Category: 3. Business

A local authority is encouraging its residents to recycle “every crust, peel and coffee ground” to help the environment and local farmers.

Reading Borough Council will give residents a free roll of food waste caddy liners over the festive season to encourage recycling.

Karen Rowland, the council’s environmental services and community safety lead, said Reading was recycling less food waste per household than Bracknell Forest and Wokingham and this gave residents “no excuse not to start”.

The council said all households and most flats in the Berkshire town already have access to weekly food waste collections but nearly 30% of general waste still consists of food that could be recycled.

Ms Rowland said: “Every crust, peel and coffee ground you recycle helps to create renewable energy and nutrient-rich compost used by local farmers.

“It’s a simple way we can all do something positive for our community and the planet.”

She said many local people were passionate about the environment but the authority would also be providing stickers to locals as “a gentle reminder” that food waste belongs in the caddy and not the grey non-recyclable bin.

BellRing Brands (BRBR) shares have been relatively flat today, gaining just under 0.1%. While there is no significant headline moving the stock at the moment, it is still worth looking at how the company currently stands in the market.

See our latest analysis for BellRing Brands.

Bullish runs earlier this year have faded for BellRing Brands, with a 1-year total shareholder return of negative 62.6% and the share price currently at $26.96. While revenue and profit have shown solid growth, recent momentum has shifted clearly to the downside. This reminds investors that sentiment can turn quickly even for fundamentally healthy companies.

If today’s volatility has you wanting to broaden your view, consider using our tool to discover fast growing stocks with high insider ownership.

The question now is whether BellRing Brands is presenting a compelling value given its current declines, or if the market is already factoring in the future growth outlook and leaving little room for upside for new investors.

With BellRing Brands last closing at $26.96 and the most widely followed narrative estimating fair value near $50, attention on the margin between current price and potential upside remains high. The story behind this calculation gives insight into what could move the share price next.

Expansion into new product formats (single-serve, non-dairy almond milk shakes, indulgence lines) and increased innovation pipelines allow BellRing to address evolving consumer preferences and new consumption occasions. This supports both revenue growth and margin accretion as more premium, differentiated offerings gain traction.

Read the complete narrative.

Which precise innovation or shift in consumer trends is driving this bold valuation? A single assumption ties together brand momentum, earnings strength, and future profitability. Don’t miss out—the details could surprise even experienced investors.

Result: Fair Value of $50 (UNDERVALUED)

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

However, sustained margin pressure from rising input costs or unexpected shifts in consumer demand could quickly challenge the current bullish outlook for BellRing Brands.

Find out about the key risks to this BellRing Brands narrative.

If you see things differently or want to test your own investment thesis, you can easily craft and share a personal view in just minutes. Do it your way.

A great starting point for your BellRing Brands research is our analysis highlighting 4 key rewards and 1 important warning sign that could impact your investment decision.

Staying ahead in the market means keeping your options open. Don’t miss opportunities others overlook. Let these unique themes help guide your next smart move.

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 BRBR.

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

Alibaba Group Holding (NYSE:BABA) shares have seen notable movement lately, as investors process recent developments and shifts in the broader market landscape. While no major event stands out this week, the company’s fundamentals remain in focus for long-term holders.

See our latest analysis for Alibaba Group Holding.

Alibaba’s share price has been through a volatile stretch lately, with a strong rally earlier this year giving way to some recent pullbacks. Even with the latest 7.3% dip over the past month, the stock still boasts an impressive 81% share price return year-to-date and a remarkable 101% total shareholder return over the past three years. This signals that momentum has been building despite short-term moves.

If Alibaba’s rebound has you rethinking where to look next, consider broadening your perspective and discover fast growing stocks with high insider ownership

Given Alibaba’s sizeable rebound and the solid growth in both revenue and net income, investors are left to wonder: is the market undervaluing its future, or is all that growth already reflected in the price, leaving little room for upside?

According to StefanoF, Alibaba’s current share price of $153.80 is significantly higher than the narrative’s fair value estimate of $107.09. This substantial gap raises important questions about what investors are paying for and whether near-term optimism is justified at these levels.

While Alibaba shows strong operational momentum, particularly in AI and cloud services, the current stock price appears to fully reflect near-term growth prospects given macro headwinds and geopolitical risks.

Read the complete narrative.

Curious what ambitious assumptions drive this bold fair value? The narrative uses a detailed cash flow model and makes bets on future growth, profit margins, and sector leadership. Want to discover which key numbers and trends caused such a valuation gap? Uncover the specifics that set this analysis apart.

Result: Fair Value of $107.09 (OVERVALUED)

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

However, mounting US-China trade tensions and renewed regulatory pressures could challenge current optimism. These factors could quickly shift the market’s perception of Alibaba’s valuation.

Find out about the key risks to this Alibaba Group Holding narrative.

Looking at one of the most common approaches, Alibaba’s price-to-earnings ratio stands at 16.4x, which is well below its industry average of 20.5x, the peer average of 38.8x, and even the market’s fair ratio estimate of 27.4x. This suggests the market may not be fully pricing in Alibaba’s growth potential, or it could reflect lingering skepticism or perceived risks. Could this gap signal a bargain ahead, or is it a warning sign investors should heed?

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

If you see things differently or enjoy forming your own conclusions, you can piece together your Alibaba story using live data in just a few minutes. Do it your way

A good starting point is our analysis highlighting 5 key rewards investors are optimistic about regarding Alibaba Group Holding.

Smart investors always keep an eye out for the next opportunity. Don’t limit yourself. Expand your research into breakthrough sectors and hidden gems that could deliver your next big win.

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 BABA.

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

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

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

US retailers fear they will be short-changed by the demise of the penny, warning of new costs and potential legal liabilities. 

Trade groups redoubled a campaign for legislative relief this week as Congress returned to Washington after the extended government shutdown and the last new copper penny was struck by the US Mint. 

President Donald Trump ordered a halt to penny production earlier this year as a money-saving measure, as each coin cost nearly four times more to make than its face value. 

The US followed other large economies in phasing out the smallest unit of physical currency as inflation eroded its value. Canada stopped making its penny in 2012, while Australia’s one-cent coin was discontinued in 1992. 

But the US effort stands out for its speed: the Mint ended large-scale penny production in June and the Federal Reserve has already suspended distribution from a majority of its 165 coin hubs. 

“When Canada did this, it took them three years,” said Austen Jensen of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents the largest US store chains. “We are just moving at lightning speed, and it’s spreading much quicker than what anybody anticipated in the industry.” 

The American Bankers Association, an industry lobby group, has written to the Fed requesting they reopen the closed coin terminal locations.

“In those areas [where coin hubs are closed], retailers that want pennies don’t have a source for them,” said ABA senior vice-president for payments Steve Kenneally.

Government officials have no plans to withdraw the 300bn pennies already in circulation. But retailers with dozens of stores each “have been out of pennies for quite a few weeks now”, said Dylan Jeon, senior director of government relations at the National Retail Federation. 

Stores short of pennies have been posting signs to inform customers who pay in cash that their change will be rounded. 

“If we owe them a penny in change, and can’t give them a penny, we’ll give them a nickel,” said Joel Rampoldt, chief executive of the US division of Lidl, the German grocery chain. But rounding has been “very stressful” for Lidl employees doing it “dozens, hundreds of times in a day”.  

Rounding in favour of customers comes at a cost to retailers. Inside US convenience stores, where cash is used in about half of 125mn daily purchases, rounding down would lower industry sales by about $1.25mn a day as cash purchases require two pennies in change on average, according to the National Association of Convenience Stores. 

Rounding up or down depending on the value of a purchase would spread the burden. An earlier analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond estimated rounding to the nearest nickel would cost consumers about $6mn a year. 

One option, according to the ABA’s Kenneally, is to follow the Canadian model where if the final amount ends in a one, two, six or seven cents, the retailer rounds down to the nearest nickel and if it ends in three, four, eight or nine the amount is rounded up.

Retail groups have been lobbying Congress for legal protection to round purchase values to the closest nickel. They say that at least 10 states and cities require exact change, putting customers paying with cash on equal footing with those using cards or apps. The declining supply of pennies makes that impossible, say the retailers. 

Some states set minimum prices for certain items including milk and tobacco, said Jeff Lenard, a spokesman at the convenience store association. “If you round down, that would violate minimum pricing,” he said. 

An equal treatment rule also applies to recipients of federal food subsidies under the $100bn Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Rounding in favour of cash customers would put these beneficiaries at a disadvantage, potentially forcing retailers to break government rules. 

A lack of pennies could also complicate stores’ and banks’ ability to cash cheques, a common practice for lower-income households who lack bank accounts, the retail groups said. 

Retail groups are hopeful that a bipartisan bill addressing these concerns will soon move through Congress now that the government shutdown is over. 

But the uncertainty comes as their members gear up for the holiday shopping season. 

“The biggest thing is that this is occurring right now during the craziest time of the year, the most important time of year, which is holiday,” said Jensen, senior executive vice-president of public affairs of RILA, whose members include Walmart, Target and TJX. 

Some retailers are taking matters into their own hands to address the coin deficit. Supermarket chain Giant Eagle earlier this month enticed customers to turn over pennies and receive gift cards worth twice as much in return.

MIAMI, Nov. 15, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Peter Nobel, Chairman of the Nobel Sustainability Trust (NST), and Tracy Wang, Chief Executive Officer of NST, expressed their profound admiration for Qatar’s remarkable achievements and forward-looking vision in sustainability, innovation, and environmental stewardship during their recent visit to Doha.

The delegation from NST was deeply impressed by Qatar’s unwavering commitment to creating a sustainable future, one that not only safeguards the environment but also inspires a global movement toward responsible growth and a better world for generations to come.

In a special meeting, H.E. Abdullah bin Hamad Al Attiya, Minister of Municipality and Chairman of Qatari Diar, shared invaluable insights into Qatar’s strategic approach and the nation’s relentless drive to remain ahead of the curve. His Excellency emphasized how Qatar’s leadership continues to challenge conventional thinking, innovate across sectors, and integrate sustainability into every layer of national development.

The visit also included presentations from other Qatar entities, where NST delegates witnessed first-hand groundbreaking sustainability initiatives. These accomplishments further reinforce Qatar’s position as a beacon of excellence in environmental responsibility and sustainable advancement.

“What we have seen in Qatar is nothing short of inspirational and transformative,” said Peter Nobel, Chairman of the Nobel Sustainability Trust. “Qatar is not only achieving sustainability milestones but is redefining what it means to lead with vision, purpose, and responsibility. The entire nation—its leadership, institutions, and people, should take immense pride in these achievements.”

Tracy Wang, CEO of NST, added: “The spirit of collaboration and innovation we have witnessed here reflects a nation determined to build a legacy of progress. Qatar’s example will serve as a global benchmark for sustainable transformation.”

The Nobel Sustainability Trust reaffirmed its commitment to showcasing Qatar’s accomplishments on the world stage, recognizing the nation as a leading force in sustainable development, innovation, and the pursuit of a better future for all.

About Nobel Sustainability Trust (NST):
The Nobel Sustainability Trust, founded by members of the Nobel family, promotes global initiatives and partnerships that advance sustainable innovation, renewable energy, and responsible development. The Trust honors and collaborates with leaders and nations that exemplify excellence in shaping a sustainable world.

Photo – https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2823639/Nobel_Sustainability_Trust.jpg

Welcome to the Wall Street Week newsletter, bringing you stories of capitalism about things you need to know, but even more things you need to think about. I’m David Westin, and this week Ana Botín, executive chair of Banco Santander, told us the reasons for her bank’s success this year. Plus, we delved into the strange new world of quantum computing. If you’re not yet a subscriber, sign up here for this newsletter.

By all accounts the largest bank in Spain, Banco Santander has had a very good year. Executive Chair Ana Botín points to high profits, “for shareholders, great value creation,” and a “share price up 100%.” With all that success, she sees more yet to come: “Our multiples are still very attractive compared to US banks.”

Company: Cooper Companies (COO)

Business: The Cooper Companies is a global medical device company. It operates in two business units: CooperVision and CooperSurgical. The CooperVision segment is involved in the contact lens industry, while the CooperSurgical segment is involved in the fertility and women’s health care market through its diversified portfolio of products and services, including fertility products and services, medical devices, cryostorage (such as cord blood and cord tissue storage) and contraception. CooperVision’s products include MyDay daily disposable, MyDay daily disposable toric, MyDay Energys, MyDay multifocal, Biofinity & Biofinity XR, Biofinity Energys. CooperSurgical’s portfolio includes INSORB, Lone Star, and the Doppler Blood Flow Monitor. It also offers a suite of single-use cordless surgical retractors with an integrated multi-light-emitting diode (LED) light source and dual smoke evacuation channels, and single-use surgical suction devices with an integrated, cordless radial LED light source.

Stock Market Value: $14.41 billion ($72.49 per share)

Activist: Jana Partners

Ownership: n/a

Average Cost: n/a

Activist Commentary: Jana is a very experienced activist investor founded in 2001 by Barry Rosenstein. They made their name taking deeply researched activist positions with well-conceived plans for long term value. Rosenstein called his activist strategy “V cubed.” The three “Vs” were: (i) Value: buying at the right price; (ii) Votes: knowing whether you have the votes before commencing a proxy fight; and (iii) Variety of ways to win: having more than one strategy to enhance value and exit an investment. Since 2008, they have gradually shifted that strategy to one which we characterize as the three “Ss”: (i) Stock price – buying at the right price; (ii) Strategic activism – sale of company or spinoff of a business; and (iii) Star advisors/nominees – aligning with top industry executives to advise them and take board seats if necessary.

What’s happening

On Oct. 20, Jana announced that they took a position in Cooper Cos. and plan to push for strategic alternatives, including a potential transaction to combine its contact lens unit with peers such as Bausch + Lomb.

Behind the scenes

Cooper Cos. is a leading global medical device company operating through two segments: CooperVision and CooperSurgical. CooperVision (66% of revenue) is focused on the sale of contact lenses. CooperVision is the global leader by contact wearers and second in terms of market share (26%), competing against Johnson and Johnson (37%), Alcon (26%), and Bausch + Lomb (10%).

The global soft contact lens market is estimated to be worth about $11 billion and is growing at 4% to 6% annually. The segment has numerous tailwinds including a steady shift into silicone hydrogel 1-day lenses (about 40% of consumers are still using non-daily lenses), global growth in contact users, and high barriers to entry for competitors. As such, this is a great business that generates EBITDA margins in the mid-30s.

CooperSurgical (33% of revenue) is focused on women’s health services, with 60% of its fiscal year 2024 revenue derived from office and surgical (Paragard IUDs, stem cell cryostorage, medical devices) and 40% from fertility (IVF consumables, equipment, genomic and donor services). Fertility treatment is a $2 billion global market, also expected to grow at a 4% to 6% pace annually.

For most of its history, Cooper was a pureplay vision business, until they added CooperSurgical in the 90s. Initially, this was a small – arguably tax-motivated – add-on. However, the company began heavily investing in this segment in 2017 – spending over $3 billion on the segment since.

The problem with this shift is pretty clear – Cooper is effectively siphoning off cash from a really good contact lens business and then reinvesting it in what most people would judge to be a less attractive business. This is evident in the company’s declining returns on capital, with CooperSurgical now operating at lower margins than they did in 2017 despite these massive investments.

A key factor behind this operational shift may be management changes. The company’s CEO Albert White, who previously led CooperSurgical, assumed leadership shortly after this expansion began. This raises a larger question about the company’s strategic focus, leading many to question why the leader of this company would not have expertise in its core business.

These strategic missteps have been further compounded by near-term headwinds across both segments, some self-inflicted. For CooperVision, the company mismanaged market expectations for the rollout of its new daily lens product, MyDay Energys, which is now behind schedule.

For CooperSurgical, its highest quality business, IVF, has slowed meaningfully, likely attributable to comments from President Donald Trump suggesting potential reimbursements for IVF costs, causing patients to delay treatment in anticipation of this potential coverage. As a result, top-line organic growth fell meaningfully below expectations to 2%, down from 7% the prior quarter, forcing Cooper to significantly lower its full-year guidance at its third-quarter earnings call, sending the company’s share price down 12.85% the following day. Now, Cooper is trading at a 12-month forward P/E of 16.4x — a steep discount to its 10-year average of 23.1x.

All of this has prompted Jana Partners to announce a top portfolio position in Cooper and plans to push for strategic alternatives, including a potential transaction to combine its contact lens unit with peers such as Bausch + Lomb. While a transaction of this nature would typically raise some antitrust concerns, this may actually be the opposite case here.

First, a merger would not result in a market leader, as the combined market share of 36% would be just below market leader J&J’s share of 37% and not too far ahead of Alcon’s 26% share.

Secondly, these businesses are highly complementary with minimal geographical and product overlap, suggesting a reduction in the likelihood of regulatory hurdles. Notably, Bausch + Lomb has not been shy about their potential interest and also sees no regulatory issues, as CEO Brent Saunders has publicly stated that a potential combination with Cooper would “strengthen competition and create a more scaled company in the contact lens segment.”

But Bausch + Lomb is not the only potential acquirer. Companies like European eyewear manufacturer EssilorLuxottica could also have interest and with even less regulatory uncertainty.

As for CooperSurgical, there would certainly be private equity interest, as evidenced by Blackstone and TPG nearing a deal to acquire peer Hologic. However, Cooper shareholders may realize more value from the company cleaning up this portfolio internally – focusing more on the higher-multiple IVF business, shedding certain non-core assets, and potentially putting in new operators to execute a strong turnaround.

Overall, with short-term headwinds likely to ease, Cooper has multiple avenues to recover its discount and open itself up for a potential rerating. Jana’s thesis is straightforward: these two businesses make no sense under the same roof and a strategic combination for the vision business could yield $300 million to 500 million synergies, which is a lot for a business with $850 million in EBITDA. But step one in their plan is convincing management that separating the two businesses is the right strategic move; and despite growing public attention, there is no guarantee that management, especially with this type of operating history, will agree.

Should management resist, this campaign changes dramatically from a strategic thesis to a leadership/governance thesis, likely centered on appointing a new CEO with a deep background in the contact lens industry to refocus the company on its core, while still positioning it for a separation down the line.

Jana is not outwardly calling for a management change and White may even be the best person to lead a standalone CooperSurgical business. But activism is about the power of the argument and Jana seems to make a persuasive one here. Let’s hope for all involved that management sees it that way.

Ken Squire is the founder and president of 13D Monitor, an institutional research service on shareholder activism, and the founder and portfolio manager of the 13D Activist Fund, a mutual fund that invests in a portfolio of activist investments.

Earlier this year, the electric-vehicle maker decided that it would stop using China-based suppliers for Tesla cars that are made in the U.S., according to people familiar with the situation. Tesla and its suppliers have already replaced some China-made components with parts made elsewhere. Tesla is aiming to switch all other components to those made outside of China in the next year or two, some of the people said.

Tesla has been trying to reduce its dependence on China-made components for its U.S. cars since the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted the flow of goods from China, encouraging its China-based suppliers to make components elsewhere including in Mexico. But this year, after President Trump imposed stiff tariffs on Chinese imports, the company accelerated the strategy to cut out Chinese parts, the people said.

China is a major producer and exporter of auto parts—including chips and batteries—and materials that go inside cars. Many of them are cheaper due to China’s huge production scale, lower costs and weak currency.

Tesla executives have been grappling with the uncertainty brought by fluctuating tariff levels in the U.S.-China trade battle, which has made it difficult for the carmaker to formulate a coherent pricing strategy, some of the people said.

The geopolitical tensions between Washington and Beijing and the fallout on the global auto supply chain have only intensified Tesla’s urgency in pursuing the China-free strategy. In recent weeks, fresh disruptions in the supply of automotive chips stemming from a spat between China and the Netherlands have triggered discussions at Tesla about the need to accelerate diversification, some of the people said.

Tesla didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Tesla’s strategy is the latest example of how trade and geopolitical tensions are driving a decoupling of the world’s two largest economies and increasingly redrawing global supply chains. Many American companies are seeking to exclude China-made components or manufacture outside of China when it comes to products for the U.S. market. In turn, Chinese technology companies are erasing American components and technology from their supply chains.

The auto industry has been hit particularly hard by China-U.S. friction because of the global nature of its supply chains and business. This spring, automakers were rattled after China imposed export restrictions on certain rare earths and magnets that are widely used in cars and their production. More recently, carmakers have struggled to secure chips after China blocked the export of semiconductors made by a firm called Nexperia that are used in car lights and electronics.

Nexperia is a Dutch company whose chips are largely manufactured in Europe but ultimately are exported to the world from China, where processing and packaging take place. China blocked the export of the chips after the Dutch government seized control of Nexperia from its Chinese parent, which is on a U.S. trade blacklist.

The Dutch and Chinese governments are still fighting over the issue, even though Beijing has allowed Nexperia chips to be shipped out to some overseas customers following a summit last month between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

The U.S. is Tesla’s biggest market, and Tesla vehicles running on American roads are produced at the carmaker’s factories in the U.S. In China, Tesla produces cars at its Shanghai plant using mostly locally produced components. The Shanghai-made cars are shipped both within China and overseas, mostly to Asia and Europe, but not to the U.S.

Over the years, Chinese suppliers that Tesla has been working with in China have increasingly been shipping parts globally for the carmaker’s factories elsewhere. A China-based executive said earlier this year that the Shanghai factory had some 400 direct Chinese suppliers, more than 60 of which had supplied Tesla’s global production.

Tesla has been pursuing a strategy of cutting back on made-in-China components for its U.S. cars since Trump’s first administration. As a part of this approach, Tesla has worked with its Chinese suppliers—including those making seat covers and metal casings—to set up factories and warehouses in Mexico and Southeast Asia in recent years, people familiar with the project said.

One Chinese-made component that Tesla is struggling to substitute is the lithium-iron phosphate battery. China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology, or CATL, has been a major supplier to Tesla for the battery, known as LFP.

Until last year, Tesla was selling cars in the U.S. with Chinese-produced LFP batteries, but since then it stopped doing so, because they became ineligible for EV-related tax credits and also due to U.S. tariffs.

Tesla is working to build LFP batteries for energy-storage products in the U.S. In October, the company said it expected its facility in Nevada making such battery products to start running in the first quarter of 2026.

Tesla Chief Financial Officer Vaibhav Taneja said in April that the company was working on manufacturing LFP cells in the U.S., and on “securing additional supply chain from non-China-based suppliers.”

“But it will take time,” he said.

Write to Raffaele Huang at raffaele.huang@wsj.com and Yoko Kubota at yoko.kubota@wsj.com