UBS Maintains a Buy on Genmab (GMAB) With a DKK2,500 PT
A scientist in a lab using a microscope to develop new treatments for Multiple Myeloma.
The company reported $715 million in revenue for the first three months of 2025 compared to $603 million in the same period last year. This translates to a growth of 19% or $112 million, which the company attributed to increased DARZALEX and Kesimpta royalties attained under its collaborations with Johnson & Johnson and Novartis Pharma AG, respectively. EPKINLY net product sales also contributed to this growth.
Royalty revenue for the quarter also rose to $589 million, experiencing an increase of $137 million, or 30%. This growth was driven by an increase in net sales of DARZALEX and Kesimpta.
Genmab A/S (NASDAQ:GMAB) is an international biotechnology company that develops human antibody therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and other diseases. Its product pipeline includes DARZALEX to treat certain indications of multiple myeloma, TEPEZZA for the treatment of thyroid eye disease, and Arzerra to treat certain indications of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
While we acknowledge the potential of GMAB as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now.
Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
9 minutes ago
- CNBC
Not in the cards: Why some suspect stable trade may not follow Trump's tariff deals
The White House has signed a number of notable trade deals in the months since President Donald Trump slapped sharply higher tariffs on imports in early April. But some on Wall Street are cautioning that turmoil surrounding relations between the U.S. and its major trading partners is far from over. "Our views have been at odds with the investor consensus all year – and they still are," Andy Laperriere, head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler, wrote in a report this summer. "The emerging narrative is that even though tariffs are high, we now have deals that will provide stability in trade policy. Therefore, economic actors can adjust to the new reality and move on," he said. In his firm's opinion, however, "trade stability is not in the cards." Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs went into effect on Aug. 7. The president had announced the sweeping levies back on April 2, and their initial size sent stocks reeling before a series of walk-backs from the White House eased investors' concerns. Stocks have since recovered these losses and gone on to score record highs. Lately, investors have been betting that Trump won't implement the most draconian of his trade plans, in what has come to be known as the TACO trade, short for "Trump Always Chickens Out." But the duties that Trump announced in early April have in large part taken hold. An exception is Vietnam, as shown by Piper Sandler data. Though still high, the rate on imports from Vietnam is less than half the level Trump threatened on April 2, Laperriere said. "One of the things that I think is interesting, that I think is underappreciated is that 'liberation day' mostly arrived," Laperriere said during a webinar earlier this month. "When you look at our major trading partners, most of what was put on the board on April 2 is on the board now." Catalysts for instability Trump's tariffs have faced significant legal challenges, with a federal appeals court judge seeming skeptical in late July of the president's claim that he has the authority to impose new tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), a law that grants the president authority to regulate international commerce in response to a national emergency. Trump later warned U.S. courts against blocking his tariff policy. With the ongoing litigation and unsettled backdrop, uncertainty around the future of tariffs and trade persists. "If the courts find he is overstepping his authority to impose tariffs, which is highly likely, then the deals are null and void," Laperriere wrote in his report. "The Supreme Court is likely to rule against Trump's use of IEEPA within the next 10 months." One reason countries continue to negotiate is the assumption that Trump could pivot to use another authority if his IEEPA claim is struck down, said Ed Mills, managing director and Washington policy analyst at Raymond James. For example, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — the original Smoot-Hawley protectionist legislation — allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 50% on imported goods from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce. Trump "has a history of taking the entire legal process to run out the clock," Mills told CNBC. "Tariffs are here to stay." Another driver of instability is the lack of details about the trade agreements that have so far been reached. For instance, Trump announced trade deals with Indonesia and the Philippines , but the specifics have yet to be confirmed. Additionally, officials from other countries including Japan and South Korea have disagreed with Trump on the terms of their agreements, signaling they have not yet been finalized. Unsettled "Foreign officials describe the few details differently than Trump and his top advisors, so even some of the high-level features have not been ironed out," Laperriere wrote. "These deals aren't settled and are built in part on phony promises. They could easily fall apart." On top of that, some trading partners, such as the European Union, are unlikely to live by their deals for very long, he claimed. Last month, Trump said that he reached a deal with the bloc , one that involves a 15% tariff on most European goods coming into the U.S. But European leaders and analysts criticized the deal shortly thereafter, calling it "unbalanced." Meanwhile, no final agreements have been reached between the U.S. and key partners such as Canada, Mexico and China . In fact, Trump last Monday delayed imposing additional tariffs on Chinese goods for another 90 days. The president could meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping "around the [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] summit" in the fall, though "what happens at that meeting is a big wild card," Mills said. "There are going to be some countries where they're able to get to a final agreement and other countries where they fall apart," Mills said to CNBC. "I think that the larger the trading partner is, the more likely they are going to find a way to get to yes." 'Priced out' risk Even with some of Trump's tariffs going into effect, the stock market has soared to all-time highs this summer, underscoring optimism that the U.S. economy can withstand threats of high tariffs at home and abroad. Yet, Laperriere believes Wall Street isn't properly accounting for the potential impacts of the duties on the economy. For now, JPMorgan projects that tariffs could result in about a 1% hit to gross domestic product. Prediction markets have been pricing out recession risk, with the likelihood down to 10% over the weekend from about 70% in May. That suggests markets were either pricing in a recession scenario that was "too high in early May or it's too low now," Laperriere said. "The broader tariff risk is arguably completely priced out of markets, though individual companies and sectors that would be adversely impacted by them have generally underperformed," he wrote in a report in early August. Ultimately, perhaps, the biggest unknown remains the quixotic "Trump factor," which can't be quantified, Brian Gardner, Stifel's chief Washington policy strategist, said in an interview. "He can change his mind at any given time, and has, as some of these deals have progressed," he said. "There's nothing to prevent him from changing his mind again down the road."
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says tariffs are going to be enough to pay down national debt. It likely won't even touch the sides
President Trump says his tariff revenues will both pay down America's $37 trillion debt and possibly fund a public 'dividend,' but Treasury data shows they fall short of even covering monthly interest costs. In exclusive interviews with Fortune, Wharton's Professor Joao Gomes and AEI's Desmond Lachman warned that while tariffs may slow debt growth, they won't meaningfully reduce it. Markets are largely skeptical of Trump's math despite some unconventional revenue wins. Shop Top Mortgage Rates Personalized rates in minutes A quicker path to financial freedom Your Path to Homeownership President Trump has a two-pronged plan for the proceeds of his tariff regime. Firstly, he says, it's going to pay down America's $37 trillion national debt. Secondly, he's considering sharing the spoils with the public. 'The purpose of what I'm doing is primarily to pay down debt, which will happen in very large quantity,' Trump told media earlier this month. 'But I think there's also a possibility that we're taking in so much money that we may very well make a dividend to the people of America.' The plan sounds welcome, in theory. But there's just one problem. At present, tariff revenues don't even cover the interest on the debt—let alone reduce its overall size. According to Treasury data seen by Fortune, the accrued interest expense on Treasury notes in July alone was $38.1 billion. Add to that $13.9 billion in interest on Treasury bonds, $2.85 billion on Treasury Floating Rate Notes (FRN) and a total of $6.1 billion across Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) assets. The bill is eye-watering: The total comes to $60.95 billion for the month. By contrast, Treasury statements show that tariffs only brought in $29.6 billion to offset it. An impressive figure, but still not enough to rival interest payments. Of course, the White House could pay off some of its debt and reduce interest payments by deploying the tariff revenues directly to the bottom line. Governments have a number of ways to pay off debt, either by paying off bonds at maturity instead of rolling them over, or launching a buyback scheme in order to retire the bonds and reduce total outstanding debt. It seems that the White House is not yet enacting a plan for the latter option. A tentative schedule of buyback operations for August 2025 shows the Treasury intends to spend nearly $40 billion buying back various security types and maturity ranges. However, compared to a similar schedule from August last year, this is $10 billion less than the Biden administration had accounted for. Looking forward, if the Trump team does intend to pass through circa $30 billion a month toward offsetting the national debt, it would have accrued a gargantuan $360 billion payment over a year. This figure is less than 1% of America's national debt, at the time of writing. Of course, those on the bullish end of the economic scale are unconcerned by the notion of paying off national debt because a) the bond market forms a core part of the economy, b) the U.S. could grow its way out of any default or debt crisis, and c) the nation is in control of its own fate because its central bank has the ability to ease the cost of borrowing. Nonetheless, warnings are coming from some of the most significant corners of the economy. In the private sector, JPMorgan Chase's CEO Jamie Dimon believes America is barreling towards a predictable crisis; in the public sector, Fed chairman Jerome Powell believes it's time to have an 'adult conversation' about debt. And the president himself is clearly aware of the issue, pushing efficiency and cost-cutting to bring down deficits. The only problem is, economists can't quite figure out his maths. The White House told Fortune: 'America's debt-to-GDP ratio has actually declined since President Trump took office – and as the administration's pro-growth policies of tax cuts, rapid deregulation, more efficient government spending, and historic trade deals continue taking effect and America's economic resurgence accelerates, that ratio will continue trending in the right direction. 'That's on top of the record revenue that President Trump's tariff policies are bringing in for the federal government, and cooled inflation paving the way for interest rate cuts.' Offsetting, not repaying By Professor Joao Gomes's calculations, President Trump's tariff regime is netting his expenditure at zero as opposed to improving the balance sheet. The Wharton professor of finance and economics (at President Trump's alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania) believes the tariff income will offset the costs of the Oval Office's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act'—estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to add $3 trillion to the debt by 2030—and not go much further. 'They leave the national debt picture similar,' Professor Gomes tells Fortune in an exclusive interview. 'The idea that [tariffs are] going to pay down the national debt is of course greatly overstating it.' That being said, Professor Gomes said tariffs are likely to have some useful dragging effects on the speed at which America's national debt is accumulating. The White House said it expects its bill to reduce the much-watched debt-to-GDP ratio to 94% from its current standing of 121% by increasing economic growth. 'There's no question of us paying down the debt,' Professor Gomes added. 'Every year the government needs $1.8 trillion of net new borrowing, so that number could go down, but before we have any questions about repaying we first need to close that gap—and 1.8 trillion is impossible to close … the best we could hope for is if the tariffs turn out to generate enormous amounts of revenue [and] reduce that annual budget gap, which would make the debt grow less quickly.' 'The idea that somehow in the debt is gonna go down, we're gonna start buying things back and so on and reduce the debt in dollar terms is just unimaginable. We'll never get that much revenue.' Professor Gomes was echoed by Dr Desmond Lachman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He told Fortune in an exclusive interview: '[For Trump] to say that he's going to raise maybe $300 billion is a drop in the ocean in relation to the amount of red ink they've got. The country's on a really dangerous debt trajectory.' Signals to markets How much of a problem national debt proves to be ultimately comes down to foreign investors, and their confidence in the U.S. government's ability to pay its bills. Approximately 26% of America's debt is held by foreign countries according to The Conference Board, presenting significant issues if those investors decide to take flight. Dr Lachman believes that while President Trump may be framing tariffs as bringing back jobs or paying off debt to be more politically palatable, investors will see through the rhetoric. 'Markets aren't dumb. They can do the arithmetic and figure out that this is nonsense,' he said. The former deputy director for the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Policy Development and Review Department added that the continued flight to gold (prices are up 27% over the past year) is indicative that markets no longer view U.S. Treasuries as the ultimate safe haven. 'People are worried that this government's not serious about economic policy,' Dr Lachman said. 'Trump can say what he likes. A comment I think is great is: One thing about the bond markets is that they can't be primaried. In bond market, the money's gonna move. People just want to protect their cash, they're not afraid of being bullied by Trump if the numbers don't add up.' Counter to Dr Lachman's point is the fact Treasury yields have stayed relatively flat over the past couple of years. 10-year is at around 4.3%, and was the same in late-October 2022, while 30-year has hung around the 4.8% mark since 2023. Due to this, Professor Gomes believes the market isn't alarmed by the Trump team's unorthodox methods of balancing the debt. He said: 'There's interesting and peculiar things about this that we've all noticed. For example, the news earlier this week that Nvidia is gonna give effectively a 15% tax to the federal government for any exports to China certainly brings an extra source of revenue to the government that is not going to be small.' 'The ability of this president and this administration to find strange ways' to generate revenue may convince markets of Trump 2.0's sincerity when it comes to the debt, Professor Gomes added, 'I'm not sure I would discount that ability to continue to do things that I would not support, and I don't think [are] great ideas, but at the end of the day, you cannot deny that they bring strange forms of revenue that do change the debt picture.' And while there are two ends of the spectrum on who will end up paying for the tariffs (at one end Trump, saying it will be foreign nations, at the other end the likes of Goldman Sachs says the majority of the prices will be paid by U.S. consumers), the administration is proving it can 'extract revenues.' 'Whatever you think of the methods,' Professor Gomes added, 'If it's an issue they can find ways to do this.' A turning point? National debt is often described as a game of chicken played by one administration then the next, adding to the debt and risking crisis instead of introducing potentially unpopular policy to address it (austerity). Trump's unusual approach to revenue generation shouldn't be viewed as an end to that game, said Professor Gomes, but merely a delay of any reckoning. 'It seems clear that suspicious as [markets] are of the policies they feel confident that that's not going to happen at the moment,' the economist said. 'We would need something, some other event of some type—a serious war or conflict—the things that really change paradigms' to prompt such a crisis, he added. The Conference Board is not so convinced. 'The debt crisis is here' it said in a note shared with Fortune, outlining a six-step program to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to 70% within 20 years. This includes, among a range of ideas, establishing a bipartisan committee for fiscal responsibility, enacting tax reform to increase revenues in a fair way, and develop a package of reform for social security. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans look to make a U-turn on federal commitment to electric vehicles for the Postal Service
WASHINGTON (AP) — A year after being lauded for its plan to replace thousands of aging, gas-powered mail trucks with a mostly electric fleet, the U.S. Postal Service is facing congressional attempts to strip billions in federal EV funding. In June, the Senate parliamentarian blocked a Republican proposal in a major tax-and-spending bill to sell off the agency's new electric vehicles and infrastructure and revoke remaining federal money. But efforts to halt the fleet's shift to clean energy continue in the name of cost savings. Donald Maston, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, said canceling the program now would have the opposite effect, squandering millions of dollars. 'I think it would be shortsighted for Congress to now suddenly decide they're going to try to go backwards and take the money away for the EVs or stop that process because that's just going to be a bunch of money on infrastructure that's been wasted,' he said. Beyond that, many in the scientific community fear the government could pass on an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming when urgent action is needed. Electrified vehicles reduce emissions A 2022 University of Michigan study found the new electric postal vehicles could cut total greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 million tons over the predicted, cumulative 20-year lifetime of the trucks. That's a fraction of the more than 6,000 million metric tons emitted annually in the United States, said professor Gregory A. Keoleian, co-director of the university's Center for Sustainable Systems. But he said the push toward electric vehicles is critical and needs to accelerate, given the intensifying impacts of climate change. 'We're already falling short of goals for reducing emissions,' Keoleian said. 'We've been making progress, but the actions being taken or proposed will really reverse decarbonization progress that has been made to date.' Many GOP lawmakers share President Donald Trump's criticism of the Biden-era green energy push and say the Postal Service should stick to delivering mail. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said 'it didn't make sense for the Postal Service to invest so heavily in an all-electric force.' She said she will pursue legislation to rescind what is left of the $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act allocated to help cover the $10 billion cost of new postal vehicles. Ernst has called the EV initiative a 'boondoggle' and 'a textbook example of waste,' citing delays, high costs and concerns over cold-weather performance. 'You always evaluate the programs, see if they are working. But the rate at which the company that's providing those vehicles is able to produce them, they are so far behind schedule, they will never be able to fulfill that contract,' Ernst said during a recent appearance at the Iowa State Fair, referring to Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Defense. 'For now,' she added, 'gas-powered vehicles — use some ethanol in them — I think is wonderful.' Corn-based ethanol is a boon to Iowa's farmers, but the effort to reverse course has other Republican support. Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, a co-sponsor of the rollback effort, has said the EV order should be canceled because the project 'has delivered nothing but delays, defective trucks, and skyrocketing costs.' The Postal Service maintains that the production delay of the Next Generation Delivery Vehicles, or NGDVs, was 'very modest' and not unexpected. 'The production quantity ramp-up was planned for and intended to be very gradual in the early months to allow time for potential modest production or supplier issues to be successfully resolved,' spokesperson Kim Frum said. EVs help in modernization effort The independent, self-funded federal agency, which is paid for mostly by postage and product sales, is in the middle of a $40 billion, 10-year modernization and financial stabilization plan. The EV effort had the full backing of Democratic President Joe Biden, who pledged to move toward an all-electric federal fleet of car and trucks. The 'Deliver for America' plan calls for modernizing the ground fleet, notably the Grumman Long Life Vehicle, which dates back to 1987 and is fuel-inefficient at 9 mpg. The vehicles are well past their projected 24-year lifespan and are prone to breakdowns and even fires. 'Our mechanics are miracle workers,' said Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union. 'The parts are not available. They fabricate them. They do the best they can.' The Postal Service announced in 2022 it would deploy at least 66,000 electric vehicles by 2028, including commercial off-the-shelf models, after years of deliberation and criticism it was moving too slowly to reduce emissions. By 2024, the agency was awarded a Presidential Sustainability Award for its efforts to electrify the largest fleet in the federal government. Building new postal trucks In 2021, Oshkosh Defense was awarded a contract for up to 165,000 battery electric and internal combustion engine Next Generation vehicles over 10 years. The first of the odd-looking trucks, with hoods resembling a duck's bill, began service in Georgia last year. Designed for greater package capacity, the trucks are equipped with airbags, blind-spot monitoring, collision sensors, 360-degree cameras and antilock brakes. There's also a new creature comfort: air conditioning. Douglas Lape, special assistant to the president of the National Association of Letter Carriers and a former carrier, is among numerous postal employees who have had a say in the new design. He marvels at how Oshkosh designed and built a new vehicle, transforming an old North Carolina warehouse into a factory along the way. 'I was in that building when it was nothing but shelving,' he said. 'And now, being a completely functioning plant where everything is built in-house — they press the bodies in there, they do all of the assembly — it's really amazing in my opinion.' Where things stand now The agency has so far ordered 51,500 NGDVs, including 35,000 battery-powered vehicles. To date, it has received 300 battery vehicles and 1,000 gas-powered ones. Former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said in 2022 the agency expected to purchase chiefly zero-emissions delivery vehicles by 2026. It still needs some internal combustion engine vehicles that travel longer distances. Frum, the Postal Service spokesperson, said the planned NGDV purchases were 'carefully considered from a business perspective' and are being deployed to routes and facilities where they will save money. The agency has also received more than 8,200 of 9,250 Ford E-Transit electric vehicles it has ordered, she said. Ernst said it's fine for the Postal Service to use EVs already purchased. 'But you know what? We need to be smart about the way we are providing services through the federal government,' she said. 'And that was not a smart move.' Maxwell Woody, lead author of the University of Michigan study, made the opposite case. Postal vehicles, he said, have low average speeds and a high number of stops and starts that enable regenerative braking. Routes average under 30 miles and are known in advance, making planning easier. 'It's the perfect application for an electric vehicle,' he said, 'and it's a particularly inefficient application for an internal combustion engine vehicle.'
