Category: 3. Business

Story Continues

What determines a “normal” or “fair” PE ratio? Growth expectations and risk play key roles. A higher PE ratio can be justified if a company is expected to grow earnings quickly or is seen as low risk. Conversely, slower growth or higher risk can warrant a lower PE ratio, as investors become less willing to pay a premium for those earnings.

TC Energy currently trades on a PE of 21.2x. This is broadly in line with its peer group average of 21.5x, but noticeably higher than the Oil and Gas industry average of 14.7x. At first glance, this premium may suggest investors are pricing in stronger prospects or greater reliability compared to broader industry peers.

To provide a more tailored perspective, Simply Wall St calculates a “Fair Ratio” for each company. This proprietary benchmark considers unique factors like TC Energy’s earnings growth, industry profile, profit margins, market size, and risk. It is more insightful than broad industry or peer comparisons since it captures the nuances that set each business apart.

For TC Energy, the Fair Ratio stands at 17.2x, significantly below the current multiple. This suggests that, even after adjusting for the company’s distinctive characteristics and environment, the market price still implies a premium that may not be fully justified.

Result: OVERVALUED

PE ratios tell one story, but what if the real opportunity lies elsewhere? Discover 1430 companies where insiders are betting big on explosive growth.

Earlier we mentioned that there is an even better way to understand valuation, so let’s introduce you to Narratives. A Narrative is simply the story you believe about a company, based on your perspective of its future: how fast you think it will grow, the profits it can earn, and the risks it faces. Narratives allow you to connect your personal view about TC Energy’s future revenue, earnings, and margins directly to a financial forecast, making it easy to see what you think the company is worth.

On Simply Wall St’s Community page, millions of investors use Narratives to quickly build and share their outlooks, linking company stories to fair value estimates that automatically update as new information or news arrives. This helps investors cut through the noise by comparing their own Fair Value with the current market Price, providing clarity on whether it is time to buy or sell.

For TC Energy, for example, some Narratives expect a conservative fair value as low as CA$59 per share, focusing on regulatory risks and pressure on fossil fuels, while more optimistic Narratives project valuations as high as CA$80, betting on sustained demand and strong execution. This approach makes it easy to sense-check your assumptions against a range of market views, all in one place.

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

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Companies discussed in this article include TRP.TO.

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

Anglo American declined to comment. BHP did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours.

Sign up here.

BHP has made overtures to Anglo American in recent days, Bloomberg News reported earlier, citing people familiar with the matter, adding that deliberations are ongoing and there is no certainty of a deal.

Anglo American’s market capitalisation is about $41.80 billion, while BHP’s is around $132.18 billion, based on LSEG data.

If the BHP/Anglo deal had gone ahead, the combined entity would have been the world’s largest copper producer, with a total annual production of around 1.9 million metric tons.

The new Anglo Teck group is expected to have a combined annual copper production capacity of approximately 1.2 million tons, still second to BHP.

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

Frozen dinners were useful when no one was home to cook. A fancy cheese or apple roll felt like a family treat. But not any more. “We can’t afford to do those little luxuries any more because they’re just too expensive to feed five with,” says Cat Hill. “There’s not any wiggle room.”

The 43-year-old from Hornby, New York, has been hit by both higher grocery prices and rising costs for her small business running a horse stable. Under Donald Trump, she worries it may get even harder. “With this administration, it doesn’t appear to be stabilising,” she adds. “It’s hard to think about how exactly we are going to ride this out.”

Hill is among millions of people feeling the pain of the US’s affordability crisis. The costs of groceries, housing, childcare, education and healthcare have become intolerable to many, who in turn put the blame on politicians. As Thanksgiving approaches, it appears that the US president is belatedly waking up to the problem and scrambling for answers.

During last year’s election campaign, Trump was all too conscious of the political utility of the high cost of living. He promised voters that he would bring down prices “starting on day one”. But two days after winning, he changed course by remarking: “Our groceries are way down. Everything is way down … So I don’t want to hear about the affordability.”

Much of the first year of Trump’s second term was then dominated by his trade wars, his draconian crackdown on illegal immigration, his decision to send national guard troops into American cities and the longest government shutdown in history.

But voters had other concerns. Prices rose in five of the six main grocery groups tracked in the consumer price index from January to September. These include meats, poultry and fish (up 4.5%), non-alcoholic beverages (up 2.8%) and fruits and vegetables (up 1.3%).

Officials at the Federal Reserve have long been clear that Trump’s tariffs caused inflation, though it is uncertain how long the effects will last. Consumer prices had been increasing at an annual rate of 2.3% in April when Trump launched the import taxes and that rate accelerated to 3% in September.

Adding insult to injury, even as the shutdown deepened the financial woes of many, Trump launched remodeling projects including a gilded ballroom attached to the White House and threw a Great Gatsby-themed party at his luxurious Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Tara Setmayer, co-founder and chief executive of the Seneca Project, a women-led Super Pac, said: “The ads write themselves [for the midterm elections] in 2026 when you have a president who promised to make the American people’s lives better – and who was supposed to be a champion of the working class and not of the elite – bragging repeatedly from his gilded Oval Office while military families are on food bank lines.

“It’s so tone-deaf and so ‘let them eat cake’ it’s hard to believe that he’s serious about this but he is and keeps constantly doing this. It screams: ‘I don’t give a damn about everyday people,’ and his base is beginning to wake up to the fact that perhaps he doesn’t care about us.”

The shutdown froze the collection of the most recent data but it is clear that people feel like prices are too high. Consumer sentiment dropped to a near record low in November, going from 71.8 out of 100 in November 2024 to 51, according to the University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers.

Joanne Hsu, the director of the survey and an economist at the University of Michigan, said that even while concerns over tariffs have started to level off, consumers are still experiencing higher prices.

Consumers “are continuing to be very frustrated by these high prices”, Hsu said. “They feel like those high prices are eroding their living standard, and they just don’t feel like they’re thriving at the end of the day.”

It was against this backdrop that Republicans were blindsided by this month’s elections when Democrats swept the board from New York to Virginia with a message laser-focused on affordability. Economic worries were the dominant concern for voters, according to the AP Voter Poll.

Trump entered a period of denial. He posted on social media: “Affordability is a lie when used by the Dems. It is a complete CON JOB. Thanksgiving costs are 25% lower this year than last, under Crooked Joe! We are the Party of Affordability!”

But he was also stung into action. He conceded that some consumer costs are “a little bit higher” and floated some half-formed ideas to ease financial pressures. He said he may stretch the 30-year mortgage to 50 years to reduce the size of monthly payments.

He partially backtracked on tariffs, a core part of his economic agenda, reducing levies on imports of products such as coffee, beef and tropical fruit, admitting they “may, in some cases” have contributed to higher prices.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said: “The fact that Trump decided to lower tariffs on coffee and bananas is a complete admission that across the economy he is jacking up prices on millions of families. That was a big tell and Democrats should be exploiting that.

“Every Democrat should be going to a supermarket pointing to bananas and coffee on social media and saying, if you see prices come down, that is Trump admitting that he’s jacking up prices everywhere: your car, your baby diapers, your other foods.”

Trump also proposed a $2,000 dividend, funded by tariff revenue, for all Americans except the rich. This could take the form of a cheque bearing his signature, reminiscent of stimulus cheques he sent to millions of Americans during the Covid-19 pandemic.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill were distinctly sceptical about the idea at a time when the federal government is burdened by debt, warning that the Trump cheques could fuel even further inflation.

It might be too little too late. In a recent Fox News poll, 76% of respondents had a negative view of the state of the economy – down 9% since July. In a Marquette University survey, 72% disapproved of Trump’s handling of inflation and the cost of living. And in a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 65% of respondents, including a third of Republicans, disapproved of Trump’s handling of the cost of living.

On Monday, Trump used a summit sponsored by McDonald’s to insist the economy was moving in the right direction and cast blame on his predecessor, Joe Biden. “We had the highest, think of it, the highest inflation in the history of our country,” he said.

“Now we have normal inflation. We’re going to get it a little bit lower, frankly, but we have normal, we’ve normalized it, we have it down to a low level, but we’re going to get it a little bit lower. We want perfection.”

But Trump’s troubles might be giving voters a feeling of déjà vu. Biden tried to convince Americans that the economy was strong. “Bidenomics is working,” he said in a 2023 speech. “Today, the US has had the highest economic growth rate, leading the world economies since the pandemic.”

His arguments did little to sway voters as only 36% of adults in August 2023 approved of his handling of the economy, according to a poll at the time by the Associated Press-Norc Center for Public Affairs Research.

Now Trump is leaning on a message that echoes Biden’s claims in 2021 that elevated inflation is simply a “transitory” problem that will soon disappear. “We’re going to be hitting 1.5% pretty soon,” he told reporters earlier this month. ”It’s all coming down.”

But Jared Bernstein, a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under Biden, disputes the notion that Biden and Trump were equally guilty of downplaying inflation. He said: “We were talking past people. They’re telling people things that are false. In terms of ineffective messaging, those are equivalent. In terms of truthfulness, one is is honest and the other is false.”

Bernstein, now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress thinktank, added: “They’re making a very consequential mistake, which is strongly, loudly asserting that people are better off than they know they are. What’s fascinating about all this to me is that Donald Trump believes, correctly, that he has a superpower. He can get his followers to believe whatever reality he puts out there, and that’s worked for him for a very long time but it won’t work on this. Affordability is kryptonite to his superpower because his followers know which way is up when it comes to prices.”

Two and a half centuries ago, the American colonies launched a violent protest against British rule, triggered by parliament’s imposition of a monopoly on the sale of tea and the antics of a vainglorious king. Today, the tables have turned: it is Great Britain that finds itself at the mercy of major US tech firms – so huge and dominant that they constitute monopolies in their fields – as well as the whims of an erratic president. Yet, to the outside observer, Britain seems curiously at ease with this arrangement – at times even eager to subsidise its own economic dependence. Britain is hardly alone in submitting to the power of American firms, but it offers a clear case study in why nations need to develop a coordinated response to the rise of these hegemonic companies.

The current age of American tech monopoly began in the 2000s, when the UK, like many other countries, became almost entirely dependent on a small number of US platforms – Google, Facebook, Amazon and a handful of others. It was a time of optimism about the internet as a democratising force, characterised by the belief that these platforms would make everyone rich. The dream of the 1990s – naive but appealing – was that anyone with a hobby or talent could go online and make a living from it.

US tech dominance wasn’t the result of a single policy decision. Yet it was still a choice that countries made – as is highlighted by China’s decision to block foreign sites and build its own. While that move was far easier under an authoritarian system, it also amounted to an industrial policy – one that left China as the only other major economy with its own full digital ecosystem.

The pattern was sustained through the 2000s and 2010s. Cloud computing was quickly cornered by Amazon and Microsoft. No serious European or UK competitor emerged to challenge platforms such as Uber or Airbnb. These companies have undoubtedly brought us convenience and entertainment, but the wealth of the internet has not spread as widely as many hoped; instead, US firms took the lion’s share, becoming the most valuable corporations in history. Now the same thing is happening with artificial intelligence. Once more, the big profits look destined for Silicon Valley.

How did all this meet with such little resistance? In short, the UK and Europe followed the logic of free trade and globalisation. Nations, according to this theory, should focus only on what they do best. So just as it made sense for the UK to import French burgundies and Spanish hams, it also seemed logical to rely on American technology rather than trying to do it locally. Better to specialise instead in the UK’s own strengths, such as finance, the creative industries – or making great whisky.

But when it comes to these new platforms, the analogy with regular trade breaks down. There is a vast difference between fine wines and the technologies that underpin the entire online economy. Burgundies can be pricey, but they don’t extract value from every commercial transaction or collect lucrative data. The trade theories of the 1990s masked the distinction between ordinary goods and what are, in effect, pieces of market infrastructure – systems essential to buying and selling. That’s what Google and Amazon represent. A better analogy might be letting a foreign firm build toll roads across the country, charging whatever it likes to use them.

We’re seeing this again with the build-out of artificial intelligence. During President Trump’s state visit in September, the UK proudly celebrated Google and Microsoft’s investments in “datacentres” – vast warehouses of computer servers that power AI systems. Yet datacentres are the bottom rung of the AI economy, private infrastructure that simply channels profits back to US headquarters.

In another timeline, the UK could have been a true leader in AI. US researchers were once far behind their British and French counterparts. Yet, in a move neither Washington nor Beijing would have permitted, the UK cheerfully allowed the sale of most of its key AI assets and talent over the last decade or so – DeepMind’s purchase by Google being the most famous example. What remains is an AI strategy consisting of the supply of electricity and land for datacentres. It’s like being invited to a party only to discover you’re there to serve the drinks.

If tech platforms are indeed like toll roads, the logical step would be to limit their take – perhaps by capping fees or charging for data extraction. Yet no country has done so: we accept the platforms but fail to regulate their power as we do with other utilities. The European Union has come closest, with its Digital Markets Act, which regulates how dominant platforms treat dependent businesses. The US government, for its part, is also at the mercy of its homegrown tech giants, yet Congress remains paralysed.

If the UK wanted to take a different path, to resist this economic colonisation and extraction, it could partner with the European Union and perhaps Japan in order to develop a joint strategy – one that forces platforms to support local businesses and nurtures alternatives to mature US technologies. So far, though, alongside other nations disadvantaged by American dominance, it has been slow to adapt, instead hoping that the 90s playbook will still work, despite evidence to the contrary.

The truth is that we now live in a more cynical and strategic era. One way or another, the world needs an anti-monopoly framework with far greater force than anything seen so far. Wherever you live, it’s clear the world would be better off with more firms from different countries. The alternative is not only costly but politically dangerous, feeding resentment and dependence. We can do better than a future where what counts as economic freedom is merely a choice between relying on the United States, or relying on China.

Tim Wu is a former special assistant to President Biden and author of The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered the Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity (Bodley Head).

Further reading

The Tech Coup by Marietje Schaake (Princeton, £13.99)

Supremacy by Parmy Olson (Pan Macmillan, £10.99)

Chip War by Chris Miller (Simon & Schuster, £10.99)

The dearth of data on the state of the US economy caused by the federal government shutdown is set to continue after the Bureau of Economic Analysis postponed two releases that had been due on Wednesday next week.

The BEA said on Thursday that its planned releases of data on third-quarter GDP and September inflation would be rescheduled to dates to be advised, adding to investor uncertainty after fears of tighter than anticipated monetary policy contributed to the jitters hitting stock markets in recent days. With the Federal Reserve due to make its next decision on interest rates on December 10, the postponements risk leaving policymakers with even less to go on.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected GDP to come in at an annualised pace of 3 per cent in the three months to September 30, down from 3.8 per cent in the second quarter. Despite the expected decline, a 3 per cent reading would be a further sign that the economy has held up after a negative reading in the first quarter.

A separate Reuters poll showed inflation holding steady, with the index of core personal consumption expenditures — the Fed’s preferred metric of inflation that strips out volatile food and energy prices — expected to have risen 2.9 per cent in the month, unchanged from the rate in August.

The BEA’s double postponement came after the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that its closely watched report on non-farm payrolls for October had been cancelled outright.

Fed chair Jay Powell said last month that the lack of adequate data caused by the shutdown would be a factor in policymakers’ thinking. “What do you do when you’re driving in the fog? You slow down,” Powell said, adding that there was “a possibility” this would influence the debate at next month’s meeting.

Questions have also surfaced over the true health of the world’s largest economy and whether investments in artificial intelligence have masked other issues. Last month, the IMF upgraded its outlook for the US but warned that an “investment surge” in AI had helped the economy avoid a slowdown. Alexandra White

What will the UK Budget mean for sterling?

The pound has weakened in recent weeks, falling to its lowest against the euro in two years as weak inflation and poor economic data opened the door to more Bank of England interest rate cuts.

Also weighing on sterling have been fiscal concerns, underlined by the UK government dropping plans to raise income tax in Wednesday’s Budget — with investors closely tracking the government’s commitment to balancing its books.

“There’s a lot of bad news already priced into sterling,” said Steven Englander, head of FX research at Standard Chartered, pointing to the government’s fiscal “black hole”.

Analysts say this could go one of two ways. If investors view the government’s policies as doing enough to restore health to public finances — with a comfortable margin of spending “headroom” — then “the pound will appreciate, because some of this risk premium will be priced out”, said Tomasz Wieladek, chief European economist at T Rowe Price. If not, the pound could stay low, or weaken further.

“The issue will be whether the market believes that the policies that are announced are going to be effective, and getting to the objectives they’ve declared,” said Englander.

But many analysts see the Budget as likely to be negative for the pound if the government tightens the public finances, sapping growth, but also manages to enact measures that reduce inflation.

“Anything that over the next year or two reduces the disposable income of households, the Bank of England will see as a shock to demand, and cut rates more than expected,” delivering bad news for sterling, Wieladek added.

There is also the continued undercurrent of a potential leadership challenge to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, especially if the Budget proves unpopular with those on the left of the ruling Labour party.

“Lingering political risks are unlikely to allow for a full removal of [sterling’s] risk premium, even in the event of a smoothly delivered budget from a market perspective,” said Shreyas Gopal, FX strategist at Deutsche Bank. Rachel Rees

Will Germany continue to disappoint?

After the November flash estimate for Germany’s purchasing managers’ indices on Friday suggested that manufacturing in the country had fallen ever deeper into contraction, all eyes will be on a flurry of economic data to be released from Monday.

The all-important Ifo business climate survey, to be published by the Munich-based think-tank at the start of the week, is expected to edge up by 0.1 points to 88.5, as analysts polled by Reuters forecast that the assessment of current conditions will have improved a bit in November.

Europe’s largest economy narrowly avoided a technical recession in the third quarter as it stagnated after a 0.1 per cent decline in the second. The Bundesbank said on Thursday in its monthly report that the economy could continue to grow “slightly” in the final three months of the year. The country’s statistical office will release data on consumption, domestic investment and exports for the third quarter on Tuesday.

Despite the long-lasting economic slump, Germany’s labour market is still holding up strongly, with analysts expecting that unemployment, to be reported on Friday, will have remained flat at 2.9mn people in November. Inflation, also to be reported on Friday, is forecast to have risen by 0.1 percentage points to 2.4 per cent, well above the ECB’s medium-term 2 per cent target for the overall currency area. Olaf Storbeck

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Vaccine-maker Moderna has become the most shorted company in the S&P 500, with its share price slumping to its lowest level since before the Covid-19 pandemic as people skip jabs.

After months of anti-vax rhetoric from US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, the number of Americans getting Covid shots is down about 24 per cent from this point last year, according to a November 21 report from Jefferies, an investment bank.

Despite plenty of supply, analysts have said vaccine fatigue was contributing to lower Covid vaccination rates in the past few months compared with 2024 or 2023.

“It’s not a huge surprise vaccinations have not picked up as they have in the last two years,” said Seema Shah, medical director of epidemiology and immunisation for San Diego county.

Vaccine shipments were delayed this year, prompting paediatric healthcare providers to wait to administer shots until supplies were stocked, she said.

“Those [delays] definitely caused a slow pick up compared to the last two years,” she added.

Boston-based Moderna has been the S&P 500’s most shorted stock since the end of September, according to S3 Partners. Short sellers had about $622mn of unrealised profits in the company in 2025, S3 said. Moderna shares closed at $23.72 on Friday, down 43 per cent so far this year, and matching its share price in February 2020.

When it joined the S&P 500 index in July 2021, Moderna’s fortunes were flourishing. That year, the US government bought hundreds of millions of Moderna Covid vaccines. Chief executive Stéphane Bancel became a multi-billionaire. Moderna’s 2021 operating margin was higher than Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

But Moderna has been unprofitable since 2023, well before Kennedy brought his vaccine scepticism to Washington this year. Its revenues have dropped by more than 80 per cent from 2021.

At an investor day on Thursday, Moderna executives touted a turnaround starting in 2026. The company is expanding sales in markets outside the US and is racing to apply its mRNA technology to attack cancers.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Moderna’s chair, Noubar Afeyan, said the short interest in Moderna’s stock had not changed the company’s behaviour.

“We are concerned about a lot of unknowns. I don’t know that the shorting is adding to the unknowns,” said Afeyan, who is chief executive of Flagship Pioneering, a Boston investment firm that founded Moderna.

People should not forget the detrimental effects of Covid-19, he said, adding that more than 10mn people were living with the long-term symptoms of the virus.

“People have lost the narrative that they are essentially a source of infection for other people,” he said.

“Why should you follow traffic laws? You don’t just put yourself in harm’s way. This is a transmissible disease.” And by not getting vaccinated, “you are not just an innocent bystander but a culprit”.

The US health secretary is a long-standing vaccine sceptic. In June, Kennedy fired all the members of a top vaccine advisory committee, and two months later limited the government’s recommendations for Covid shots.

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is part of Kennedy’s department, changed its website to say: “Studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.”

In Washington, Moderna has spent more than $1.2mn on lobbying already this year, a record amount for the company.

Because of its exposure to vaccines, Moderna did not make a great acquisition target for giant pharmaceutical companies, said Myles Minter, an analyst at William Blair.

“You need to see some pretty compelling oncology data” for an acquirer to get interested in buying Moderna, he said.

While big drugmakers were looking to refill their product offerings, “I’m not convinced that declining Covid vaccine revenue is the way to fix that for a big pharma” company, he added.

For now, Moderna said sales to Australia, Canada and the UK would help it to increase revenues by up to 10 per cent next year. In 2027, a Pfizer deal to sell Covid vaccines to the EU expires, opening the European market for Moderna to compete.

Ultimately, Moderna is hoping that its vaccines can generate enough cash to fund its cancer work. 

“We see a turning point in our finances and we believe we have a line of sight to break even in 2028,” said Jamey Mock, Moderna’s chief financial officer.

On November 20, at approximately 4 p.m. Eastern time, Napster held an online meeting for its shareholders; an estimated 700 of roughly 1,500 including employees, former employees and individual investors tuned in. That’s when its CEO John Acunto told everyone he believed that the never-identified big investor—who the company had insisted put in $3.36 billion at a $12 billion valuation in January, which would have made it one of the year’s biggest fundraises—was not going to come through. In an email sent out shortly after, it told existing investors that some would get a bigger percentage of the company, due to the canceled shares, and went on to describe itself as a “victim of misconduct,” adding that it was “assisting law enforcement with their ongoing investigations.”

As for the promised tender offer, which would have allowed shareholders to cash out, that too was called off. “Since that investor was also behind the potential tender, we also no longer believe that will occur,” the company wrote in the email.

At this point it seems unlikely that getting bigger stakes in the business will make any of the investors too happy. The company had been stringing its employees and investors along for nearly a year with ever-changing promises of an impending cash infusion and chances to sell their shares in a tender offer that would change everything. In fact, it was the fourth time since 2022 they’ve been told they could soon cash out via a tender offer, and the fourth time the potential deal fell through. Napster spokesperson Gillian Sheldon said certain statements about the fundraise “were made in good faith based on what we understood at the time. We have since uncovered indications of misconduct that suggest the information provided to us then was not accurate.” The company declined to comment further for this story. In separate cases, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice are looking into the company and what happened to the investment, respectively; the company is not the target of the latter. (The SEC investigation was originally looking into the company’s $1.85 billion valuation as part of a reverse merger scrapped in 2022, but it is ongoing and could well have broadened in scope. An SEC spokesperson wrote that the agency “does not comment on the existence or nonexistence of a possible investigation.” The DOJ has not yet returned a request for comment.)

_{Have a tip? Contact Phoebe Liu at pliu@forbes.com or phoebe.789 on Signal. Contact Iain Martin at iain.martin@forbes.com or +1 (646) 739-6427 on Signal.}

While Napster is now alleging it is a victim, Forbes raised concerns about both the investor and the firm months ago. It all started in January when the company, then called Infinite Reality, reached out to Forbes announcing its $3 billion financing round. It emailed again on February 11, this time pitching Acunto, who then had a 12% stake in the Boca Raton, Florida-based company, as a “prime candidate” for Forbes’ billionaires list. Facing an audience at a live event in Los Angeles in February, he exhorted: “Do you really think that we would talk about $3 billion dollar investments and be one of the largest companies in our space if we really weren’t doing what we’re doing?” In that call he also boasted about how much wealth the company had created for its shareholders. “We have over 600 millionaires,” Acunto claimed.

That’s when Forbes began looking into the company and discovered that all was not as it seemed. There was a string of lawsuits from creditors alleging unpaid bills, a federal lawsuit to enforce compliance with an SEC subpoena (now dismissed) and exaggerated claims about the extent of their partnerships with Manchester City Football Club and Google (per Forbes’ previous reporting). The company also touted “top-tier” investors who never directly invested in the firm, and its anonymous $3 billion investment that its spokesperson told Forbes in March was in “an Infinite Reality account and is available to us” and that they were “actively leveraging” it.

The convoluted history of Napster dates back to 2019 when Acunto bought a bankrupt social media company Tsu. That entity, in turn, merged with, or acquired, at least a dozen (some tiny, some struggling) metaverse, virtual reality, drone and AI companies largely paid for in all-stock mergers at higher and higher valuations. By then known as Infinite Reality, it acquired Napster in March for $207 million and rebranded itself, using the much higher-profile name, in May.

On the day Forbes published its first story about Napster’s questionable funding round, Napster put out a press release claiming to reveal the investor’s identity as advisory firm Sterling Select, citing overwhelming media attention as the reason it did so. Sterling Select is a separate entity from Sterling Equities, the firm that invests the assets of former New York Mets majority owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz; the only common owner is David Katz, a partner of Sterling Equities who cofounded Sterling Select. But here it gets even more confusing: Sterling Select was not in fact the “investor”—but instead introduced Napster to other “investors” who in turn wrote the checks, Napster’s chief marketing officer Karina Kogan told Forbes. (The company later amended its press release to reflect that Sterling Select was not the investor.)

Several shareholders told Forbes that by May Acunto had upped the ante, telling them that they would soon be able to sell their shares at $20 a pop, thanks to the mystery investor. That would put the firm’s valuation at $18 billion, and mean it was valued at 240 times its 2024 revenue—50% higher than it claimed even in January. Outwardly it continued on with its business, pushing a pivot to AI away from the metaverse and picking up at least three more companies in part using its stock as currency.

But as the weeks passed, few signs of a big investor emerged. No one could cash out (though a couple of lenders made a big enough fuss to get some money back). More lawsuits alleging nonpayment were filed including one in June in which original owners of virtual reality company Obsess, a company Napster bought in January, claimed they still hadn’t been paid the $22 million they said Napster owed. Napster alleged in a counterclaim that Obsess was the one to “cook its books” and that it bought the company based on allegedly false financial information, which Obsess denied. The case is ongoing. In another case, Sony sued Napster in August for $9.2 million in damages stemming from allegedly unpaid royalties and other fees. (Napster didn’t respond; a clerk filed a certificate of default in October.)

Then came a big round of layoffs in July. An estimated one-third of the staff, or according to one laid-off employee, 100 people, mostly developers, were let go. That person also questioned the hype around some of the product announcements while they were at the company, describing them as “ChatGPT word salad.” In a text message to Forbes at the time, spokesperson Gillian Sheldon explained that the layoffs were the “result of workforce redundancies stemming primarily from the acquisitions we’ve made over the past 18 months … we continue to employ hundreds of full-time team members around the world.” In September, Napster’s chief legal officer Jennifer Pepin and chief financial officer Brian Effrain left the company, according to their LinkedIn profiles. Pepin didn’t respond to a request for comment; Effrain confirmed he is no longer at Napster but declined to comment further.

All along, Napster appears to have been scrambling to raise cash to keep the lights on, working with brokers and investment advisors including a few who had previously gotten into trouble with regulators. Cova Capital, which says it represented the mystery investor, previously got in trouble with broker-dealer watchdog FINRA for recommending private share sales to retail investors without “conducting due diligence sufficient to form a reasonable basis to believe that the offerings were suitable for, or in the best interest of, at least some investors.” FINRA also alleged that Cova, led by CEO Edward Gibstein, didn’t do enough to make sure the issuer actually had the rights to the shares or determine how much the shares had been marked up; Cova paid a fine in March “without admitting to or denying the findings.” Cova employee Vincent Sharpe had also paid fines to settle three customer disputes for allegations of misrepresentation of information and unsuitable investment recommendations at a previous firm; he denied wrongdoing. Laren Pisciotti, who was charged by the SEC for her role in perpetrating an unrelated $120 million fraud scheme last year, appears to have helped Napster raise funds, including short-term, high-interest loans in 2024. Pisciotti, through her lawyer, declined to comment. It’s not clear how many more investors signed on or if any of the above individuals were involved, it apparently raised an estimated tens of millions in additional capital after announcing the $3 billion investment.

If it turns out that Napster knew the fundraise wasn’t happening and it benefited from misrepresenting itself to investors or acquirees, it could face much bigger problems. That’s because doing so could be considered securities fraud. If the company is “ lying to the investor to induce the investor to buy securities … that would be fraud,” says startup lawyer Patrick McCloskey, who is not involved in the case. He emphasized that it depends on whether the funds were on the balance sheet, whether the company believed the funds were really under their control and other factors related to what Napster knew and what it intended.

The one thing that’s certain is that this mystery has not been solved.

Analysts are saying that Delta Air Lines could rise by 2030, with long-term forecasts pointing to meaningful upside as the airline leans on premium travel demand and high-margin loyalty revenue. If you’re bullish on DAL, SoFi lets you trade Delta stock with zero commissions, and new users who fund their account can receive up to 1,000 dollars in stock. You can also earn a 1 percent bonus when transferring investments and keeping them with SoFi through December 31, 2025 — a limited-time incentive for long-term investors.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) is navigating capacity normalization, strong premium travel demand and persistent cost pressures from labor and fuel. The airline is also adjusting its global route networks while monitoring tariff developments that could increase costs and slow fleet expansion. For now, investors should expect continued volatility as Delta balances these competing forces.

Don’t Miss:

According to Benzinga, Delta is a consensus Buy, with analysts assigning an average price target of 68.69 dollars. The highest target stands at 90 dollars, and the lowest at 39 dollars. The most recent price targets — from BofA Securities, Raymond James and UBS — average 73 dollars, reflecting almost 28 percent upside.

These projections are based on CoinCodex modeling using historical price action, trend analysis and long-horizon moving averages.

Delta’s premium travel segment remains one of the strongest in the industry, supported by demand for business-class cabins and steady economic strength among higher-income travelers. Its SkyMiles loyalty program — and its partnership with American Express — delivers some of the highest-margin recurring revenue in the airline sector, offering stability even when ticket revenue fluctuates.

The carrier also benefits from effective fuel-cost management, improved labor agreements and growing international travel demand. As global route networks normalize and fleet utilization improves, Delta is positioned to generate stronger cash flow. Ongoing investment in aircraft efficiency, digital upgrades and sustainability initiatives further supports long-term competitiveness.

Delta faces rising uncertainty from tariff increases on imported aircraft and parts. These added costs could significantly raise capital expenditures, strain margins and delay fleet modernization. Continued trade tensions also introduce risk around international demand and cross-border route economics.

Fuel price volatility and new labor contracts across pilots and cabin crew threaten cost stability. Slower global growth or recessionary conditions could weaken discretionary travel demand, reducing premium ticket revenue. Meanwhile, aggressive competition from both U.S. carriers and international airlines poses ongoing pricing and yield pressure.

• Bullish: 58.75

• Average: 55.68

• Bearish: 52.04

According to CoinCodex, 2025 is expected to bring modest movement within a stable channel as Delta contends with labor-cost inflation and the lingering effects of geopolitical tensions.

• Bullish: 66.72

• Average: 52.28

• Bearish: 41.19

Forecast models widen significantly for 2026, signaling higher uncertainty. The broader range reflects the mixed impact of premium demand versus potential headwinds from elevated fuel prices, new labor agreements and competitive capacity increases.

• Bullish: 95.38

• Average: 74.62

• Bearish: 58.81

Long-term projections suggest meaningful upside for DAL, expecting the airline to benefit from a more efficient fleet, fully normalized international routes and continued growth in loyalty-program revenue. High-margin SkyMiles income may act as a shock absorber against the inherent volatility of fuel and labor costs.

Tariffs remain one of Delta’s biggest strategic risks. Additional fees on foreign aircraft and components could elevate expenses and slow fleet upgrades. Shifting capex toward untaxed domestic options might also limit fleet modernization and restrict long-haul route expansion.

Economic downturns represent another key threat. Even though premium travel tends to be resilient, a sharp global slowdown could hit corporate travel budgets and weaken demand at the top of the fare pyramid — a core profit driver for Delta.

Investors should closely monitor the health of Delta’s loyalty program, as it provides reliable cash flow that often offsets cyclical fluctuations in ticket revenue. At the same time, monitoring jet fuel hedging strategies and unit-cost trends will be essential for evaluating the airline’s ability to maintain margin discipline.

Delta’s long-term outlook remains tied to its success in balancing premium-focused strategy with operational efficiency. If the airline manages to stabilize costs and grow its high-margin revenue streams, DAL could offer significant upside — but risks remain firmly in play as global competition and tariff uncertainty continue to evolve.

When evaluating any stock price forecast, it’s wise to think about portfolio balance and not rely on a single company’s trajectory. Markets shift quickly, and putting all of your capital into one sector or stock can increase risk. Many investors are turning to platforms that open the door to real estate, professional financial advice, fixed-income products, and even self-directed retirement options. These tools make it easier to diversify, smooth out volatility, and build wealth across multiple asset classes over time.

Backed by Jeff Bezos, Arrived Homes makes real estate investing accessible with a low barrier to entry. Investors can buy fractional shares of single-family rentals and vacation homes starting with as little as $100. This allows everyday investors to diversify into real estate, collect rental income, and build long-term wealth without needing to manage properties directly.

For those seeking fixed-income style returns without Wall Street complexity, Worthy Bonds offers SEC-qualified, interest-bearing bonds starting at just $10. Investors earn a fixed 7% annual return, with funds deployed to small U.S. businesses. The bonds are fully liquid, meaning you can cash out anytime, making them attractive for conservative investors looking for steady, passive income.

Self-directed investors looking to take greater control of their retirement savings may consider IRA Financial. The platform enables you to use a self-directed IRA or Solo 401(k) to invest in alternative assets such as real estate, private equity, or even crypto. This flexibility empowers retirement savers to go beyond traditional stocks and bonds, building diversified portfolios that align with their long-term wealth strategies.

SoFi gives members access to a wide range of professionally managed alternative funds, covering everything from commodities and private credit to venture capital, hedge funds, and real estate. These funds can provide broader diversification, help smooth out portfolio volatility, and potentially boost total returns over time. Many of the funds have relatively low minimums, making alternative investing accessible.

Range Wealth Management takes a modern, subscription-based approach to financial planning. Instead of charging asset-based fees, the platform offers flat-fee tiers that provide unlimited access to fiduciary advisors along with AI-powered planning tools. Investors can link their accounts without moving assets, while higher-level plans unlock advanced support for taxes, real estate, and multi-generational wealth strategies. This model makes Range especially appealing to high-earning professionals who want holistic advice and predictable pricing.

For investors concerned about inflation or seeking portfolio protection, American Hartford Gold provides a simple way to buy and hold physical gold and silver within an IRA or direct delivery. With a minimum investment of $10,000, the platform caters to those looking to preserve wealth through precious metals while maintaining the option to diversify retirement accounts. It’s a favored choice for conservative investors who want tangible assets that historically hold value during uncertain markets.

See Next:

UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets.

Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga:

This article DAL Stock Price Prediction: Where Delta Air Lines Could Be by 2025, 2026, and 2030 originally appeared on Benzinga.com