informed on the latest updates in the space, in just a matter of minutes.
Here’s what you may have missed this week:
The FDA approved durvalumab (Imfinzi) for use in combination with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) as neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, followed by single-agent durvalumab, for adult patients with resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.1
The regulatory decision was supported by findings from the phase 3 MATTERHORN trial (NCT04592913), which showed durvalumab plus FLOT reduced the risk of disease progression, recurrence, or death by 29% compared with FLOT alone; The median event-free survival (EFS) was not reached (95% CI, 40.7-not estimable [NE]) with durvalumab vs 32.8 months (95% CI, 27.9-NE) with FLOT alone. (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001). The pathological complete response rate was 19.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-23.0%) in the durvalumab arm vs 7.2% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.9%) in the FLOT alone arm (P < .001).
The FDA has granted priority review to a new drug application (NDA) seeking the approval of sonrotoclax (BGB-11417) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL who have received prior treatment with a BTK inhibitor.2
The NDA is supported by findings from the phase 1/2 BGB-11417-201 trial (NCT05471843), which met its primary end point of overall response rate (ORR) per independent review committee (IRC) and showed clinically meaningful responses among 125 adult patients with relapsed/refractory disease previously treated with a BTK inhibitor. Full data from the study that support the NDA will be presented at the 2025 ASH Annual Meeting.
Treatment with Sacituzumab tirumotecan (sac-TMT; SKB264/MK-2870) in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) yielded a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs pembrolizumab alone in patients with PD-L1–positive advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), meeting the primary end point of the phase 3 OptiTROP-Lung05 trial (NCT06448312).3
Overall survival also trended in favor of the sac-TMT regimen, per independent data monitoring committee assessment. Based on these findings, an NDA could be submitted to the Center for Drug Evaluation of the National Medical Products Administration in China seeking the approval of sac-TMT in this indication.
Treatment with subcutaneous toripalimab (JS001sc) in combination with chemotherapy generated comparable pharmacokinetics (PK) compared with intravenous (IV) toripalimab (Loqtorzi) plus chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), meeting the primary end points of the phase 3 JS001sc-002-III-NSCLC trial (NCT06505837).4
The study met both its primary end points: observed serum Ctrough concentration at cycle 1 and model-predicted area under the concentration time curve from 0 to 21 days at cycle 1. Findings also demonstrated that subcutaneous toripalimab produced comparable efficacy and safety outcomes compared with the IV formulation. Full trial data will be presented at an upcoming international medical conference.
The European Commission approved lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi; liso-cel) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL following at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, including a BTK inhibitor.5
This regulatory decision is supported by data from the MCL cohort of the phase 1 TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial (NCT02631044), which showed that liso-cel generated an ORR of 82.7% (95% CI, 72.7%-90.2%) and a complete response rate of 71.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-81.1%). The median time to first response was 0.95 months, and 41.2% (95% CI, 29.2%-52.9%) of patients remained in response at 24 months.
References
- FDA approves durvalumab for resectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. FDA. November 25, 2025. Accessed November 26, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-durvalumab-resectable-gastric-or-gastroesophageal-junction-adenocarcinoma
- U.S. FDA grants priority review to sonrotoclax for the treatment of relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. News release. BeOne Medicines. November 26, 2025. Accessed November 26, 2025. https://ir.beonemedicines.com/news/us-fda-grants-priority-review-to-sonrotoclax-for-the-treatment-of-relapsed-or-refractory-mantle/786f1dad-0c9f-492e-9fce-f9ceadd24989
- Kelun-Biotech announces phase 3 trial of sac-TMT in combination with Keytruda (pembrolizumab) as first-line treatment for PD-L1–positive NSCLC met primary endpoint. News Release. PR Newswire. November 24, 2025. Accessed November 26, 2025. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kelun-biotech-announces-phase-iii-trial-of-sac-tmt-in-combination-with-keytruda-pembrolizumab-as-first-line-treatment-for-pd-l1-positive-nsclc-met-primary-endpoint-302624279.html
- Junshi Biosciences announces primary endpoints met in JS001sc’s phase 3 study for the 1st-line treatment of NSQ-NSCLC. News release. Shanghai Junshi Biosciences. November 24, 2025. Accessed November 26, 2025. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/11/25/3193998/0/en/Junshi-Biosciences-Announces-Primary-Endpoints-Met-in-JS001sc-s-Phase-3-Study-for-the-1ST-line-Treatment-of-NSQ-NSCLC.html
- Bristol Myers Squibb receives approval from the European Commission to expand use of CAR T cell therapy Breyanzi for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. News release. Bristol Meyers Squibb. November 24, 2025. Accessed November 26, 2025. https://news.bms.com/news/corporate-financial/2025/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Receives-Approval-from-the-European-Commission-to-Expand-Use-of-CAR-T-Cell-Therapy-Breyanzi-for-Relapsed-or-Refractory-Mantle-Cell-Lymphoma/default.aspx
Continue Reading
-

As ChatGPT turns 3, here’s what’s crashing the party
By Christine Ji and Britney Nguyen
OpenAI sits at the center of the AI boom that it started. But it faces increasing challenges around both the business and the technology itself.
Excitement around recent Google and Anthropic AI offerings is marring the celebration of ChatGPT’s third birthday.
OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022 was the starting gun for the artificial-intelligence arms race that has lifted up the stock market and unleashed billions of dollars of investment.
Whether OpenAI can preserve its leading position going forward is now the big question.
Within five days of its release, ChatGPT had achieved 1 million users. Three years later, the latest version of ChatGPT – with real-time access to the web, enhanced reasoning, coding skills and image- and video- generation capabilities – makes its initial features appear rudimentary. In September, OpenAI released its Sora video-generation app, which also achieved 1 million users in five days.
But the talk around OpenAI isn’t as exuberant now as it was when ChatGPT first burst on the scene. Competing models from Google and Anthropic have won praise for their technological capabilities, all while OpenAI’s financial commitments have started to worry Wall Street. Some technologists also wonder if large language models will ever have the potential to unlock the most futuristic AI visions.
And in some cases, things haven’t changed much. Gary Marcus, an emeritus professor at New York University and prominent psychologist known for his research on AI, told MarketWatch that he raised issues about OpenAI’s systems in late 2022 that still haven’t been solved. “They hallucinate and have trouble with reasoning,” he said.
The competitive scene
Last December, Marcus also predicted that without a truly differentiated product by the end of 2025, OpenAI would risk losing its moat.
“And now, they have a competitor with a product that’s more or less just as good,” Marcus added, referring to Alphabet’s (GOOGL) (GOOG) Google Gemini 3 AI model, which debuted earlier this month.
The AI space has seen “an explosion of activity” in the past few years, Benjamin Lee, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Engineering, told MarketWatch. “We’re seeing a lot of experimentation and adoption by individual users and others.”
Gemini, which many thought had been left for dead at the beginning of the year, has made aggressive strides to increase its market share. Earlier this month, Google’s newest Gemini 3 and Nano Banana Pro updates further impressed investors and users alike.
“Google was fairly far behind, and I think people counted them out, but their most recent model is arguably ahead of GPT-5,” Marcus said.
Gemini 3 outperformed GPT-5 on a majority of key AI benchmarks, or standardized tests used to evaluate models. And Anthropic’s latest model, Claude Opus 4.5, beat both GPT-5 and Gemini 3 on agentic coding benchmarks upon its release last week.
“This is really healthy and, from a technical perspective, super exciting to see the robust competition between these types of models,” Lee said. But for OpenAI, the competitive playing field means it can’t coast on its first-mover advantage.
Also read: How can Anthropic stand out in the AI wars? I went to a Greenwich Village pop-up to find out.
A market linchpin
Concerns about an AI bubble have boiled over this month, leading to a selloff that’s hit tech stocks hard.
OpenAI has come under scrutiny for its central role in a complex web of AI financing. The company has inked over $1.4 trillion in AI infrastructure deals, and investors are skeptical about how the AI lab will be able to pay for all of its commitments.
New features such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT Pulse, Sora and web browser could help scale its business, but AI monetization is less of a concern for Google, which has business segments spanning search, cloud computing, Android and enterprise software. Additionally, these verticals facilitate the distribution and scale of Google’s AI products.
Google’s custom-chip business also gives it a major leg up in the AI race, enabling the company to save on infrastructure costs and opening up another revenue stream in the form of equipment rentals. The tech giant uses its tensor processing units (TPUs) to train its Gemini models. The chips have also been used to power its search and YouTube algorithms.
In October, Anthropic said it plans to use up to 1 million of Google’s TPUs as it seeks to scale up computing – an issue also plaguing OpenAI as AI models become larger and more advanced.
Read: These two ‘Magnificent Seven’ stocks could be the strongest survivors of an AI apocalypse
Are LLMs the path to AGI?
As the chatbot wars rage on, a growing number of AI researchers are questioning if large language models will even be the future of the technology. After all, hallucinations and reasoning gaps aren’t issues unique to ChatGPT. Wall Street shares that worry, as investors question the return on investment of chatbots that still lack the power to fully automate corporate workflows.
LLMs operate by predicting the next word, or token, in a sequence based on statistical probability. They don’t actually “know” facts or understand logic.
“They’re not really abstracting away a stable comprehension of the world,” Marcus said of LLMs. As AI technology trends toward autonomous vehicles and robots, Marcus and others believe the new frontier will be “world models,” or AI with a mental simulation of the real world.
Sergey Gorbunov, a technologist and co-founder of blockchain-infrastructure platform Axelar, also sees world models as perhaps a better path toward artificial general intelligence, or AGI, which is the point at which AI models will be believed to be as intelligent as humans. Admittedly, ideas about what AGI will look like have changed in the three years since OpenAI launched ChatGPT.
Unlike LLMs, world models “interact with physical spaces,” and therefore can “understand a little bit what’s happening in physics, not just in text,” Gorbunov told MarketWatch. For example, world models could help improve self-driving cars, he said, because an autonomous vehicle would be able to predict seconds ahead what another car will do.
Earlier this month, Gorbunov outlined in a blog post “two fundamental limitations” for LLMs: the reliance on preexisting data, and the fact that LLMs essentially navigate probabilities.
“If you look at the math of these models or how they’re constructed, they’re just predictable probability distributions,” Gorbunov told MarketWatch. “There is no sense of artificial intelligence anywhere there.”
What’s next for ChatGPT, and AI in general?
Three years after ChatGPT’s release, Vasant Dhar, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business and the author of “Thinking With Machines,” told MarketWatch that the fundamental way AI has changed is that it’s become better at simulating understanding, and is therefore more relatable to people.
ChatGPT’s progress in three years is “astounding,” Dhar said, even as its benefits to business and other aspects of life remain to be seen. He emphasized that the adoption of general-purpose technologies such as electricity and the internet historically took years to unfold.
“Our expectations have gone up so much that we expect this capability to be realized instantly,” Dhar said. “There is so much capability in AI at the moment that is still to be realized.”
While large language models like the ones powering ChatGPT have been at the forefront of the current AI boom, Dhar said he’s seeing incremental research into vision models and other types of models that will be able to integrate more human senses.
In the next year or two, Dhar said he expects to see improvements to ChatGPT and Gemini that, despite seeming incremental, will be “actually very significant” because of how they impact the lives of people using them.
But world models are still far ahead of where the AI industry currently is, Gorbunov told MarketWatch. In the coming months, he expects to see a battle on the front end of user interaction with the web through AI-powered web browsers such as OpenAI’s Atlas and Perplexity’s Comet. Google is also part of that fight, he said, as the dominant search engine incorporates more AI features into its platform.
“I think whoever is going to win that [user experience] in some sense will be able to capture a lot of traffic going forward,” Gorbunov said.
-Christine Ji -Britney Nguyen
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
11-29-25 0800ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Continue Reading
-

I left consulting to begin teaching at Dartmouth right before the release of ChatGPT. Disruption is always messy—and there’s always a twist
In July 2022, I made a career pivot from consulting to teaching. Beyond being intrinsically interesting and rewarding, I thought teaching would provide a respite after almost two decades of daily hand-to-hand combat with problems, clients, and, occasionally, colleagues. Then, in November 2022, OpenAI introduced the first version of ChatGPT. It quickly became clear that artificial intelligence (AI) could radically reshape my new industry, my old one, and many others.
Over the last three years, I have been actively experimenting with AI through a course I created called “AI and Consultative Decision Making.” In parallel, I wrote the book Epic Disruptions, which involved conducting deep historical research into case studies of world-changing innovations ranging from gunpowder to Pampers disposable diapers.
One of the themes that emerged from my research is that disruptive change is predictably unpredictable. There are broad patterns, but because there are humans and complex systems involved, there are unexpected twists and turns in every story.
As the saying goes, history may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes. There are five historical lessons that seem pertinent to how AI could—or could not—drive epic disruptive change.
1. Disruption often starts in unexpected places
In the 1940s, Walter Bradeen, John Brattain, and William Shockley from Bell Labs developed a new technology called the transistor. The intent of their research effort was to develop a technology to replace vacuum tubes that powered communications networks. The transistor had clear benefits. It was small, rugged, and didn’t give off heat. However, early versions were also unreliable and required rearchitecting systems.
It took decades for transistors to make it into communications networks. The first commercial market was hearing aids. The transistor fit perfectly in the market. Hearing aids were relatively simple, making it easy to incorporate transistors. Vacuum tubes gave off heat, which made battery packs affixed to a belt uncomfortable. Tubes burned out, making the total cost of owning a hearing aid expensive. The transistor-based hearing aid market exploded, supporting further technological development that ultimately ushered in the modern communications and computing age.
We naturally focus on the development and deployment of AI in large, sophisticated markets like the United States or Western Europe. However, one driver of ChatGPT’s rapid growth is usage in emerging markets that lack robust health and education infrastructures. Consumers don’t ask, “How does AI compare to a skilled teacher or clinician?”; they ask, “Is AI better than nothing at all?” History suggests carefully examining emerging market developments to spot disruptive change early.
2. The secret sauce of disruption is a unique way to create, capture, and deliver value.
When Mac and Dick McDonald first opened their restaurant, it was unremarkable. The path to disruption started when they shut the restaurant in 1948 and unveiled the “Speedee Service System” that simplified and standardized food production. When Ray Kroc became in essence the master franchisor of the concept in 1954, he and his team architected a unique system that involved close partnership with franchise owners. In the 1960s, Heny Sonneborn perfected a model that allowed the McDonald’s Corporation to profit through real estate. The unique way that McDonald’s created, delivered, and captured value—its business model—allowed it to serve billions profitably.
A unique business model is the secret sauce of disruptive innovation. It is what allowed Amazon.com, Google, and Netflix to emerge as powerhouses three decades ago. Unique business models provide funding for further improvement and frustrate incumbent response.
Right now, leading labs like OpenAI and Anthropic are following business models that are neither novel nor difficult for technology companies like Amazon, Microsoft, or Google to follow. If the labs don’t develop unique ways to create, capture, and deliver value, history suggests they are likely to have finite lives as standalone providers.
3. Disruption is always messy in the middle.
In the 1920s, a battle broke out for the soul of the streets of many major US cities. Henry Ford had achieved his vision: the car for the “great multitudes.” Perfecting the assembly line brought the cost of Ford’s Model T from $30,000 (in today’s terms) in 1908 to $5,000. Sales soared.
This was good for some, but less good for others. Cities were designed for people, not for cars. The sharp increase in automobile adoption spurred chaos and carnage. Newspaper cartoons in the 1920s often showed the Grim Reaper driving cars. One in the St. Louis Star showed a man kneeling holding up a platter of children to a car with a humanoid maniacal grin. In 1922 the mayor of Baltimore dedicated a 25-foot wood and plaster obelisk as a monument for the 130 children who died in motor accidents that year.
It is always messy in the middle of disruptive change. Getting out of the automotive’s middle required technologies such as traffic signals, regulations such as the need for drivers to have licenses, and norms, such as right-of-way at intersections.
Through this lens, a push to minimize rules and regulation is misguided as it elongates the time in AI’s messy middle and increases the odds of harm. Futurists Bob Johansen and Jamias Cascio note that it is hard to set precise rules in markets emerging as quickly as AI, so suggest the metaphor of a “bounce rope” in a wrestling ring. There are firm ring posts and boundaries at the edge of the ring, but those boundaries have slack and give in them.
4. There’s often a twist in the story
When Johannes Gutenberg and his team sought an early customer for the printing press, they naturally turned to the Catholic Church. The Church had real problems to solve, such as standardizing missals used for church services and shortening the three years it took to hand scribe a Bible. When Enea Silvio Piccolomini, who went on to become Pope Pius II, saw a Gutenberg Bible in 1454 he praised their “very neat and legible script” and noted how they could be read “without the use of glasses.”
The Church didn’t foresee what happened next. The printing presses accelerated the ability for people like Martin Luther to spread ideas attacking the Church. A third of the books printed in Germany between 1518 and 1525 were from Luther. The printing press was a boon to some—scientists, revolutionaries, entrepreneurs who built businesses around it—and a curse to others: scribes, cardinals, and anyone else who profited from ignorance.
Management consulting companies have profited handsomely from AI-related work. In early 2024 Boston Consulting Group said that 20 percent of its revenues was AI-related. McKinsey touted how it was using its custom-created AI solution to boost its productivity and accelerate developing unique impact. What if, however, clients learn how to use AI in ways that obviate consultants? Or if AI reliance withered a consulting company’s ability to develop unique talent? Could the major consulting companies look at AI the same way the Church looked at the printing press?
5. It’s all about the people
Singapore’s DBS Bank is a remarkable story of transformation (detailed in my 2020 book Eat, Sleep, Innovate). In 2010, it was a laggard in its local market. In 2025, DBS was widely recognized for its nimbleness and digital prowess.
Its digital transformation involved key strategic shifts and major investments in technology. Those moves were necessary, but not sufficient. The critical unlock came from a set of behavioral interventions to help bankers use technologies in new ways. Paul Cobban, who was DBS’s Chief Data and Transformation Officer from 2009-2022 observed that without a systematic and structured approach to cultural change, adopting digital technologies would be akin to replacing memos with emails or emails with Slack messages. One of Cobban’s mantras was, “Nothing changes unless people’s behavior changes.”
The same is true of AI. Adoption is not a technological problem; it is a sociological and cultural one. Jim Wilson from Accenture estimates that for every dollar companies spend on technology, they should expect to spend six dollars on the human side of change.
* * *
One recurrent lesson that struck me during the research and writing of Epic Disruptions is how history provides a unique way to make sense of a complicated present. Disruption is predictably unpredictable, so AI will surely break from some of these patterns. However, the past provides a guide for where to look and what to look for to make sense of what will happen next.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
Continue Reading
-

Airbus orders immediate repairs for 6,000 of its A320 family of jets : NPR
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
Airbus, the European plane-maker, says it has discovered a problem with the flight control systems on its bestselling A320 family of jets. It is ordering airlines to make an immediate software switch that could temporarily ground thousands of jets around the world. The timing is especially bad for airlines in the U.S., which is in the midst of one of the busiest travel weekends of the year. NPR transportation correspondent Joel Rose joins us. Joel, thanks for being with us.
JOEL ROSE, BYLINE: Hey, Scott.
SIMON: What does Airbus say?
ROSE: The company said Friday that it has discovered a problem with the flight control systems in its most popular family of jets, the A320 family. Specifically, Airbus says intense solar radiation may corrupt the data in systems that are critical to the operation of the aircraft. Airbus made this discovery after an incident last month when a JetBlue plane plunged uncontrollably for a short time on a flight from Cancun, Mexico, to Newark, New Jersey. Several passengers were hurt following a sharp loss of altitude, and the flight had to make an emergency landing in Tampa. Now Airbus is notifying airlines that they need to take immediate steps to prevent something like that from happening again. Aviation regulators in Europe and the Federal Aviation Administration issued orders yesterday that airlines have to do this before these planes carry passengers again.
SIMON: How hard will it be to fix?
ROSE: Well, basically, Airbus is instructing airlines to change the software on this particular computer system, either by rolling back to an earlier version or replacing the computer system with one that is running the earlier software version. It’s not a difficult fix as these things go, but it will take time – several hours per plane. In a statement, the CEO of Airbus said the fix has been causing, quote, “significant logistical challenges and delays,” unquote. The company apologized for the inconvenience to its customers and to passengers, but said that safety is its top priority.
SIMON: Thousands of planes could be affected. Help put that into some perspective for us.
ROSE: Sure. So the A320 family is now the most flown plane in the world – more than 9,000 in all when you include the A319, the A320 and the A321. It’s a huge part of fleets in Europe and Asia. Not quite as popular in North America, but still, U.S. airlines have over 1,600 of these jets in their fleets collectively, according to the aviation analytics company Cirium. Out of that 1,600, the FAA says the emergency order applies to about 545 Airbus jets in the U.S. The U.S. carriers with the most A320 family planes are American Airlines, with over 300, followed by Delta and JetBlue, each with more than 200. Delta said it expects that fewer than 50 planes in its fleet will require the software fix. American said about 200 of its jets needed the fix, but that nearly all of those aircraft already had the software change completed as of this morning.
SIMON: Millions of people across the U.S. are expected to fly this weekend. How much will it affect them?
ROSE: You know, the timing is very bad for holiday travelers and for the airlines. This is one of their busiest weekends of the year – particularly Sunday, with more than 51,000 flights scheduled, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. There are 46,000 flights today, another 49,000 on Monday. So there is not a lot of extra slack in the system. Taking any number of planes out of service is going to hurt. It is just a question of…
SIMON: Yeah.
ROSE: …How bad this is going to be. Even if it is a relatively small number of planes that are out of service, it could still result in dozens or hundreds of cancellations and delays, which then ripple across the country as the day goes on. But that said, I think it’s possible that the biggest impacts of all this will be in Europe and in Asia, where the airlines depend heavily on these planes to carry millions of passengers every day.
SIMON: NPR’s Joel Rose. Thanks so much for being with us.
ROSE: You’re welcome.
Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
Continue Reading
-

AI startup valuations are doubling and tripling within months as back-to-back funding rounds fuel a stunning growth spurt
Everyone keeps asking: “Are we in an AI bubble?” But just as often, I hear a different question, followed by recognition: “Wait—they raised another round?”
This year, a handful of top AI startups—some now so large that calling them “startups” feels vaguely ironic—have raised not just one giant round of funding, but two or more. And with each round, the startups’ valuations are doubling, sometimes even tripling, to reach astonishing new heights.
Take Anthropic. In March it raised a $3.5 billion Series E at a $61.5 billion valuation. Just six months later, in September, it pulled in a $13 billion Series F round. New valuation: $183 billion.
OpenAI, the startup that ignited the AI boom with ChatGPT, remains the pace setter, fetching an unprecedented $500 billion valuation in a tender offer last month. That’s up from the $300 billion valuation it garnered during a March funding round, and the $157 billion valuation it started off this year with as a result of an October 2024 funding.
In other words, in the 12 months between October 2024 and October 2025, OpenAI’s valuation increased by roughly $29 billion every month—almost $1 billion per day.
It’s not just the LLM giants. Further down (but still high on) the AI food chain, recruiting startup Mercor in February raised its $100 million Series B at a $2 billion valuation—and then by October raised another $350 million as the company’s valuation leapt to $10 billion.
Well over a dozen startups have raised two or more funding rounds this year with escalating valuations, including Cursor, Reflection AI, OpenEvidence, Lila Sciences, Harmonic, Fal, Abridge, and Doppel. Some, like Harvey and Databricks, are currently reported to be in their third rounds.
These valuation growth spurts, especially at a scale of billions and tens of billions of dollars, are extraordinary and raise a number of dizzying questions, beginning with: Why is this even happening? Is the phenomenon a reflection of the strength of these startups, or the unique business opportunity presented by the AI revolution, or a bit of both? And how healthy is this kind of thing—what risks are the startups, and the broader market, taking on by raising so much capital so fast and pumping valuations up so quickly?
The specter of 2021
To hear some industry insiders explain it, there’s more to the current phenomenon than frothy market conditions. While the ZIRP, or zero interest rate policy, era that peaked in 2021 saw its share of startups raising multiple back-to-back rounds (Cybersecurity startup Wiz was valued at $1.7 billion in its May 2021 round, and when it raised $250 million in October its valuation sprung to $6 billion), the underlying dynamics were completely different back then (not least because ChatGPT hadn’t launched yet).
Tom Biegala, founding partner at Bison Ventures, said that he doesn’t believe this is anything like 2021, when “companies would raise a round… not because they’ve made any sort of real progress or any technical or commercial milestones.” Investor enthusiasm was so high and capital flowed so effortlessly back then that the perception of momentum was often enough to draw more than one round of capital in a year, Biegala said.
And for every successful Wiz, there were numerous startups in the ZIRP-era that also raised two or more rounds within 12 months that have since struggled (like grocery delivery app Jokr, NFT marketplace OpenSea, and telehealth startup Cerebral).
Terrence Rohan, managing director at Otherwise Fund, says today’s multi-round startups are demonstrating real business traction: “The revenue growth we’re seeing in select companies is without precedent. In certain cases, one could argue that we are dealing with a new phenotype of startup,” Rohan said via email.
Many of today’s high-flying AI startups are putting up impressive numbers, even if we should be suspicious of ARR at this moment. You have young companies like vibe coding startup Lovable, which went from zero to $17 million in ARR in three months, and conversational AI startup Decagon hit “seven figures” in ARR over its first half-year. Cursor is perhaps the most famous of all: The developer-focused AI coding tool went from zero to $100 million in ARR in one year.
Felicis Ventures founder and managing partner Aydin Senkut describes the back-to-back fundings as a sign of a high velocity market where the costs of being wrong are higher than ever. “The prize now goes to those who identify and support these outliers earliest,” Senkut says, “because being in the wrong sector or too late may not just reduce returns, it may zero them out.”
“The prize is so big”
While broad excitement over generative AI is fueling the series of funding rounds, startups pushing the boundaries in certain verticals are among the biggest beneficiaries of the trend.
Cursor, the buzzy AI coding startup, finished 2024 with a healthy $2.6 billion valuation. Its valuation jumped to $10 billion in June 2025, when Cursor raised $900 million in funding. This month, Cursor announced that it’s now worth $29.3 billion, as it scooped up $2.3 billion in additional capital from investors including Accel, Thrive, and Andreessen Horowitz.
Harvey, an AI startup aimed at the legal industry, raised a total of $600 million in two separate funding rounds within the first six months of 2025, lifting its valuation first to $3 billion and then to $5 billion. In October, several outlets, including Bloomberg and Forbes, reported that Harvey just raised another round of funding that gives the startup an $8 billion valuation.
Each is representative of their respective sectors: Both coding and legal AI are booming right now. Legal AI company Norm AI in November raised $50 million from Blackstone—shortly after raising a $48 million Series B raised in March. Likewise, in coding, Lovable raised its $15 million seed round in February, followed up with a $200 million Series A at a $1.8 billion valuation by July.
Healthcare and AI is also hot, with companies like OpenEvidence raising its July Series B of $210 million at $2.5 billion valuation, only to follow up in October with another $200 million at a $6 billion valuation. Abridge (last valued at $5.3 billion) and Hippocratic AI (last valued at $3.5 billion) fall into this category, as well.
Max Altman, Saga Ventures cofounder and managing partner, says the trend isn’t simply the result of exuberant startup investors throwing money around. For some startups, rapid-fire fundraising is becoming part of the strategic playbook—an effective means of taking on competition.
“What these companies are doing is, very smartly, salting the Earth for their competitors,” Altman told Fortune. “The prize is so big now, with so many people going after it. So, a really amazing strategy is to suck up all the capital, have the best funds invest in your company so they’re not investing in your competitors. Stripe did this really early on, it was smart—you become this force of nature that’s too big to fail.”
That said, that doesn’t mean everyone attracting massive capital is a winner waiting in the wings.
When the foundation isn’t set
If raising multiple rounds quickly can be a strategic advantage, it can also become a dangerous liability. Or, as Andreessen Horowitz general partner Jennifer Li puts it, these back-to-back fundraisings can go right—and they can go wrong.
“They go right when the capital directly fuels product market fit and execution,” Li said via email. “For example, when the company uses new resources to expand infrastructure, improve models, or meet outsized demand.”
So when do they go wrong?
“When the focus shifts from building to fundraising before the foundation is set,” said Li.
Like a skyscraper built on unstable ground, startups that can’t support overly lofty valuations risk a painful comedown. The valuations of some of hyped AI startups may look untenable (perhaps even unhinged) in the public markets, should the startup make it that far. The resulting recalibration manifests itself in the plummeting value of employees’ equity, creating talent retention and recruiting risks. Many of 2025’s biggest IPOs, such as Chime and Klarna, were decisive valuation cuts from their 2021 highs.
Within the private markets, rapid rounds of fund raising means cap tables can get quickly complex as founder stakes dilute. And then perhaps, the biggest risk of all: That some of these excessively funded startups end up with wild burn rates that they can’t roll back if times get tough and capital dries up. That can lead to layoffs, or worse.
Ben Braverman, Altman’s Saga cofounder and managing partner, said this is ultimately a story about both the concentration of capital in AI and about how VCs have evolved their strategies in the aftermath of 2021. Venture capital has always been about the Power Law—that big winners keep winning big—but that’s become especially true as VCs chase consensus favorites more than ever.
“The story of 2021 to now, on all sides of the market, is a flight to quality,” said Braverman. “Seemingly VCs made the same decision over the last cycle: ‘We’re going to put the majority of our dollars into a few brand names we really trust. And obviously, that has its own consequences.”
One of those consequences is that more capital than ever is flowing into a limited set of AI darlings. And while term sheets are being signed at a feverish pace today, even bullish investors acknowledge that, like any cycle, there will be winners and losers.
“In this type of environment, investors sometimes fall into a trap where they think every new AI model company is going to look like OpenAI or Anthropic,” Bison Ventures’s Biegala told Fortune.
“They’re assigning big valuations to those businesses, and it’s an option value on those companies becoming the next OpenAI or Anthropic,” Biegala said. But, he notes, “a lot of them are not necessarily going to grow into those valuations…and you’re going to see some losses for sure.”
Continue Reading
