Envestnet to sell open finance business Yodlee to PE firm STG
Envestnet is selling its open finance and data analytics unit Yodlee to private equity firm STG. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.
1
Yodlee was founded in 1999 as an account aggregation specialist, scraping together consumer financial data from thousands of sources for clients, including banks. Wealth management technology provider Envestnet bought Yodlee in 2015 in a cash and stock deal with an enterprise value of around $590 million.
Now it is offloading the business to STG, the PE firm focused on software, data, and analytics providers. STG says it will use its transformation experience to help Yodlee deliver increased value to clients, while the move is also designed to give the firm greater agility.
"This transaction is the first step in our value creation plan as a private company and will allow Envestnet to focus more deeply on its core connected wealth management platform, advanced insights and comprehensive solutions," says Chris Todd, CEO, Envestnet.
The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2025, subject to customary closing conditions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The biggest Club World Cup question is still unanswered – does anyone care?
There is the £1bn broadcasting deal, the £97m prize for the winners, the guarantee of a minimum of over £30m in revenue for the Premier League participants. There is the possibility of the kind of windfall that could bring domestic dominance for a club from outside Europe. There is the potential reward of cracking America, as everyone looks to build their brand. In a sense, though, the Club World Cup depends upon a different kind of investment. Whatever the big financial figures, it needs buy-in: not from Fifa 's partners but from the part of the footballing family who are rarely consulted, the fans. The Club World Cup is in a battle for hearts and minds and eyeballs. It is a matter if – and it is too early to draw definitive conclusions – people buy into it; if they invest their time, their hopes and their emotions. It is perhaps easiest to assess the match-going public. The empty seats suggest Fifa misjudged the equation of supply and demand, selecting some venues that were too big and making tickets too expensive. It is partly about the American fans, partly an issue of how many clubs have brought a sizeable travelling support, and the evidence is mixed. But there is a broader test, conducted not in Atlanta or Seattle but in armchairs and sofas. How many are tuning in and how often? Because there are audiences Fifa will be chasing, hoping the interest they display in established competitions is transferred to a new – or expanded, or reinvented – one. There is the summer tournament audience, those who, if they can, would try to watch every game of a World Cup or European Championship; will they assume the same approach with a Club World Cup? There are those who, in the group stages and last 16, would not go that far, but would tune in for the main game of the day. Are they carving out a couple of hours every night for the Club World Cup? Then there is the Champions League precedent. With multiple matches on at the same time, no one sees everything. But there are plenty who will watch something on every match night, and then, when the fixtures are fewer, will not miss anything at the business end of the tournament. The Club World Cup contains some of the same sides, the possibility of the same match-ups. Would those who, with no allegiance to any of the sides, automatically watch a Champions League semi-final between, say, Juventus and Bayern Munich or Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain, adopt the same attitude? Or, to use a parallel from 2022, will the neutrals who came to cheer on Morocco in their surprise surge to the semi-finals of the World Cup do likewise if Botafogo or Palmeiras, Flamengo or Fluminense charge into the last four now? Or will they simply sit this one out? It is a question of if the Club World Cup becomes appointment viewing; if millions, across the footballing world and separately, resolve to make a date in their diaries. And if the answers will be different, with the early indications that South America has bought into the Club World Cup more than Europe, there are a host of factors. They include time and weather: for the European audience, the late kick-offs are off-putting; for everyone, the risk of 100-degree heat can diminish the spectacle of the earlier ones. They can relate specifically to the United States, but there are wider issues. There is the crisis of legitimacy with the Infantino algorithm for qualification, whereby Lionel Messi's Inter Miami were crowbarred into the tournament, and, seemingly, there were attempts to find Cristiano Ronaldo a club for a month. Separately, there is the Ceferin criteria that means that, somehow, Red Bull Salzburg are in a tournament that does not feature the reigning champions of England, Italy or Spain, or two of the Champions League semi-finalists. There is the ennui and exhaustion felt by players and public alike; many footballers' comments last year were hints they knew their workload was unsustainable, but presumably they have been silenced by executives who want the profits from the competition. Yet the sense of overkill has been apparent among many a football fan. While there were legitimate reasons to want a Club World Cup, this competition has been imposed on everyone without consultation or consideration, and that can alienate some potential viewers. Fifa's hype and hyperbole, pronouncing everything they do a glorious success, is propaganda rather than analysis – perhaps some are voting with their remote controls by turning off. There is the football itself. Some games have been like pre-season friendlies, with heavily rotated teams that bear no resemblance to the clubs' strongest sides, with managers taking the understandable view that their season has almost 12 months left to run. Which, in itself, is an admission that it ends with the Champions League final and the World Cup. A danger for this Club World Cup is that European fans can zone out of summer games in the United States, unless they are in an actual World Cup, anyway. There are annual matches, some in tournaments with grandiose names – the International Champions Cup or the World Football Challenge – that carry absolutely no prestige. If the Club World Cup can redress a global imbalance – the dominance of the five major European leagues – it probably can't do so without sufficient engagement from this side of the Atlantic, and not merely because some of the most lucrative television markets are here. It is too easy, too simplistic, to dismiss all the scepticism as Anglocentric, a 21st-century version of the Little Englander syndrome that led this country to skip the first three World Cups, when the Champions League can feel the ultimate in the club game on the mainland as well. It is scarcely conclusive proof, but in five days in a continental European city last week, there seemed no evidence of bars or restaurants showing the Club World Cup, or that it was even on. It is hard to imagine a similar indifference to football in the summer of 2024 or 2026. There is ample proof that European football fans are prepared to commit to a summer tournament every two years, whether the World Cup or the European Championship, but not lesser tournaments. There are plenty of competing attractions in the summer sporting schedule – football does not always succeed when it attempts to park its tanks on their lawn. And, in this case, Fifa is also trying to overshadow the rest of the same sport, whether it's the women's European Championship, the men's Under-21 tournament or the Gold Cup. The game's governing body does not always capture the imagination with its competitions. Undoubtedly, some people cared about the Confederations Cup. Just not enough for Fifa and not enough to dominate the popular consciousness. Does the Club World Cup? It may be too soon to tell. Organic growth – as opposed to imposing a tournament and expecting it to be an instant hit – can take time. Anything new has not yet become a habit for many. But each of us among the intended audience faces a decision: how much value we attach to the Club World Cup. It has had shock scorelines, the unexpectedly early eliminations of Atletico Madrid and Porto, and the spirited progress of the Brazilian clubs. But plotlines are more enthralling, characters more compelling and the narrative only addictive if you are sufficiently invested in it. Some, undeniably, are. Others are not. For them, the Club World Cup has been the breaking point, something they are deliberately switching off. Some will be picking and choosing their games, or vaguely paying attention. Different people will provide different answers. But for the Club World Cup to genuinely prosper, it needs a critical mass who want it, want to watch it, and want to watch almost all of it.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Business live: Dollar drops as Trump threatens Fed credibility
Trading in Asian stock markets was subdued as the ceasefire between Israel and Iran appeared to be holding, reducing the risks of oil supply disruptions. Although investors are now looking ahead to President Trump's deadline on tariffs. The FTSE 100 is forecast to open 16 points lower when trading begins shortly. The index closed down 40 points yesterday. Oil prices have stabilised, with the benchmark Brent crude future contract trading just below $67 a barrel. The price of gold has edged higher to $3.334.89 an ounce. The dollar has fallen to a fresh three-year low against a basket of currencies after President Trump was reported to be considering announcing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's replacement by October. The Wall Street Journal report unsettled currency markets as it raised concerns about the future independence of the Fed and potentially undermined faith in the soundness of the country's monetary policy. Kieran Williams, head of Asia foreign exchange at InTouch Capital Markets, said: 'Markets are likely to bristle at any early move to name Powell's successor, particularly if the decision appears politically motivated.' Trump has been pressuring the Fed chief to lower interest rates, branding him 'Too Late' Jerome Powell. Powell told the Senate yesterday that the Fed had to be wary about cutting rates as the President's tariff plans were an inflation risk.
Geeky Gadgets
an hour ago
- Geeky Gadgets
Android 16: Performance Issues You Need to Know
Android 16, with its Material 3 redesign, set out to redefine the user experience with a modern and expressive interface. However, as you explore its features, several shortcomings become apparent. These range from limited customization options to inconsistent design elements, raising questions about its readiness for a polished, stable release. In the video below from Sam Beckman delves into the key areas where Android 16 struggles and why addressing these issues is critical for its success.= Watch this video on YouTube. Lock Screen: A Missed Opportunity for Personalization The lock screen in Android 16 fails to meet the growing demand for personalization. While many users expect a dynamic and customizable lock screen, Android 16 offers only basic options, leaving much to be desired. Key issues include: A lack of a robust lock screen editor , preventing users from tailoring layouts to their preferences. , preventing users from tailoring layouts to their preferences. Limited clock styles with no depth effects or resizing options, resulting in static and outdated designs. No support for always-visible widgets or the ability to remove the clock entirely, frustrating users who prefer a minimalist aesthetic. These limitations make the lock screen feel rigid and uninspired, falling short of the customization standards set by competing platforms. Fingerprint Unlock Animation: Lacking Visual Appeal The fingerprint unlock animation in Android 16 is another area where the system feels underwhelming. Competing Android skins provide dynamic and visually engaging animations that enhance the unlocking experience. In contrast, Android 16's animation feels basic and outdated, failing to contribute to the overall polish and user satisfaction of the operating system. Navigation Bar: A Visual Inconsistency The navigation bar design in Android 16 introduces persistent issues that disrupt the interface's visual harmony. Key problems include: An intrusive presence that detracts from the overall flow of the interface. that detracts from the overall flow of the interface. Inconsistent background elements across apps, creating a disjointed and unpolished experience. These inconsistencies undermine the cohesive aesthetic that users expect from a modern operating system, making the navigation bar feel like an afterthought rather than an integral part of the design. Home Screen Customization: Falling Short of Expectations Android 16's home screen customization options are surprisingly restrictive, limiting your ability to create a personalized and engaging experience. Key shortcomings include: No ability to remove default widgets like 'At a Glance' or the search bar, which restricts layout flexibility. Lack of support for third-party icon packs and limited grid size options, reducing the scope for visual customization. No features like double-tap to lock or the ability to disable app labels, which are common in other Android skins. <liFlat and uninspired animations that lack the fluidity and responsiveness seen in competing systems. These limitations hinder the ability to craft a home screen that reflects individual preferences, leaving users with a less engaging experience. Third-Party Launcher Compatibility: A Step Backward For users who prefer third-party launchers, Android 16 presents significant challenges. Gestural navigation animations are tied exclusively to the stock launcher, leading to janky transitions and a less seamless experience when using alternatives. This restriction undermines Android's reputation for flexibility and customization, alienating a segment of users who rely on third-party launchers for their preferred interface. Quick Settings Panel: Design and Functionality Issues The Quick Settings panel in Android 16 struggles with both design and usability, making it feel clunky and outdated. Key concerns include: A poorly designed brightness slider and an unintuitive toggle editing interface that complicate basic adjustments. Inconsistent toggle shapes and limited functionality, such as the absence of flashlight intensity adjustment . . Cartoonish font styles and outdated Wi-Fi and data icons that detract from the panel's aesthetic appeal. These issues make the Quick Settings panel less intuitive and less visually appealing than those found in competing systems. Volume Panel: Overdesigned and Inefficient The volume panel in Android 16 is overly large and cluttered with unnecessary design elements. This overdesign makes volume adjustments less efficient, particularly for users who value simplicity and ease of use. A more compact and intuitive design would greatly improve the usability of this feature. Haptics and Refresh Rate: Missing Fine-Tuning Android 16 falls short in providing granular control over haptics and refresh rate settings, which are essential for a refined user experience. Notable issues include: No options to adjust keyboard vibration intensity or fine-tune haptic feedback settings, limiting user control. or fine-tune haptic feedback settings, limiting user control. Some devices default to a 60 Hz refresh rate without offering the option to choose during setup, reducing the smoothness and responsiveness associated with higher refresh rates. These oversights diminish the tactile and visual experience that users expect from a modern operating system, leaving room for improvement. Camera App: Performance Problems Persist The camera app in Android 16 continues to struggle with performance issues that impact photo and video quality. Key problems include: Persistent shutter lag and jittery video recording, which undermine the quality of captured moments. and jittery video recording, which undermine the quality of captured moments. Clunky lens switching during video capture and subpar portrait mode performance, with harsh cutouts and slow processing. An outdated cinematic blur feature that remains limited to 1080p resolution. Poor third-party app camera quality, particularly in apps like Instagram and TikTok, where image processing falls short. These shortcomings make the camera experience feel inconsistent and underwhelming, especially when compared to the competition. Refining Android 16 for a Better Future While Android 16's Material 3 redesign introduces a modern aesthetic, its potential is overshadowed by numerous usability and functionality issues. From limited customization options to inconsistent design elements and underperforming features, these shortcomings highlight the need for significant improvements. Addressing these concerns is essential for Google to deliver a competitive and satisfying user experience with Android 16. By refining these aspects, Android 16 could truly live up to its promise of a fresh and expressive operating system. Uncover more insights about Android 16 Material 3 Redesign in previous articles we have written. Source & Image Credit: Sam Beckman Filed Under: Android News, Mobile Phone News, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
