Dukki: Deputy Commissioner Muhammad Naeem Khan, along with WHO Coordinator Dr. Zarak Khan Achakzai and DHO Dr. Bahadur Khan Loni, inspected vaccination efforts…
The board interviewed several candidates before opting to appoint Bender, according to the report.
Sign up here.
Reuters could not immediately verify the report. Kohl’s did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Michael Bender could not be immediately reached for a comment on the role change.
Buchanan’s firing in May was the third CEO change in three years for Kohl’s, hit by falling sales from online and big-box rivals, plus its own missteps.
Kohl’s named Bender as its interim CEO effective immediately following the ouster of Buchanan, and said that the search for a permanent chief executive would begin soon.
Reporting by Bipasha Dey in Bengaluru
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
For network operators, a BSOD displays a serious Microsoft Windows system issue. For everyone else, it’s a photo opportunity. Social media is full of compilations of crashed displays at airports, shopping malls, and trade shows – often…
Charles Leclerc admits that Ferrari “lost a good opportunity to do something special” having just missed out on a podium in the Las Vegas Grand Prix.
The Monegasque driver started P9 after struggling in a wet Qualifying session before putting in…
Over the past decade, Bitcoin has been the top-performing asset in the world.
Bitcoin has been growing exponentially over time and could hit a price of $1 million by 2030.
While Ethereum has largely followed the path of Bitcoin over the past decade, it hasn’t been able to deliver quite the same level of performance.
10 stocks we like better than Bitcoin ›
Over the past decade, investing in hypergrowth cryptocurrencies has become a proven way to attain millionaire status. According to the latest Crypto Wealth Report from Henley & Partners, there are an estimated 241,700 crypto millionaires in the world right now.
Of these, 145,100 are Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) millionaires. But is Bitcoin still the most likely way to grow your wealth over time? Or could Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) potentially offer a faster path to millionaire status? Let’s take a closer look.
The key to Bitcoin’s enormous success has been its ability to compound its performance, year after year, with just a few missteps along the way. Since 2010, Bitcoin has only had three losing years: 2014, 2018, and 2022. In every other year, it has ripped higher at a head-spinning rate.
More than any other cryptocurrency, Bitcoin demonstrates the power of compounding returns. In the period from 2017 to 2025, Bitcoin grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 50%. That’s all the more impressive given that it collapsed in value in both 2018 and 2022. But the other years were so phenomenal that they more than made up for the bad years.
In fact, it’s getting to the point where investors think Bitcoin can double in value every year. At the start of this year, for example, the conventional wisdom was that Bitcoin would double in value, from $100,000 to $200,000. That hasn’t been the case, of course, but Bitcoin did hit a new all-time high of $126,000 in October.
Ethereum has been no slouch, either. During that same time period, Ethereum grew at a CAGR of 33%. Ethereum, too, tends to follow a four-year cycle, in which three good years are followed by one absolutely miserable year. After growing by 472% in 2020 and 395% in 2021, for example, Ethereum promptly gave it all back. In 2022, Ethereum lost 68% of its value.
Another way to evaluate the millionaire-maker potential of any cryptocurrency is by taking into account future growth projections. In most cases, these are built by evaluating the potential use cases of a cryptocurrency, and then estimating how much market share it might gain within a certain niche, vertical, or industry.
Combining darolutamide (Nubeqa) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) showed improvements in efficacy vs placebo plus ADT among patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) who were 75 years or older, according to subgroup findings from the phase 3 ARASENS trial (NCT02799602) published in European Urology Oncology.1
Among patients who were 75 years or older, the median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 45.4-NR) in the darolutamide arm vs 42.0 months (95% CI, 33.8-48.9) in the placebo arm (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.91). In each respective arm, the median time to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) was NR (95% CI, 36.0-NR) vs 19.4 months (95% CI, 14.0-24.8; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.64), and the median time to initiation of subsequent antineoplastic treatment was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) vs 24.9 months (95% CI, 20.0-34.0; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.54).
In a population of patients who were younger than 75, data showed a median OS that was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) with the darolutamide regimen and NR (95% CI, 45.0-NR) with the placebo combination (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.84). Additionally, the median time to CRPC was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) vs 17.3 months (95% CI, 16.4-19.5) in each arm (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.43). Investigators also noted a median time to initiation of subsequent antineoplastic therapy of NR (95% CI, NR-NR) vs 25.3 months (95% CI, 22.4-29.5) with each regimen (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34-0.48).
“In patients aged [75 or older] in the ARASENS trial, darolutamide demonstrated improved efficacy vs placebo and favorable safety, consistent with the findings in patients aged [younger than 75],” lead study author Joan Carles Galceran, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist in the Department of Oncology at Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron in Barcelona, Spain, wrote with coauthors in the publication.1 “Thus, darolutamide and ADT with docetaxel can be considered a standard of care for patients with [metastatic] HSPC regardless of age.”
In the international phase 3 ARASENS trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive darolutamide at 600 mg orally twice daily or matched placebo plus ADT and docetaxel. As part of this subgroup analysis, investigators assessed outcomes in patients who were younger than 75 (n = 1086) or 75 years and older (n = 219).
The trial’s primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs), time to CRPC, time to pain progression, time to initiation of subsequent antineoplastic therapy, and time to worsening of disease-related physical symptoms.2
Patients 18 years and older with cytologically or histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and metastatic disease were eligible for enrollment on the trial. Additional eligibility criteria included having an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function.
Investigators noted similar baseline disease and demographic features across the darolutamide and placebo arms in both age subgroups, although ongoing comorbidities were more frequent in patients who were 75 years or older. The most frequent prior and ongoing comorbidity types in patients who were younger than 75 or 75 and older, respectively, included vascular (55% vs 67%), musculoskeletal or connective tissue (42% vs 42%), and metabolism or nutrition (35% vs 43%).
Among patients 75 years and older in the darolutamide and placebo arms, 99% and 99% from each group had any-grade TEAEs, the most common of which included neutropenia (43% vs 46%), fatigue (33% vs 36%), and peripheral edema (30% vs 35%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 74% vs 70% of each arm, with the most common including neutropenia (40% vs 41%) and febrile neutropenia (14% vs 9.7%).
Among those who were younger than 75, 99.6% in the darolutamide arm and 99.0% of the placebo arm had TEAEs of any grade; the most common types of toxicity in each arm included alopecia (43% vs 42%), neutropenia (38% vs 37%), and fatigue (33% vs 32%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 65% and 62% of each arm, with the most common toxicities including neutropenia (33% vs 33%) and febrile neutropenia (6.6% vs 6.9%).
Wondering if Klarna Group might be undervalued, or if the recent market buzz is masking hidden risks? You are definitely not alone, and now is the perfect time to dig deeper.
In the last month, Klarna Group’s stock has dropped by 24.3%, and it is down a striking 36.6% year-to-date. This performance puts the company firmly on the radar of both contrarian investors and those watching for warning signs.
Recently, Klarna has been making headlines with announcements about expanding its payment solutions and forming new partnerships with major retailers. These developments are grabbing investor attention and adding to the stock’s volatility. They could indicate new growth opportunities, but they also raise questions about the sustainability of Klarna’s current strategy and how the market is reacting to these bold steps.
According to our valuation checklist, Klarna Group is undervalued in only 1 out of 6 checks right now. Next, we will break down what the numbers actually say and then show you a smarter way to really understand what “fair value” means for stocks like Klarna.
Klarna Group scores just 1/6 on our valuation checks. See what other red flags we found in the full valuation breakdown.
The Excess Returns valuation model examines how effectively Klarna Group generates returns above its cost of equity, essentially measuring how much real value is created for shareholders after accounting for the capital invested in the business. This model is especially relevant for financial firms, where return on invested capital and sustainable growth are key drivers of actual intrinsic value.
Looking at Klarna Group’s latest data, the company has a Book Value of $6.32 per share and is projected to achieve a Stable Earnings Per Share (EPS) of $0.27, based on weighted future Return on Equity estimates from 8 different analysts. The estimated Cost of Equity stands at $0.64 per share. However, the calculated Excess Return is negative, at $-0.37 per share. Klarna’s average Return on Equity is a modest 3.37%, with a forecasted Stable Book Value of $8.09 per share, as estimated by 5 analysts.
When applied, the Excess Returns model implies an intrinsic value that is significantly below Klarna’s current share price. The model indicates the stock is overvalued by 15,675.1%. This reflects that Klarna is struggling to generate returns high enough to justify its capital cost and market valuation.
Result: OVERVALUED
Our Excess Returns analysis suggests Klarna Group may be overvalued by 15675.1%. Discover 926 undervalued stocks or create your own screener to find better value opportunities.
