Truist Lifts Toast (TOST) PT to $50 from $48, Remains Optimistic for FinTech Sector
In Q1 2025, Toast reported booking Applebee's, which marked its largest deal in company history, and added 6,000+ net new locations during the quarter. In that quarter, the Annualized Recurring Run-rate grew 31% year-over-year to $1.7 billion. Toast achieved a net income of $56 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $133 million.
A consumer smiling and receiving a cash back rebate they earned from engaging with digital media.
In Q1, the company experienced a 25% year-over-year increase in total locations, which reached ~140,000. Gross Payment Volume/GPV rose 22% year-over-year to $42.2 billion. In this quarter, Toast also renewed its credit facility, closing a $350 million revolving credit facility, which amends and restates its previous $330 million facility established in 2021. The company also introduced ToastIQ, an intelligence engine designed to enhance restaurant operations.
Toast Inc. (NYSE:TOST) is a cloud-based digital technology platform for the restaurant industry in the US, Ireland, India, and internationally.
While we acknowledge the potential of TOST 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 .
READ NEXT: and .
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
Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
How Trump is making pot a MAGA issue
President Trump is opening the door to reclassifying marijuana, potentially allowing the GOP to claim another health issue that's long been associated with Democrats. Why it matters: The administration has already flipped the political script when it comes to banning food dyes, calling for an end to animal lab testing and embracing psychedelics for mental health. Rescheduling marijuana could be a big step toward establishing an interstate cannabis trade — and turning a policy long sought by congressional Democrats and promoted by the Biden administration into reality. Driving the news: Trump brought up the subject during a recent event with donors at his Bedminster, New Jersey, country club after marijuana companies contributed millions of dollars to his political organizations, the Wall Street Journal first reported. While falling short of legalization, designating pot to have medical value and less dangerous than its Schedule I designation would be a major jolt to cannabis companies that run on thin margins, per Axios' Dan Primack. It would allow them to deduct business expenses on their taxes and also reduce restrictions on cannabis research. The industry has mounted"a very powerful PR effort," Kevin Sabet, founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana who served in the White House Office of Drug Control Policy under three administrations, told Axios. "They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars in total to influence the president from Florida onward, whether it's inauguration, whether it's million-dollar-plate fundraisers in New Jersey. They are going all out because they want this tax break." Catch up quick: Polling from the Pew Research Center and others have shown increasing support for marijuana legalization across the political spectrum, with 88% favoring medical or recreational use. "Cannabis has become a less partisan [issue] over time, and this has been accelerated by the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products," Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, told Axios. "Heck, I was just in Indiana where someone could buy THC drinks in grocery stores and bars — I don't even see that here in California." While much of Trump's orbit has been more circumspect about making such a change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a notable exception, Sabet said. Kennedy supported legalization of marijuana during his presidential campaign and said it could open up more research into risks and benefits, although he has also warned about potential "catastrophic impacts" on users. There's still a big difference between rescheduling a drug and federal legalization, which demonstrates the political winds of change are moving slowly. Multiple state ballot initiatives seeking to legalize recreational pot have failed over the last several years. Trump, like Biden, is a teetotaler, and neither has expressed great enthusiasm for legalization over the years, said Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University. "The way to think about it is some people wanted Biden to legalize. Biden didn't want to do that, so he said, 'Well, I'll suggest rescheduling, which will make some people think that we've made a big change, but it isn't really,'" Caulkins said. Friction point: The rescheduling of marijuana means the government would be officially recognizing its medicinal uses. That's difficult when the quality and consistency of the botanical version of the drug isn't like more conventional pharmaceuticals, Caulkins said. The move also would transfer cannabis to the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, which could create headaches for the agency. The FDA would be "between a rock and a hard place," Caulkins said. "They either have to ignore their own rules and regulations and say, we're just going to let the cannabis happen without the usual standards for medicine, or we're going to bite the bullet and crack down on a multibillion-dollar industry that's been operating for years now." The big picture: A rescheduling would be further evidence of the MAGA world's ability to take the reins on issues once associated with the progressive movement. "For the left, it's been much more about sort of social justice and righting the wrongs of the drug war," Sabet said. On the other hand: "You have part of the MAGA wing that has embraced this," he said. "It's about business, it's about money." Yes, but: This is already stirring up some disagreement among Trump's base. "I hope this doesn't happen," Turning Point USA founder and key MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk posted on X. "Everything already smells like weed, which is ridiculous. Let's make it harder to ruin public spaces, not easier." Relaxing marijuana rules also is stirring concern among state GOP lawmakers in states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Even administration officials such as FDA commissioner Marty Makary have posted warnings about health risks from cannabis use. Reality check: Trump was vague on the timing of any move when he confirmed the WSJ's reporting on Monday, saying: "We're only looking at that. It's early."
Los Angeles Times
6 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Unlike at Columbia, Trump's attack on UCLA is aimed at taxpayer money
President Trump's demand for a whopping $1-billion payment from UCLA sent shock waves through the UC system. For those of us on the inside, the announcement elicited a range of responses. Some faculty and staff reacted with horror, others voiced increasing fear about the ongoing assault on academic freedom, and some merely muttered in sad resignation to the new reality. I laughed. The president has decided to poke the bear — and the Bears and the Bruins, too. Whether Trump knows it or not, targeting the University of California is very different from going after private Ivy League institutions with deep historical ties to political power. Pressuring UC to pay a large sum has another dimension entirely: It's going after state tax dollars paid by the people of California. This should matter to folks on the left and the right, to those who venerate higher education and those who vote in favor of states' rights against federal overreach. Californians across the political spectrum should repurpose one of Trump's own slogans: 'Stop the steal.' Unlike Columbia and Brown, which have paid off the Trump administration, UC is a public institution. That means, as new UC President James Milliken said, 'we are stewards of taxpayer resources.' UC must answer to the people, not just to boards of trustees or senior administrators. Indeed, as a professor at UC Santa Barbara, I consider myself to be employed by my fellow Californians. My job is to contribute to the fundamental mission laid out in the state's 'Master Plan': to create new knowledge and educate the people of California. I take my responsibility even more seriously because I am also a product of UC; I earned my PhD at Berkeley and remain a proud Golden Bear. I am fully aware of what a positive effect a UC education can have on students and Californians everywhere. A $1-billion payment to the federal government would have huge consequences — not only on the people's university but also on the general welfare of our state, the world's fourth-largest economy. UC is the second-largest employer in the state. We generate $82 billion in economic activity every year. More than 84% of our students come from California, and their degrees are proven to increase their lifetime earning potential. UC health centers treat millions of people every year, providing essential medical care. According to one striking study, 'The economic output generated by UC-related spending is $4.4 billion larger than the economic output of the entire state of Wyoming and $16.1 billion larger than that of Vermont.' We accomplish that in large part with the people's money. For every dollar the state invests in us, we generate $21 of economic activity for the state. All of that activity generates $12 billion in tax revenue. We're a great engine of growth. You'd think a self-proclaimed genius and 'self-made' business tycoon would know a good deal when he sees one. To be sure, the supposed bases for demanding the extraordinary payment — antisemitism and civil rights abuses — are very serious. College students should expect to confront new ideas they may disagree with, but no one should be targeted for their beliefs. Full stop. But there are more effective remedies for addressing any failures, as have already been pursued at UCLA. For Trump, though, the accusations are the pretext for punishing institutions that he doesn't like and, as the Associated Press reports, rebuking political opponents such as Gov. Gavin Newsom. They are not reflective of a genuine concern for student rights. Many of us have already sounded the alarm about the increasing financial challenges the UC system faces. Even last year, we had reached a critical breaking point — and that was before losing federal grant money. But we haven't given up and neither should the people. We all must fight back against this attempted seizure of taxpayer funds. It's not enough to leave the task to political leaders; the people themselves must send the message. Californians can continue to resist federal incursions by making it clear to the UC Board of Regents, elected representatives and everyone else that Californians will not tolerate a federal pressure campaign to take our state's resources. There are many reasons to be alarmed by Trump's broader attack on higher education. But this time, Trump has crossed the public-private boundary and set his sights on state taxpayers' money. Because we fund it, UC and everything it produces belongs to us. That means we all — no matter where we fall on the political spectrum — must stop the steal. Giuliana Perrone, an associate professor of history at UC Santa Barbara, is the author of 'Nothing More than Freedom: The Failure of Abolition in American Law.'
Wall Street Journal
7 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How One Big Private-Equity Fund Makes Its Numbers Incomprehensible
Many fund managers strive to be transparent with their financial disclosures. Others are so obstructive that they might as well be kicking sand in investors' faces. While private equity is synonymous with opacity, the tricks of the trade are taking on greater importance as the industry seeks to broaden its reach among ordinary investors. President Trump last week signed an order seeking to open up Americans' 401(k) retirement accounts to private equity and other alternative investments. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) made headlines when she asked the Securities and Exchange Commission in June to investigate the way Harvard is valuing its private-equity holdings.
