KBW Backs AXP Amid Bold Platinum Card Overhaul and Fee Growth Potential
The firm noted that the announcement follows reports that rival Chase intends to revamp its Sapphire Reserve card this summer. An annual fee rise for the Platinum card may be part of the card refresh, which KBW analysts think would contribute to the growth of card fee income in the upcoming years. The firm also proposed that adjustments might lead to increased card account growth and engagement levels.
Although there are competition pressures from Chase's anticipated Sapphire Reserve changes, KBW regarded AXP's the announcement as 'incrementally positive' for the company, adding that competitor card launches have historically had little effect on American Express Company (NYSE:AXP).
American Express Company (NYSE:AXP) is a leading bank holding company that provides a comprehensive digital payment network, including credit cards, charge cards, and financing options.
While we acknowledge the potential of AXP 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 More: and
Disclosure: None.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tech stocks slip as investors rotate towards defensive sectors
A decline in US tech stocks extended into Wednesday as concerns about the durability of this year's rally in artificial intelligence shares 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
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Goldman Traders Say It's Time to Buy the Dip in Momentum Stocks
(Bloomberg) -- Sharp losses in high-flying momentum stocks may present a dip-buying opportunity if history is any guide, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s trading desk. The traders cited rebounds after similar prior losses in Goldman's High Beta Momentum basket, coupled with the current technical setup. Why New York City Has a Fleet of New EVs From a Dead Carmaker Trump Takes Second Swing at Cutting Housing Assistance for Immigrants Chicago Schools Seeks $1 Billion of Short-Term Debt as Cash Gone Neom's Desert Ski Resort Strains Saudi Prince's $1.5 Trillion Plan When the long-short momentum basket dropped 10% or more over a five-day span in the past, it proceeded to rise in the following week 80% of the time, the traders wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday. The median return was 4.5% in the next week and more than 11% in the next month. The sudden unwind in the momentum strategy, which focuses on buying recent winners and selling short those that are lagging behind, first came amid a rally in the basket's stocks meant to be shorted. But its declines this week were powered more by losses in the long leg of the basket 'as themes such as AI feel the pain of this rotation,' Goldman's traders wrote. The basket fell 13% from Aug. 6 through Aug. 19 after trading near an all-time high. The traders also parsed through technical charts for clues on what could stop the selloff in the momentum trade. The momentum basket is trading near an oversold territory and is approaching the bottom of its so-called regression channel, which is basically the lower boundary of an existing trend. The basket also fell below its 200-day moving average, the level that could serve as a major support. 'It could be a good entry point into the historically rewarded factor, unless tech earnings next week drive a prolonged AI selloff,' Goldman's traders wrote. Nvidia Corp., the biggest member in both the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 indexes, is scheduled to release its quarterly results on Aug. 27. Some of the stock market's biggest losers in the past three days include Palantir Technologies Inc., which fell 12%, and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and Super Micro Computer Inc., which lost 6% or more. Nvidia fell just 2.8% during that time, but its heavy weighting in benchmark indexes made it a drag on the market. Those stocks 'were among the year's most crowded trades, built on optimism toward AI and speculative momentum, making them vulnerable to swift reversals,' Chris Murphy, co-head of derivatives strategy at Susquehanna International Group, wrote in a note. The selloff in the momentum factor, which includes high-flying AI stocks on the long side of the basket, comes amid a variety of concerns in the market including soaring valuations, stretched positioning and increasing competition from China. The Nasdaq 100 Index is trading at 27 times expected 12-month profits, almost a third above its long-term average. Meanwhile, China's warnings to tech firms to avoid one of Nvidia's chips and a drop in cloud-computing company CoreWeave Inc.'s shares after its earnings report were among other recent headwinds to momentum stocks. Another source of concern for tech investors cropped up this week as a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report found that most generative AI initiatives implemented to drive revenue growth are falling flat and only 5% of generative AI pilots are delivering profit. Still, this isn't the only stumble for Goldman's High-Beta Momentum basket this year: This is its fourth retreat of more than 10% in 2025. 'The recent decline in momentum is indicative of how the factor has been trading all year. It's been a frustrating and choppy trade through all of 2025,' said Bloomberg Intelligence's Christopher Cain. 'While the recent decline could be a tactical opportunity, we also point out that that high momentum stocks are showing some of the most expensive valuations compared to low momentum in history.' Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Survived Bankruptcy. Next Up: Cultural Relevance? Women's Earnings Never Really Recover After They Have Children Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Here's why you don't want the Trump administration to buy stock in Intel
Back in 1935, the drafters of Social Security told Congress of their plans to build up a government pension reserve that would reach $47 billion. The number shocked lawmakers. It was nearly three times the outstanding federal debt of the time. 'What in heaven's name are you going to do with $47 billion?' Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, Republican of Michigan, asked Arthur Altmeyer, one of the drafters. 'You could invest it in U.S. Steel and some of the large corporations,' Altmeyer suggested. Vandenberg threw up his hands in horror. 'That would be socialism!' he exclaimed. Yet the idea of federal government investments in public corporation stock has never died. It walks among us like a zombie today, with the Trump administration talking about taking a 10% ownership stake in the chipmaker Intel and musing about creating a sovereign wealth fund akin to those established by Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Norway and other countries. Here's what history tells us about the virtues of this idea for the United States: There aren't any. Such funds 'usually reflect the quality of governance of the states that sponsor them,' observed Steven Feldstein and Jodi Vittori of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in April. 'Considering the Trump administration's self-dealing and erosion of accountability, there is an acute risk that the U.S. SWF could become a source of graft to reward Trump's friends, coerce political support for his priorities and bring personal enrichment.' Leaving aside the quality of governance in Trump's White House or legislators' fears of 'socialism,' the idea of federal investment in public companies has never found lasting favor on Capitol Hill, for it has been almost impossible for lawmakers to overcome the touchy economic, political and philosophical issues. A federal fund with the authority to purchase corporate stock would be one of the largest and most potent investors in the market. As I wrote in 2005, when the idea of allowing Social Security to invest its trust fund in equities was under consideration again, the potential for conflicts of interest is inescapable. The government might be a major shareholder in a corporation it was prosecuting for criminal activity. The government might end up on one side of an international issue as a member of a coalition of nations, and on the opposite side as a shareholder. Its financial interests might stand in opposition to its social interests: In his 1999 State of the Union message, for example, President Clinton simultaneously threatened to sue the tobacco industry over its threat to public health, and advocated allowing Social Security to invest in all equities — tobacco included. In 1935, Congress addressed the conundrum by mandating that the Social Security Administration invest its reserves only in U.S. Treasury securities, a rule that exists to this day. Social Security's would-be reformers periodically revive proposals to shift some of the program's trust fund — which held more than $2.7 trillion in treasuries at the end of last year — into equities, pointing to their superior long-term returns compared with bonds. But those efforts have never come to fruition. The federal government taking an equity stake in a public company wouldn't be unprecedented. In 2009, the Obama administration acquired a 60.8% ownership of General Motors in return for almost $50 billion in bailout funds. The government also acquired a smaller stake in Chrysler, which was subsequently sold to Fiat. The government sold the last of its GM holdings in 2013, booking a direct loss of about $10.5 billion. But its bailout has been deemed a success, given that it saved as many as 1.9 million jobs at GM, Chrysler and their suppliers. The auto bailouts were emergency initiatives, taken to stave off what was shaping up as the auto industry's imminent collapse. Obama made clear that these were temporary measures and that the government would sell off its stockholdings as soon as that was practicable. The government abjured any control over GM's day-to-day operations, but it did orchestrate the exit of GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, oversaw the replacement of a majority of its board members and imposed compensation limits on its top executives. The auto bailouts followed numerous examples of U.S. government takeovers, or attempted takeovers, of private businesses. In 1791, Congress authorized the government to take a 20% stake in the Bank of the United States, and in 1816, to take the same stake in the Second Bank of the United States. These are seen today as precursors to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank as a central banking authority. During the Great Depression, the Reconstruction Finance Corp., a Hoover creation that lived well into Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, took preferred shares in numerous impaired banks in return for capital infusions they needed to survive. By the end of 1935, RFC-owned preferred stock amounted to nearly 40% of total bank common stock in the United States; the RFC's hard-charging chairman, Texan Jesse Jones, was not shy about imposing 'reasonable' compensation caps on its executives or replacing them when they faltered, or prodding their managements to make loans to private borrowers, a key element of FDR's program of economic recovery. The government also exercises effective control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored mortgage companies, via a conservatorship implemented in 2008, when the housing crash heralded the outset of the Great Recession. Stock in both companies remains in private hands, but warrants allow the government to acquire up to 79.9% of the common stock of each. Those warrants haven't been exercised, but they equate to firm government authority over the firms' activities. Trump's proposed Intel investment would occur in a very different economic environment and have very different features from any of those precursors. The terms of the plan have been murky. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirmed during an appearance on CNBC Tuesday that the government would demand Intel shares in return for the roughly $10 billion in funds allocated to Intel via the Biden-era CHIPS Act, which aimed to shore up America's position in high-tech hardware. 'We'll deliver the money, which was already committed under the Biden administration,' Lutnick said. 'We'll get equity in return for it.' He quoted Trump as saying, 'If we're going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action.' A $10-billion stake would be about 10% of Intel's shares. That would make the government the company's largest shareholder, outstripping the stakes held by institutional investors Vanguard and BlackRock. Lutnick said the government wouldn't exercise voting rights or involve itself in governance. But he didn't talk about a time-limited ownership, or specify what corporate policies the Trump administration would favor. As it happens, Trump has publicly demanded the resignation Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, a Malaysian, over Tan's ostensible connections to China. Despite its stumbles in recent years, Intel doesn't appear to be facing extinction, as the automakers arguably did in 2008 and 2009. Nor would Intel's demise have anywhere near the impact on the U.S. economy that a GM collapse might have had amid the Great Recession. Once the linchpin of the high-tech boom of the 1990s, Intel has plainly lost its mojo. As my colleague Queenie Wong reported, its strategic blunders have included missing out on the artificial intelligence investment boom that has made Nvidia, the maker of chips for AI development, a darling of today's stock market. Intel hasn't commented on the White House's interest in taking an equity stake, but Intel investors don't appear to know what to make of the idea. Shares in the company gained about 7% on Aug. 19, after Bloomberg first reported on the possibility, but have since fallen back, despite news that the Japanese investment firm SoftBank would take a $2-billion stake in the company. Intel shares fell 7% Wednesday in Nasdaq trading, closing at $23.54, a hair below their price prior to the Bloomberg report. Whether Trump could resist jawboning Intel, or any other companies in which the government holds shares, into instituting policies he favors is doubtful. He has frequently tried to exert pressure on CEOs of companies in which the government has no ownership, after all. That concern would be heightened if the administration has control over a sovereign wealth fund. Trump aired that proposal via an executive order in February. The order called on Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to submit a plan by the beginning of May, but none has yet surfaced. A U.S. sovereign wealth fund wouldn't be based on the same principles as those of many other such ventures. 'SWFs have traditionally been set up by states rich in natural resources to manage their budgetary surplus, diversify their economies, and protect their wealth for future generations,' observed the Carnegie Endowment's Feldstein and Vittori. That's the case with the funds of both Saudi Arabia and Norway. The U.S., however, 'doesn't have excess funds to put into a SWF,' Feldstein and Vittori write. In a fact sheet accompanying the executive order, Trump mentioned $5.7 trillion in government assets, including 'natural resource reserves.' He has also talked about profits from crypto investments and the government take from tariffs — though the latter are essentially a tax on American consumers, who might have different ideas about how to spend the money. The Carnegie researchers note that the most successful sovereign wealth funds such as Norway's 'maintain operational independence and make investments based on rigorous financial criteria.' Neither quality is a hallmark of the Trump administration. Feldstein and Vittori point out that by building a U.S. fund via tariff income or income from Trump's 'gold card' proposal, which would give rich foreigners the right to live in the U.S. for a $5-million fee, might allow Trump to evade Congress's constitutional monopoly on raising and spending money and even allow him to manage the fund behind closed doors. Still, it would be up to Congress to establish the fund and oversee its operations. Will the lawmakers accept their responsibility? If not, Trump's idea is a dangerous one. 'Giving a president who aspires to be a king a potent financial weapon with ill-defined purposes and methods,' Feldstein and Vittori write, 'presents a grave risk to American democracy.'
