logo
Bell Potter Reaffirms Their Hold Rating on Chrysos Corp. Ltd. (C79)

Bell Potter Reaffirms Their Hold Rating on Chrysos Corp. Ltd. (C79)

In a report released today, Joseph House from Bell Potter maintained a Hold rating on Chrysos Corp. Ltd. (C79 – Research Report), with a price target of A$4.40. The company's shares closed today at A$3.94.
Protect Your Portfolio Against Market Uncertainty
Discover companies with rock-solid fundamentals in TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter.
Receive undervalued stocks, resilient to market uncertainty, delivered straight to your inbox.
According to TipRanks, House is ranked #1455 out of 9472 analysts.
Chrysos Corp. Ltd. has an analyst consensus of Moderate Buy, with a price target consensus of A$5.81.
The company has a one-year high of A$6.29 and a one-year low of A$3.43. Currently, Chrysos Corp. Ltd. has an average volume of 190.2K.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports

time23 minutes ago

Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports

Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough," he said. "I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits," he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that," Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.'

Trump shrugs off possible reconciliation with Musk
Trump shrugs off possible reconciliation with Musk

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Trump shrugs off possible reconciliation with Musk

President Trump said he assumes his relationship with Elon Musk has ended and that he has no desire to repair it after the pair publicly fell out last week. "I think it's a shame that he's so depressed and so heartbroken," Trump said of the billionaire in a phone call with NBC News' Kristen Welker. The big picture: Trump's comments also came with a warning to Musk when the president said the Tesla CEO could face "serious consequences" should he fund Democratic candidates in the next election running against Republicans who vote for Trump's "big, beautiful bill." The billionaire, who contributed more than $290 million to Republicans in the 2024 election but has since said he'd cut back on political spending, posted last week that politicians "who betrayed the American people" should be fired in November. Trump declined to elaborate on what the consequences would be for Musk. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a Sunday interview on ABC's "This Week" that it would be a "big mistake" for Musk to go after Republicans who vote for the bill. Driving the news: Trump said he has no plans to speak to the Tesla CEO during the Saturday phone interview with Welker. Asked if he thought his relationship with Musk was over, Trump said he "would assume so." He accused the once-close administration ally of being "disrespectful to the office of the President." Catch up quick: The alliance between Trump and the former chainsaw-wielding face of DOGE exploded last week as Musk continuously campaigned against the massive tax-and-spending package, blasting it as a "disgusting abomination." Speaking to reporters during an Oval Office appearance alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz Thursday, Trump said he was "very disappointed" in Musk, who he claimed was very familiar with the inner workings of the legislation. While Trump talked, Musk fired back in real-time on X, claiming in one post that Trump would have lost the election without him. Zoom in: In one post that appears to have been deleted, Musk accused the president of being "in the Epstein files." Trump told NBC that it's "old news."

GOP downplays Trump-Musk feud's impact on midterms
GOP downplays Trump-Musk feud's impact on midterms

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

GOP downplays Trump-Musk feud's impact on midterms

Republicans are downplaying concerns that the feud between President Trump and Elon Musk will hamper the party's chances of defending their majorities in the House and the Senate next year. In the midst of the escalating war of words on Thursday, Musk claimed Trump would not have won the White House without him last year and floated the idea of launching a third party. Musk has also threatened to use his financial war chest and platform to challenge Republicans backing Trump's legislative agenda. However, many Republicans say Trump's influence within the party is strong enough to withstand any kind of political challenge from Musk. Others even say they still think Musk is a part of their team. 'I think if you're a Republican in a primary and you have Trump's support and Elon's opposition, you're going to be okay,' said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), adding that the president would eclipse Musk 'by a 10 or 100-fold.' Musk notably took credit for Trump's White House during his keyboard war with Trump on Thursday, claiming Democrats would control the House and hold a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. The billionaire was the single largest donor in the 2024 general election, spending nearly $300 million. Musk's political action committee, America PAC, supported Trump and a number of Republicans running in key congressional races. The PAC has remained active during Trump's second administration, spending over $18 million in a closely watched race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. The group has also promoted Trump's work this cycle, releasing its first television ad following Trump's joint address to Congress earlier this year. But despite the resources poured into Wisconsin, the Democratic-backed candidate won the court seat in what was described by critics as an embarrassment for Musk. America PAC spent millions in 18 competitive House races. Ten of the PAC's backed GOP House candidates won their elections, while the other 8 lost. 'America PAC spent $20 million on House races but none of that was super consequential— none of it was on TV, just digital and canvassing,' said one national Republican operative, who noted Musk was still on the GOP 'team.' Speaker Mike Johnson called Musk 'a big contributor in the last election' in an interview on CNBC's 'Squawk Box' on Friday, but said it was ultimately 'a whole team effort.' 'I mean, President Trump is the most consequential political figure of his generation, of modern American history. He is the one responsible for that,' Johnson said. 'But we all worked hard. We delivered the House majority. I traveled the country nonstop. I did over 360 campaign events in 250 cities and 40 states, and I logged enough miles last year to circle the globe five and a half times. I mean, I contributed to it as well. All of our House Republicans did.' Democrats have spent much of the first half of this year making Musk a boogeyman of sorts, painting him as out of touch with most Americans. The feud between Trump and Musk does not appear to be changing that strategy going into the midterms. 'Democrats are going to win by highlighting the fact that Republicans are failing at lowering costs because they are too busy pushing tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations, while making the rest of us pay for them,' said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Elon is, and forever will be, an instantly-recognizable manifestation of the fact that House Republicans don't work for the American people, they work for the billionaires.' Some Republicans remain weary of Musk, noting his massive online following that is made up of over 220 million followers on his platform X. Musk's views on the debt are widely shared by fiscally conservative voters. 'If Musk makes the national debt and deficit his defining issue and starts backing candidates who share that focus, it could create a real fracture inside the GOP. Trump's economic agenda has never been about fiscal restraint,' said a former White House communications aide who worked in the first Trump administration. 'If Musk begins channeling serious money into candidates who want to draw a hard line on spending and debt, you could see a Freedom Caucus 2.0 emerge — this time with financial firepower and a mandate to push back on Trump and Speaker Johnson's spending ambitions,' the aide said. But Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, threw cold water on the notion that the feud could jeopardize Republicans in the midterms. 'No, I don't think so. Now everybody's got to decide that. We all have one vote and we'll see,' Norman told The Hill. 'But I hope he keeps doing what he's doing and the team of people he put together, I want to do it statewide. Each state, I would do just what he's done with the federal government,' he added, referring to Musk's leadership at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE Subcommittee Chair Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) noted the importance of all of Trump's 2024 donors and supporters, including Musk, but suggested the two take their feud offline. 'I think every single American that voted for us deserves credit and Elon Musk is one vote,' Greene told reporters. 'I've said that every single vote and every single donor matters whether they've donated a dollar or hundreds of millions of dollars.' 'I don't think lashing out on the internet is the way to handle any kind of disagreement, especially when you have each other's cell phones,' she said. –Alex Gangitano and Emily Brooks contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store