Jim Cramer on Arm Holdings (ARM): Wait for a ‘Bounce' and ‘Don't Sell It Here'
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Arm Holdings plc (NASDAQ:ARM) stands against other top buzzing stocks in May.
The latest quarterly results from a couple of major technology companies have soothed concerns about AI demand that prevailed in the market following the launch of DeepSeek. Storm Uru, Manager at Liontrust Global Dividend Fund, said while talking to CNBC that the Satya Nadella-led tech giant's results were 'extraordinary.'
'50% of that growth came from AI revenue, and that's an important marker for us going forward. Because after Deepseek about four months ago now, the debate really was around as digital intelligence gets smarter and as it gets cheaper, what is going to be the impact on demand. And what we found out last night was that demand is accelerating,' he said.
David Grain, Founder & CEO of Grain Management, also believes AI demand could be strong amid a variety of factors.
'The advent of AI has created this explosion of demand for data centers and compute power, but the drivers of where it makes sense to actually build these data centers has a lot to do with the availability of reliable and high quantity of electricity. So I think there's definitely no slowdown in the demand side of the equation,' he said during an interview with CNBC.
READ ALSO: 7 Best Stocks to Buy For Long-Term and 8 Cheap Jim Cramer Stocks to Invest In.
For this article, we picked 10 stocks making moves these days. With each stock, we have mentioned the number of hedge fund investors. Why are we interested in the stocks that hedge funds pile into? The reason is simple: our research has shown that we can outperform the market by imitating the top stock picks of the best hedge funds. Our quarterly newsletter's strategy selects 14 small-cap and large-cap stocks every quarter and has returned 373.4% since May 2014, beating its benchmark by 218 percentage points (see more details here).
Number of Hedge Fund Investors: 38
A caller recently asked Jim Cramer about Arm Holdings plc (NASDAQ:ARM) during the Lightning Round segment of his program on CNBC. Cramer recommended the stock to hold the stock and 'trim' when it bounces:
'I want you to stay in it, Rene Haas (CEO) is doing a great job. I think that this whole semiconductor group has been oversold. It will bounce, and when it bounces, you want to trim back because it is expensive. That's fine. Do not sell it here.'
Overall, ARM ranks 7th on our list of top buzzing stocks in May. While we acknowledge the potential of ARM, our conviction lies in the belief that under the radar AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns, and doing so within a shorter time frame. There is an AI stock that went up since the beginning of 2025, while popular AI stocks lost around 25%. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than ARM but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about this cheapest AI stock.
READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires.
Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
39 minutes ago
- Forbes
Have Reporting Burdens Led To More Firms Staying Private?
The best evidence for this hypothesis comes from micro-caps. Confounding trends and offsetting benefits of being public are often ignored by advocates for reducing reporting rules. The number of US public firms has fallen in recent times. Prof. Jay Ritter, who tracks these numbers, documents that we had 3,804 US listed firms at the end of 2024 relative to the peak of around 8000 in 1996. Remarkably we had 1,384 foreign firms listed at the end of 2024. Many blame higher costs reporting and auditing for the smaller number of US listed firms. They point to the cumulative onslaught of Sarbanes Oxley 2022, the 2003 Global Settlement that alleged made it harder for analysts to cover small firms, Dodd-Frank 2010, and the supposedly relentless pace of accounting and auditing regulation pushed by Congress, the SEC and the FASB. The question I want to address is whether there is any evidence for that claim. Trend depends on benchmark period In a research note, Vanguard points out that if we go back to 1972, the decline shrinks to a third. On top of that, 1972 was the year NASDAQ was set up and 3,000 odd new companies entered the public arena. Why the fall? Doidge, Karolyi, Shen and Stulz (2025) list two potential underlying reasons: (i) it is easier to stay private because restrictions on staying private have softened and it has become easier to raise funds for private firms, perhaps due to the low interest rate environment; and (ii) antitrust enforcement over the last decade has been relatively lax and product market competition has heated up leading to a greater number of mergers. They don't seem to devote much space to reporting cost burden. Acquisitions drive most of the decline A McKinsey piece shows that 95% of the exits from our markets are driven by acquisitions. Thus, the so-called missing companies have not left the investible universe for the US investor as the investor gets indirect exposure to the target via the acquirer's stock. Espen Eckbo makes the acquisition point more rigorously. However, the rate of entry and exit into public markets is not uniform across industries. We had more IPOs, relative to exits, in pharmaceutical and biotech industries. The number of IPOs, relative to exits, are more or less the same in retail, materials, consumer apparel and durables. Exits far exceed IPOs in banking, software, technology hardware, media and telecom. Any theory that argues reporting burdens are a first order problem needs to explain why such burden has massively increased for banking, software, tech hardware, media and telecom relative to pharma. Smaller IPOs, mostly micro-caps, gone The McKinsey piece also makes the interesting point that we have far fewer smaller IPOs now relative to the past. This suggests that more of the earlier value is captured by private investors, as private equity firms seem to take longer to exit their positions now relative to before (3 years in 2007 relative to 6 years in 2015). One could argue that the costs of reporting, auditing and compliance have become too large for smaller IPOs to even think about going public. Vanguard points out that the missing IPOs are micro-caps. Is the loss of micro-caps a policy concern? Moreover, Mauboussin, Callahan, and Majd (2017) and Doidge, Karolyi, and Stulz (2017) note that half of what can be referred to as the 'listing gap' (exits more than IPOs) occurred before Sarbanes Oxley became law. Start-ups have declined too Somewhat intriguing, the number of start-ups appears to display mixed patterns since 1996. The Kaufmann index of startup activity falls from 1996 to its nadir in 2013, after which it picks up till 2017, when the index was last published but the 2017 number was still lower than the 1996 number. This suggests that there may be fewer businesses even available to go public. International exchanges I am in the UK as I write this and an institutional investor I know here suggested that the London stock exchange has suffered a similar decline in IPOs. In fact, there is some angst in the UK that they are losing listings to the US. The loss in listings applies to other advanced economies as well, as Espen Eckbo points out. The theory pushing for reporting burdens as the primary explanation will have to explain why UK reporting and reporting in other advanced economies has also become onerously burdensome. Burgeoning private equity (PE) A senior executive tells me,' the payouts achieved by management and their VCs by arranging acquisitions to PE firms, as well as PE to PE sales have been, in recent times, just as compelling as anything other than a truly dramatic IPO. Smaller companies, companies with significant internal ownership, companies without strong growth or high investment opportunities (that is to say not pharma or biotech who absolutely need risk capital), companies where management would like to stay involved but are not keen on public company visibility. These are all great reasons to be acquired by PE rather than either IPO or even getting acquired by a public company rapidly, with certainty, without much publicity. PE is incredibly well equipped at maximizing ongoing cashflows, and growth, while still maintaining: (i) particularly attractive incentives for management in the transaction, (ii) management that stays post transaction with significant incentive retentions and milestones -- all without pesky proxy announcements about executive compensation; and (iii) objectively great returns to those equity holders that are just selling.' The role of reporting for intangibles Rene Stulz (2018) has suggested that new firms heavily invest in intangibles and forced disclosure of intangibles by securities laws, all else constant, encourage firms to stay private. I am not sure of this argument as US public firms barely tell us anything about their intangible investments, especially home grown ones. Papers suggesting that SOX increased regulatory burdens Zhang (2007) finds negative returns of around -15% to -13% around the events surrounding the passage of SOX. I find these returns too large to be credible. Engel, Hayes, and Wang (2007) observed an increase in decisions to go private after SOX. But this evidence is mixed. Bartlett (2008) of the Stanford Law School re-examines this question and concludes, 'non-SOX factors were the primary impetus for the "name brand" buyouts commonly evoked as evidence that SOX has harmed the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.' Iliev (2010) is perhaps the best cited paper in the area. Using careful research designs, Iliev documents that section 404 of the SOX, which mandates that the auditor attest the internal controls of the firm for the absence of a material weakness, led to conservative reported earnings but also imposed real costs. Iliev compares audit fees and earnings quality for firms with float of $50-75 million to those just above at $75 million-$100 million. The idea is that firms in these two partitions are mostly similar except that Section 404 applies only to firms with float greater than $75 million. He concludes, 'on net, SOX compliance reduced the market value of small firms' and increases audit fees by 167%. Atanasov and Black (2020) replicate Iliev (2010) and conclude that not controlling for firm growth led Iliev (2010) to overestimate SOX compliance costs in his analysis. However, the increase in audit fees suffered by the small firms is real, by about 80%. The dollar numbers underlying these estimates are worth reiterating. The average firm in Iliev's affected firm sample pays more than $0.7 million in greater audit fees. The mean and median earnings of sample firms is -$4.8 million and -$1.4 million respectively. Iliev uses this comparison to argue that the compliance costs of section 404 were substantial. Were they? Would these firms have survived had section 404 not been enacted? Is it obvious that investors would have wanted to invest in such firms? And, how much of the audit fee hike is temporary for a year or two. Even more noteworthy, this evidence relates to micro caps (defined as stocks with market capitalizations of between $50 million and $250 million in 2024). These numbers would be smaller if we went back in time as stock markets have gone up quite a bit in the last 20 years or so. The bigger question is how can we possibly generalize evidence reliant on a sample of microcaps to the entire corporate ecosystem? Ewens, Xiao and Xu (2024), in a new paper, move this literature forward and consider three such natural breakpoints to estimate costs of mandatory reporting: (i) firms below $25 million in float in 1992 were designated as 'small businesses' and escaped a few disclosure requirements; (ii) the $75 million float threshold that Iliev looked for section 404 of SOX; and (iii) the $700 million float threshold used in the 2012 JOBS Act. The 2012 JOBS Act is interesting because the point of that legislation was to exempt smaller firms from a few reporting requirements. So, the JOBS Act presents a bit of a counterfactual to the usual setting whereby regulation increased. Based on these events, they claim that the median firm spends 4.3% of its market capitalization on compliance costs. I find the 4.3% number somewhat big. Moreover, even with the clever econometrics used in the paper, can one really generalize estimates from SOX and JOBS Act to the universe of firms? I don't know. Interestingly, Ewens et al. themselves seem to conclude, 'heightened regulatory costs only explain a small fraction of the decline in the number of public firms over the last two decades. Our results suggest that non-regulatory factors likely played a more important role in explaining the decline in the number of U.S. public firms.' Evidence around the 2012 JOBS Act Researchers are generally good at coming up with unintended consequences of regulations that public firms are required to follow. But we don't often see studies that document the offsetting benefits of going or staying public. The 2012 JOBS Act presents a rare opportunity to consider whether relaxing reporting regulations encourages more IPOs. Dambra et al. (2015) conclude that the 2012 JOBS Act led to an increase of 21 IPOs a year, on average. Ewens et al. (2024) find a slightly higher estimate: roughly 28 additional IPOs. One must wonder whether 20 odd IPOs per year are worth the potential collateral damage to the credibility of US reporting and compliance systems, if the PCAOB were to be dismantled or SOX were to be repealed. Incidentally, many other advanced economies passed regulation, modeled on SOX, in their own countries. Did they not conduct a careful assessment of costs of such regulation on their IPO activity? Or did they recognize the need to tighten up reporting and audit rules after the tech bubble burst in 2001? IPO Tax Robert Jackson's, the ex-SEC commissioner, analysis highlights the 7% tax that middle market IPOs must pay even before they go public, to investment bankers, lawyers and the like. Surely, the IPO tax, which has little to do per se with the reporting and compliance costs of 4.3% highlighted by Ewens et al, deserves more attention. The advocates of cutting reporting burdens are somewhat silent about reducing the 7% middle market IPO tax. And I am aware of startups that are working on software that can write an S1 in minutes with AI. Shouldn't the 4.3% reporting costs, estimated by Ewens et al., fall? Benefits of staying public are often ignored Owners, VCs, and capital providers get liquidity. Public firms can potentially pay labor mostly via stock and hence attract higher quality talent. Stock can be used as a means of payment to buy another company and hence take out a rival or to buy a complementary firm. If you get acquired, the acquirer is usually expected to pay a 25% control premium over the prevailing stock price. In sum, the case for reporting burdens forcing companies to stay private is far from clear. The best evidence relates to micro-caps and generalizing from that set to other companies is not straightforward. Partisan debate about the evidence often tends to ignore the vast number of confounding factors such as low interest rates, falling number of start-ups, special time periods chosen for the analysis and large number of acquisitions of public firms and the 7% IPO tax. If anything, US reporting rules need to be strengthened, not weakened. I have pointed out, time and again, the deficiencies in our financial reporting system and how auditors could potentially do a better job. Regulators may want to proceed with caution the next time someone brings up the hypothesis that reporting burdens are a significant barrier to US firms going public.
Associated Press
44 minutes ago
- Associated Press
NWTN Investors Have Opportunity to Join NWTN Inc. Fraud Investigation with the Schall Law Firm
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 7, 2025-- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of NWTN Inc. ('NWTN' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ: NWTN ) for violations of the securities laws. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. NWTN disclosed on May 28, 2025, that it had received a determination notice from Nasdaq indicated that the Company's securities will be delisted for failing to comply with listing rules. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at or by email at [email protected]. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. View source version on CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. 310-301-3335 [email protected] KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEGAL SOURCE: The Schall Law Firm Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 06/07/2025 03:56 PM/DISC: 06/07/2025 03:55 PM
Tom's Guide
an hour ago
- Tom's Guide
These are the 10 prompts in DeepSeek to help you create a budget
Creating a home budget doesn't have to always involve an Excel spreadsheet and coffee to keep you awake during the process. Instead, AI bots can guide you through a budget and make it much easier to track your income and expenses. I should know — I avoid the topic as much as possible. For years, I calculated most of my expenses in my head and hoped it all worked out. Roughly about 10 years ago, I started relying on apps like Mint to help me and even the tools provided by my bank. Recently, I tried using DeepSeek to guide me through the process. It's amazing how these 10 prompts can help you figure out where all of the money is going. Here are the best ones to try. Before diving into the details of a home budget, you can start by asking DeepSeek which home budget works best for you. Fortunately, this prompt provides a wealth of information, no pun intended. DeepSeek presents several options for home budgets including the popular Zero-Based Budget' that helps you track income, expenses and savings down to the last dollar. In that home budget, you put money into savings first, then allocate money to other things. This prompt really narrows things down, because it means you'll need to budget more aggressively. DeepSeek recommends several budgets but two of them are worth calling out. The first one is a percentage system called an Aggressive Savings plan. 50% goes to needs, 20% to savings, 10% to debt, and 20% to wants. DeepSeek also recommended the zero-based budget, which prioritizes savings even more — but maybe a little too much for me. I decided to try the Aggressive Savings plan because it looked practical and achievable to me. I was impressed with all of the detail DeepSeek provides here, listing a full table of expenditures with suggestions for how much to set aside for groceries, gas, and credit card debt. Using this budget means I could save $192 per week — reaching my $10,000 per year goal. So far the prompts and suggestions have all been generic — they could apply to anyone. I decided to make it more personal. I asked about customizing for my income level and DeepSeek then guided me through the entire budget process. The AI asked for my annual income and expenses including car payments and student loans. DeepSeek also asked where I sometimes slip up — say, by overpaying for Uber Eats. I inputted all of this info. (Truth be told — I made up some details. I am not yet comfortable adding actual data to an AI bot yet.) I noticed my final home budget required saving about $833 per month, which seemed a little high. I asked DeepSeek to adjust my budget to save a little less, and suddenly it all seemed more practical. I was allocating more money to eating out and gas/groceries without having to sacrifice so many things that I'd end up failing. I was happy with the results so far. I knew at this point that a home budget would not be useful if it was just contained within a chatbot. I asked DeepSeek to generate an Excel file and was a little surprised when it generated a CSV file instead. (I'm sure there are copyright issues with providing an Excel file.) No matter — I imported the file into Google Sheets using the comma-separated values. A home budget is not just about the numbers and creating a spreadsheet. What works the best is when you have an action plan each month that helps you adhere to the budget. I was surprised, though, when DeepSeek offered some unusual suggestions to help. The bot said I could consider doing a side gig to help generate more income, which seemed smart. Another surprise is that the bot suggested a temporary pause on some charitable donations. Mint is a popular home finance app and I've used it many times. Ironically, I had never actually important a spreadsheet before and DeepSeek noted that is not even possible. Instead, the chatbot suggested inputting all of the info manually, which seemed clunky. And guess what? The bot actually used that word. DeepSeek said 'If this feels clunky…' to try some competing apps that do support imports. DeepSeek also offered to show screenshots of Mint to help me see where to input the budget info. This process took several minutes, though. And, they were not real screenshots — instead, DeepSeek created text-based guidelines. I asked DeepSeek for more guidance, and the bot covered quite a few practical tips for managing my money — one involved using a cash-based budget where you put money into envelopes for different spending categories. Another tip was to wait 24 hours before spending X amount of money (say $5) if it is an impulse buy. Lastly, I asked DeepSeek to save my home budget and all of the tips. It turns out, DeepSeek can't save anything as a text file, so the bot suggested I copy all of the text and paste it into Google Docs or another word processor. That worked just fine for me! Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
