Since September, Senegal has been facing an outbreak of Rift Valley Fever (RVF), a viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes or through contact with infected animals.
As of December 3, three months after the outbreak was declared, the Senegal…

Since September, Senegal has been facing an outbreak of Rift Valley Fever (RVF), a viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes or through contact with infected animals.
As of December 3, three months after the outbreak was declared, the Senegal…

A judicial magistrate on Saturday ordered the release on bail of the son of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Mohammed Asif, after the victims’ families forgave him in the fatal accident case that claimed the lives of two young women.
The…

Wondering if First Quantum Minerals is still good value after its big run, or if you are late to the party? This breakdown will help you decide whether the current price makes sense or is getting ahead of itself.
The stock has climbed 4.6% over the last week, 16.8% over the past month, and 76.0% year to date, with a 63.4% gain over the past year that has clearly caught the market’s attention.
Much of this move has been driven by shifting sentiment around copper prices and expectations for long term supply constraints, as investors increasingly treat copper exposed miners as leveraged plays on the energy transition. On top of that, headlines around First Quantum’s asset mix, project pipeline, and jurisdictional risks have kept the stock in the spotlight and added volatility to how investors are pricing its future cash flows.
Despite the rally, First Quantum Minerals currently scores 5 out of 6 on our valuation checks, suggesting it still screens as undervalued on most metrics. Next, we will dig into those different valuation approaches, before finishing with a more holistic way to think about what the stock is really worth.
Find out why First Quantum Minerals’s 63.4% return over the last year is lagging behind its peers.
The Discounted Cash Flow model estimates what a business is worth by projecting the cash it could generate in the future and then discounting those cash flows back to today in dollar terms. For First Quantum Minerals, the 2 Stage Free Cash Flow to Equity model starts from last twelve month free cash flow of about $1.5 billion, and then applies analyst forecasts for the next few years before extrapolating longer term trends.
Analysts and model estimates see free cash flow rising to roughly $4.0 billion by 2029, with detailed projections stepping up from the low hundreds of millions in 2026 into the multi billion range later in the decade as new projects and higher copper volumes are factored in. Simply Wall St then extends these growth patterns into the following years to capture a full value for the business.
Bringing all of those cash flows back to today, the DCF fair value is estimated at $93.10 per share. That implies the shares trade at about a 64.2% discount to intrinsic value, which suggests material upside if these cash flow assumptions prove broadly correct.
Result: UNDERVALUED
Our Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis suggests First Quantum Minerals is undervalued by 64.2%. Track this in your watchlist or portfolio, or discover 906 more undervalued stocks based on cash flows.

Accenture (ACN) has been grinding higher recently, with the stock up about 7% over the past month despite a rough year for shareholders. That move has investors rechecking whether today’s price still lines up with fundamentals.
See our latest analysis for Accenture.
The recent rebound follows a tough stretch, with a negative year to date share price return and a roughly 12 month total shareholder return still in the red. This hints that sentiment is improving but not fully repaired.
If Accenture has you rethinking your tech exposure, this could be a good moment to explore high growth tech and AI stocks for other potential opportunities riding similar digital transformation themes.
With earnings still growing and the share price lagging its recent peak, investors now face a key question: is Accenture quietly offering value at today’s levels, or is the market already pricing in its next leg of growth?
According to FCruz, the narrative implies a fair value well below Accenture’s last close of $266.59, setting up a tension between quality and price.
Bottom line (fundamental stance) I’m moderately constructive over 12 to 18 months. Accenture combines (i) scaled exposure to GenAI-led reinvention with tangible bookings, (ii) high-quality margins, returns, and FCF, and (iii) a reset valuation near historical norms. The near-term swing factor is bookings momentum; if that stabilizes or improves, upside to the Street’s mid-30s EPS multiple case becomes more plausible.
Read the complete narrative.
Want to see how modest revenue growth, steady margins and a premium future earnings multiple still argue for a much lower fair value than today? The full narrative walks through those moving parts step by step, but keeps one core valuation lever front and center. Curious which assumption does most of the heavy lifting, and how sensitive the outcome is if it shifts?
Result: Fair Value of $202.38 (OVERVALUED)
Have a read of the narrative in full and understand what’s behind the forecasts.
However, persistent weakness in bookings or a sharper slowdown in consulting spend could quickly challenge the case for Accenture’s current premium valuation.
Find out about the key risks to this Accenture narrative.
While the most popular narrative sees Accenture as roughly 31.7% overvalued, our valuation work using a simple earnings multiple lands in a different place. At 21.5 times earnings, the stock trades well below the US IT industry average of 30.3 times and peers at 25.3 times, and also below a fair ratio of 36.7 times that the market could drift toward over time.


This week, our Scandinavian style set delivered standout moments across London, New York, Monaco and beyond. Stylist and creative director Alexandra Carl brought her signature Danish cool to the red carpet as she arrived at The Fashion Awards…

After testing smart home technology for years, you can bet I have apps piling up on my phone and tablet from trying all the latest gadgets. That’s also given me plenty of experience in cutting down on home apps when it’s time to manage my…

By Charles Passy
America’s retirement system desperately needs reform
President Trump suggested the U.S. should consider the Australian retirement-savings model.
Could America’s signature retirement-savings program look a lot like Australia’s one day?
That’s the idea President Trump hinted at earlier this week, saying the Australian model is a “good plan” that has “worked out very well.”
“We’re looking at it very seriously,” Trump said.
In a nutshell, the Australian plan takes some of what’s already baked into the American 401(k) retirement-savings model, but expands upon it in significant ways that assure more people have more savings by the time they reach retirement age. Called the “superannuation” (or “super”) model, the program requires employers to make a 12% contribution to a retirement fund on behalf of the employee. The employee can also contribute an amount beyond that.
‘We’re looking at it very seriously.’President Donald Trump, on the U.S. possibly adopting the Australian retirement-savings model
In the U.S., the 401(k) model works by giving employees the chance to participate in a retirement-savings program through their employer, with tax benefits to employees for doing so. But the employer is not obligated to offer a 401(k) plan – and even if they do, there’s no requirement they make any kind of contribution to it.
Indeed, research has shown that 56 million private-sector workers in the U.S. lack access to a retirement-savings plan. And even among employees who have a 401(k), the employer contribution is typically in the form of a match, which often equates to 4% to 6% of an employee’s salary – far below that 12% Australian figure.
Australia’s program, with the mandatory employer-contribution aspect, has been in place since 1992, but it didn’t start at 12%. In fact, it began with just 3%, but over time the figure grew incrementally to the current 12%. Still, it has resulted in Australian workers, on average, accumulating the equivalent of around $115,000 (that’s roughly $173,000 in Australian currency (AUDUSD)).
Those enrolled in U.S. 401(k) plans actually have a bit more than that; the average 401(k) balance is $148,153, though it should be noted that wages and the cost of living are lower in Australia.
Perhaps the more relevant data point, however, is the fact that 78% of Australians participate in the “super” program. By contrast, just 59% of Americans have a retirement-savings plan, be it a 401(k), 403(b) or an individual retirement account (IRA), according to a Gallup survey.
But some financial experts say it might be politically tough to push through an Australian-style program in the U.S., especially given the financial burden it places on companies – and small ones in particular.
A plan that mandates that businesses contribute to employee retirement plans at such a high level “will never happen,” said Teresa Ghilarducci, a noted retirement authority who’s an economics professor at the New School in New York City.
Plus, even those who give the Australian system high marks point to issues within it. A key one: Even though the system helps ensure that workers save a significant sum for retirement, it doesn’t necessarily guide them on how to tap that money once they retire – by turning it into, say, a monthly income stream they can parse out carefully over time as they deal with any number of medical or other issues they may face as they age.
“The system still struggles to help retirees navigate longevity risk, inflation and cognitive decline,” said Tomas A. Geoghegan, founder of Beacon Hill Private Wealth in New Jersey.
That said, the American 401(k) model doesn’t offer any systemized way of parsing out, or annuitizing, one’s retirement savings, either.
In any case, there’s little question that the current retirement-savings system in the U.S. needs to be revamped. Without an improved safety net, Americans will be relying more heavily on Social Security than ever, experts note. And as Americans are constantly reminded, Social Security is under threat as it is.
“We absolutely have to do something,” said Holly Verdeyen, a partner at Mercer, a consulting firm that focuses heavily on retirement planning.
Mercer rates retirement systems throughout the world, and gives the Australian model a solid B+. By contrast, the U.S. gets a C+.
The U.S. has already been looking at ways to revamp its retirement-savings model, regardless of whether or not it considers the Australian one.
For starters, under what’s commonly referred to as the Secure 2.0 Act, Congress authorized such changes as letting employers automatically enroll employees into 401(k) plans and allowing employees between the ages of 60 and 63 to increase their maximum retirement contributions.
On top of that, a number of states are looking at ways for employees to access retirement-savings programs.
But more sweeping national reform is still needed, many argue. And some say it could come in the form of the Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA), which is currently making its way through Congress. It calls for a program that would broaden accessibility to tax-advantaged retirement-savings accounts and would have the federal government match contributions for workers below certain income levels.
In the meantime, the Australian model is still out there.
White House spokesman Kush Desai wouldn’t get into specifics about how the model could work in the U.S., but told MarketWatch: “The administration is closely examining all options to help Americans build wealth and achieve prosperity.”
-Charles Passy
This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
12-06-25 0800ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Nothing kills the motivation of a midday workout faster than raising your wrist and seeing a dead, black watch screen. Honestly, did you even work out if your smartwatch didn’t give you credit for it?
Sure, most newer smartwatch models can now…

Institutions’ substantial holdings in Ameriprise Financial implies that they have significant influence over the company’s share price
A total of 17 investors have a majority stake in the company with 50% ownership
Recent sales by insiders
Trump has pledged to “unleash” American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit.
A look at the shareholders of Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (NYSE:AMP) can tell us which group is most powerful. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are institutions with 87% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company.
Institutional investors would appreciate the 4.7% increase in share price last week, given their one-year losses have totalled a disappointing 14%.
Let’s delve deeper into each type of owner of Ameriprise Financial, beginning with the chart below.
See our latest analysis for Ameriprise Financial
Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices.
We can see that Ameriprise Financial does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company’s stock. This can indicate that the company has a certain degree of credibility in the investment community. However, it is best to be wary of relying on the supposed validation that comes with institutional investors. They too, get it wrong sometimes. If multiple institutions change their view on a stock at the same time, you could see the share price drop fast. It’s therefore worth looking at Ameriprise Financial’s earnings history below. Of course, the future is what really matters.
Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. Hedge funds don’t have many shares in Ameriprise Financial. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is currently the largest shareholder, with 13% of shares outstanding. Meanwhile, the second and third largest shareholders, hold 9.7% and 4.8%, of the shares outstanding, respectively.
Looking at the shareholder registry, we can see that 50% of the ownership is controlled by the top 17 shareholders, meaning that no single shareholder has a majority interest in the ownership.
While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. There are plenty of analysts covering the stock, so it might be worth seeing what they are forecasting, too.