Norton Adds Genie AI to Crush Online Scammers
Remember when email and text scams were riddled with grammatical errors that were easy to spot? Those days are gone, thanks to artificial intelligence tools that make it easier for scammers to create highly personalized and flawlessly written messages.
Ironically, the most effective way to stop these next-level scams is to deploy the same AI technology used to create them.
Norton, a leader in cybersecurity and creator of the AI-powered Genie app, has now added Genie Scam Protection to most of its Norton 360 antivirus and online protection plans at no additional cost. This is welcome news for anyone who's concerned about their online safety because it means you can put Norton 360's AI cybersecurity tools to work for you without having to use a second app.
Go ahead, click on it
With Genie AI now built into Norton's existing cybersecurity services, you don't need to lift a finger to find out if a text, email, website or link is a scam. Genie's AI engine detects hard-to-spot phishing and smishing (text message) scams across web and mobile by scanning through words and images to spot hidden scam patterns. Not only does the AI analyze the text, it looks for contextual cues in much the same way you would, allowing it to identify many of the sneakiest scams.
Norton 360's built-in Private Browser also allows you to shop and do your banking, worry-free. If something isn't flagged but still looks suspicious, you can ask Genie's scam assistant for instant feedback.
The Genie dashboard shows you how many scams the AI assistant has detected. Norton says that scammers target U.S. adults with nearly nine scam attempts every week, so that number might add up faster than you think.
A Norton online protection plan for everyone
Each Norton 360 plan includes Norton's antivirus, malware, ransomware and hacking tools, the newly added Genie AI scam protection, and Norton's Virus Protection Promise. The plans mostly differ by the number of devices covered, security perks and price.
Norton AntiVirus Plus (now $29.99 the first year) covers one PC, Mac, tablet or phone. The 360 Standard plan (now $39.99 the first year) covers three devices and adds a virtual private network (VPN) and dark-web monitoring. The 360 Deluxe (now $49.99 the first year) covers five devices and throws in 50GB of cloud backup. Lastly, 360 with LifeLock Select Plus (now $99.99 the first year) is a smart choice for families, as it covers ten devices and has 250GB of cloud backup. It also gives you peace of mind, reimbursing you up to $1 million if you experience a financial loss due to identity theft.
No matter which plan fits your needs, you can try it for 60 days with no upfront cost. When Genie starts showing you how many cyber threats have come your way, you'll be glad you did.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IOI Corporation Berhad's (KLSE:IOICORP) Intrinsic Value Is Potentially 17% Below Its Share Price
IOI Corporation Berhad's estimated fair value is RM2.99 based on 2 Stage Free Cash Flow to Equity IOI Corporation Berhad's RM3.61 share price signals that it might be 21% overvalued The RM4.07 analyst price target for IOICORP is 36% more than our estimate of fair value Today we will run through one way of estimating the intrinsic value of IOI Corporation Berhad (KLSE:IOICORP) by taking the expected future cash flows and discounting them to today's value. Our analysis will employ the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model. Don't get put off by the jargon, the math behind it is actually quite straightforward. Remember though, that there are many ways to estimate a company's value, and a DCF is just one method. If you want to learn more about discounted cash flow, the rationale behind this calculation can be read in detail in the Simply Wall St analysis model. AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. We use what is known as a 2-stage model, which simply means we have two different periods of growth rates for the company's cash flows. Generally the first stage is higher growth, and the second stage is a lower growth phase. To start off with, we need to estimate the next ten years of cash flows. Where possible we use analyst estimates, but when these aren't available we extrapolate the previous free cash flow (FCF) from the last estimate or reported value. We assume companies with shrinking free cash flow will slow their rate of shrinkage, and that companies with growing free cash flow will see their growth rate slow, over this period. We do this to reflect that growth tends to slow more in the early years than it does in later years. A DCF is all about the idea that a dollar in the future is less valuable than a dollar today, so we need to discount the sum of these future cash flows to arrive at a present value estimate: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Levered FCF (MYR, Millions) RM917.4m RM999.1m RM1.00b RM1.01b RM1.03b RM1.06b RM1.09b RM1.12b RM1.16b RM1.20b Growth Rate Estimate Source Analyst x2 Analyst x4 Analyst x4 Est @ 1.22% Est @ 1.95% Est @ 2.45% Est @ 2.81% Est @ 3.06% Est @ 3.23% Est @ 3.36% Present Value (MYR, Millions) Discounted @ 8.4% RM846 RM851 RM786 RM734 RM691 RM653 RM619 RM589 RM561 RM535 ("Est" = FCF growth rate estimated by Simply Wall St)Present Value of 10-year Cash Flow (PVCF) = RM6.9b After calculating the present value of future cash flows in the initial 10-year period, we need to calculate the Terminal Value, which accounts for all future cash flows beyond the first stage. The Gordon Growth formula is used to calculate Terminal Value at a future annual growth rate equal to the 5-year average of the 10-year government bond yield of 3.6%. We discount the terminal cash flows to today's value at a cost of equity of 8.4%. Terminal Value (TV)= FCF2034 × (1 + g) ÷ (r – g) = RM1.2b× (1 + 3.6%) ÷ (8.4%– 3.6%) = RM26b Present Value of Terminal Value (PVTV)= TV / (1 + r)10= RM26b÷ ( 1 + 8.4%)10= RM12b The total value, or equity value, is then the sum of the present value of the future cash flows, which in this case is RM19b. To get the intrinsic value per share, we divide this by the total number of shares outstanding. Compared to the current share price of RM3.6, the company appears slightly overvalued at the time of writing. The assumptions in any calculation have a big impact on the valuation, so it is better to view this as a rough estimate, not precise down to the last cent. We would point out that the most important inputs to a discounted cash flow are the discount rate and of course the actual cash flows. You don't have to agree with these inputs, I recommend redoing the calculations yourself and playing with them. The DCF also does not consider the possible cyclicality of an industry, or a company's future capital requirements, so it does not give a full picture of a company's potential performance. Given that we are looking at IOI Corporation Berhad as potential shareholders, the cost of equity is used as the discount rate, rather than the cost of capital (or weighted average cost of capital, WACC) which accounts for debt. In this calculation we've used 8.4%, which is based on a levered beta of 0.800. Beta is a measure of a stock's volatility, compared to the market as a whole. We get our beta from the industry average beta of globally comparable companies, with an imposed limit between 0.8 and 2.0, which is a reasonable range for a stable business. Check out our latest analysis for IOI Corporation Berhad Strength Earnings growth over the past year exceeded the industry. Debt is not viewed as a risk. Weakness Dividend is low compared to the top 25% of dividend payers in the Food market. Expensive based on P/E ratio and estimated fair value. Opportunity IOICORP's financial characteristics indicate limited near-term opportunities for shareholders. Threat Dividends are not covered by cash flow. Annual earnings are forecast to decline for the next 3 years. Valuation is only one side of the coin in terms of building your investment thesis, and it is only one of many factors that you need to assess for a company. It's not possible to obtain a foolproof valuation with a DCF model. Instead the best use for a DCF model is to test certain assumptions and theories to see if they would lead to the company being undervalued or overvalued. For instance, if the terminal value growth rate is adjusted slightly, it can dramatically alter the overall result. Can we work out why the company is trading at a premium to intrinsic value? For IOI Corporation Berhad, we've put together three relevant factors you should assess: Risks: Every company has them, and we've spotted 2 warning signs for IOI Corporation Berhad (of which 1 is potentially serious!) you should know about. Future Earnings: How does IOICORP's growth rate compare to its peers and the wider market? Dig deeper into the analyst consensus number for the upcoming years by interacting with our free analyst growth expectation chart. Other Solid Businesses: Low debt, high returns on equity and good past performance are fundamental to a strong business. Why not explore our interactive list of stocks with solid business fundamentals to see if there are other companies you may not have considered! PS. Simply Wall St updates its DCF calculation for every Malaysian stock every day, so if you want to find the intrinsic value of any other stock just search here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Be Sure To Check Out Able Global Berhad (KLSE:ABLEGLOB) Before It Goes Ex-Dividend
Regular readers will know that we love our dividends at Simply Wall St, which is why it's exciting to see Able Global Berhad (KLSE:ABLEGLOB) is about to trade ex-dividend in the next 3 days. Typically, the ex-dividend date is two business days before the record date, which is the date on which a company determines the shareholders eligible to receive a dividend. The ex-dividend date is an important date to be aware of as any purchase of the stock made on or after this date might mean a late settlement that doesn't show on the record date. Meaning, you will need to purchase Able Global Berhad's shares before the 19th of June to receive the dividend, which will be paid on the 4th of July. The company's next dividend payment will be RM00.0175 per share, on the back of last year when the company paid a total of RM0.075 to shareholders. Last year's total dividend payments show that Able Global Berhad has a trailing yield of 5.0% on the current share price of RM01.51. We love seeing companies pay a dividend, but it's also important to be sure that laying the golden eggs isn't going to kill our golden goose! As a result, readers should always check whether Able Global Berhad has been able to grow its dividends, or if the dividend might be cut. AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. If a company pays out more in dividends than it earned, then the dividend might become unsustainable - hardly an ideal situation. Able Global Berhad paid out a comfortable 33% of its profit last year. Yet cash flows are even more important than profits for assessing a dividend, so we need to see if the company generated enough cash to pay its distribution. Fortunately, it paid out only 31% of its free cash flow in the past year. It's positive to see that Able Global Berhad's dividend is covered by both profits and cash flow, since this is generally a sign that the dividend is sustainable, and a lower payout ratio usually suggests a greater margin of safety before the dividend gets cut. See our latest analysis for Able Global Berhad Click here to see the company's payout ratio, plus analyst estimates of its future dividends. Stocks in companies that generate sustainable earnings growth often make the best dividend prospects, as it is easier to lift the dividend when earnings are rising. If earnings decline and the company is forced to cut its dividend, investors could watch the value of their investment go up in smoke. With that in mind, we're encouraged by the steady growth at Able Global Berhad, with earnings per share up 7.6% on average over the last five years. The company is retaining more than half of its earnings within the business, and it has been growing earnings at a decent rate. We think this is generally an attractive combination, as dividends can grow through a combination of earnings growth and or a higher payout ratio over time. Many investors will assess a company's dividend performance by evaluating how much the dividend payments have changed over time. In the past 10 years, Able Global Berhad has increased its dividend at approximately 19% a year on average. We're glad to see dividends rising alongside earnings over a number of years, which may be a sign the company intends to share the growth with shareholders. Has Able Global Berhad got what it takes to maintain its dividend payments? Earnings per share growth has been growing somewhat, and Able Global Berhad is paying out less than half its earnings and cash flow as dividends. This is interesting for a few reasons, as it suggests management may be reinvesting heavily in the business, but it also provides room to increase the dividend in time. We would prefer to see earnings growing faster, but the best dividend stocks over the long term typically combine significant earnings per share growth with a low payout ratio, and Able Global Berhad is halfway there. There's a lot to like about Able Global Berhad, and we would prioritise taking a closer look at it. In light of that, while Able Global Berhad has an appealing dividend, it's worth knowing the risks involved with this stock. For example, we've found 1 warning sign for Able Global Berhad that we recommend you consider before investing in the business. Generally, we wouldn't recommend just buying the first dividend stock you see. Here's a curated list of interesting stocks that are strong dividend payers. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Jones Day Argues New Approach To Valuation In Recent Tax Court Cases
Atlanta, Georgia, Jones Day, multinational law firm office building. (Photo by: Jeffrey ... More Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) Tax Court Judge Goeke's opinion in Beaverdam Creek Holdings LLC pairs nicely with Judge Lauber's opinion in Ranch Springs LLC, which I recently covered. Both involve syndicated conservation easements on mining property in the South (Georgia and Alabama respectively) and extensive discussion of the discounted cash flow method of valuation. Another thing they have in common is the law firm representing the petitioner - Jones Day - and an innovative approach to valuation that they have developed and once again failed to sell a Tax Court judge on. Charles E. Hodges II of Jones Day has written me that both cases will be appealed. Most significantly both cases present a theory of valuation that would be game changing if it prevails on appeal. The property in question was an 85 acre tract in Oglethorpe County Georgia. It was owned by Service Granite Co. Inc (SGC) which had mined granite on it till 2006. It then leased the mine to Lexington Blue Granite Inc. Lexington, which had some ownership in common with SGC stopped mining sometime in 2008. North Ridge Quarries took up a lease and operated from 2008 to 2012. SGC ended up being owned by Lita Miller, who had no experience in the granite business. She was troubled by loans that were associated with SGC. In 2017, she heard from Lee Ellis of Strategic Seek One LLC expressing interest in the property. Mr. Ellis had identified the property from studying aerial maps. Ultimately they agreed on an effective purchase price of $225,000. Beaverdam was formed on June 29, 2017 with SSO as its manager. SGC contributed the property to Beaverdam in exchange for a 99% interest. SSO contributed $10,000 for a 1% interest. SSO agreed to pay SGC $228,000 for a 97% interest in Beaverdam leaving SGC with 2%. My inference is that these maneuvers were to give Beaverdam a tack on the holding period of the property so that the contribution could be made in 2017. Beaverdam Creek Investors LLC (BC Investors) was formed on August 23, 2017. The manager of BC investors was Strategic Fund Managers (SFM). Its purpose was to invest in Beaverdam "ostensibly" to either hold for appreciation or contribute a conservation easement. There were 183 units at $25,000 each for a total of $4,575,000. $950,000 of that was designated to be paid for the 97% interest in Beaverdam and $2,260,000 would be contributed to Beaverdam and $150,000 to a BC investors operating reserve. The balance went to offering expenses, consulting fees to Strategic Group and legal and other expenses. On December 27, 2017, SFM notified the partners that it had determined that the conservation strategy should be followed. The members had one day to affirm or reject the determination. Of those who voted 57 went for conservation and 2 for holding for investment. On December 28, 2017 Beaverdam conveyed an easement on the property to Foothills Land Conservancy. On its return for the short period December 28, 2017 to December 31, 2017 Beaverdam claimed a charitable contribution of $21,972,000 for the easement. The opinion includes a discussion of burden of proof and whether the appraisal was a qualified appraisal. The burden of proof did not shift from the taxpayer and the appraisal whatever its flaws was a qualified appraisal. The contentious important issue was valuation. Since you generally can't find a lot of buying and selling of easements the valuation is usually done by the before and after method. The value of the property before the easement encumbers it has the value of the property as encumbered subtracted from it. Usually it is the "before" value that is at issue. In this case, both parties agreed that the after value was $106,750. When it came to the before value Judge Goeke agreed with the taxpayer that the highest and best use was granite mining. "We agree with BC Investors that operation of a quarry on the easement property was financially feasible in December 2017. Although many of respondent's points are fair, the facts favor BC Investors' position. We are especially persuaded by the long history of quarrying that has taken place on the property, the property's lack of use for other purposes, and Mr. Krasinski's agreement with BC Investors' position." For the before value the IRS argued $215,000 and the taxpayer was looking for at least $23 million. Judge Goeke was not satisfied with either of those answers. He did not, however, split the difference. When it came to method, IRS was looking at comparable sales, but he did not think the IRS experts included enough information regarding quarry/granite features of the comparable properties. BC Investors argued that "the income method is the sole valuation method that can determine the fair market value of what Beaverdam Holdings sacrificed: the valuable granite that could be extracted and sold". Judge Goeke' overall assessment was harsh: "While we do not completely agree with respondent's position, it is not unreasonable. On the other hand, BC Investors' position is absurd". He goes on "... because the valuation BC Investors argues for is completely untethered from reality, it produced no sales data that remotely supports its DCF analyses. BC Investors asks us to trust speculative, unconvincing business valuation projections over the accumulated knowledge of the market in the 'Granite Capital of the World'." "BC Investors erroneously equated the (overstated) value of a hypothetical business to the fair market value of the easement property. Respondent advocated use of the comparable sales method, but his experts could have included more information regarding quarry/granite features in their comparable sales data. Considering the evidence, we value the easement property on the basis of our own examination of the record." Judge Goeke's examination of the record yielded a before value of $300,000. Subtracting the agreed after value makes for a deduction of $193,250. He also ruled that the 40% gross valuation penalty applied. The allowed deduction was about 1% of the claimed deduction of $21,972,000. When I first heard from people who were planning to syndicate conservation easements, I thought the idea was absurd. If they were going out buying property, they would generally be paying fair market value more or less and an easement is worth a fraction, possibly a large fraction, of the fair market value. The argument that was subsequently made by the industry was that an easement was giving up future value that might not be reflected in what the property would change hands for currently. Until recently, though, as far as I can tell, nobody was making any argument of that sort in court. That is what makes this case and Ranch Springs LLC so special. Jones Day was making an argument that would account for property being valued for a conservation easement at a multiple of the value that it had recently changed hands for. If you want to dive deeply into this here are two sources. One is an article in Bloomberg Tax - The Tax Tail Can't Wag The Valuation Dog: Five Key FMV Rules. Mr. Hodges is the lead author. The other is the Jones Day brief in the case. The argument is that in order for a sale to be comparable, you have to consider not only the physical characteristics of the property, but also the bargaining posture of the seller and buyer. They use the acronym BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) to describe the bargaining position. Beaverdam's BATNA was operating a quarry for a present value of $23 million. Lita Miller who let go of the property for less than 1% of that was not in a position to operate quarry so that sale was not comparable. Similar reasoning is applied to the other sales, the IRS put forth as comparable. In the Tax Tail Can't Wag The Valuation Dog article, the authors discuss the concept of "fair" in "fair market value". They argue that to be fair, both the hypothetical buyer and seller must be participants in each of the markets in which the property could trade. "Take for example, real property that could be put to use as either farmland (a less valuable use in this hypothetical) or commercial real estate (a more valuable use) and the seller is a farmer and buyer is a developer. The farmer may lack the experience and capital, or otherwise, to exploit that potential commercial use. Thus the farmer - with limited development knowledge and unable to commercially develop the property himself - may accept a price that is indicative of the property's continued use as a farm, or a reduced value because of his inability to commercially develop the property. In this hypothetical, the price at which the property changed hands does not represent a "fair" approximation of the value of the property." The implications of this approach are breathtaking. Comparable sales are a preferred valuation method, but if Jones Day is right in Beaverdam and Ranch, comparable sales may be very rare. Neither of the Tax Court judges who engaged with this is impressed by the theory, but I am impressed that Jones Day managed to come up with anything that supports the easement syndication industry's view of the world. I am looking forward to see what the appellate court makes of it. Mr. Hodges wrote me that as he sees it the Tax Court with its ruling that discounted cash flow is valuing a business rather than the underlying land has effectively eliminated the highest and best use inquiry.
