CRSP, ABSI, IRDM: Cathie Wood Offloads $16.4M of CRISPR Therapeutics Stock, Buys Absci and Iridium
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
Meanwhile, ARK funds added $6.2 million in biotechnology firm Absci Corp. (ABSI), purchased 262,141 shares of genomic diagnostics company Veracyte (VCYT), and acquired 69,969 shares of satellite company Iridium Communications (IRDM).
Wood Buys the Dip in Absci Stock
On July 25, Wood loaded up on 2.25 million shares of Absci, totaling $6.2 million. Absci leverages generative artificial intelligence (AI) and synthetic biology to develop novel biologic drugs, primarily antibodies, for pharmaceutical and biotechnology partners. ABSI stock plunged 17.7% on Friday after the company announced a $50 million secondary offering of its common shares. Wood seems to have capitalized on the 'dip' in Absci shares to gain a notable position.
All seven analysts tracking ABSI stock have rated it a Strong Buy on TipRanks. The average Absci price target of $9.17 implies an impressive 217.3% upside potential from current levels. Year-to-date, ABSI stock has gained 10.3%.
Why Is Wood Dumping CRSP Stock?
Wood appears to have taken a bearish stance on gene-editing company Crispr, although she maintains a rather optimistic outlook on the overall genomics sector. On Friday, The ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) sold 190,840 shares of Crispr worth $12.6 million, and the ARK Genomic Revolution ETF (ARKG) sold another 58,268 shares of CRSP for $3.8 million.
Crispr is a Swiss-American biotech company focused on developing transformative gene-based medicines to treat serious diseases such as sickle cell disease, beta-thalassemia, various cancers, type 1 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. It uses advanced gene-editing technology, primarily its CRISPR/Cas9 platform, to develop its medicines.
Despite the latest sale, CRSP remains the largest holding in the ARKG fund, with a market value of $137.5 million, and is also the fourth largest holding in the ARKK fund, with a market value of $450.6 million. Notably, CRSP stock has surged over 64% so far this year, backed by its revolutionary business model. Crispr is expected to release its Q2FY25 results in August. Wall Street expects CRSP to report a diluted loss of $1.4 per share, 1.3% better than the prior year's loss of $1.49. Revenues are expected to jump nearly 1100% year-over-year to $6.14 million.
On TipRanks, CRSP stock has a Moderate Buy consensus rating based on 14 Buys and seven Hold ratings. Also, the average Crispr Therapeutics price target of $69.38 implies 7.1% upside potential from current levels. Year-to-date, CRSP stock has soared 64.5%.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
15 minutes ago
- New York Post
SOS — Save Our Shipping: Trump must break China's chokehold on global trade
A high-stakes deal that would give an American company a major role in running dozens of strategically crucial global ports is now in limbo — as China aggressively demands a stake. The United States cannot let that happen. US asset manager BlackRock and its partners are vying for 43 of the world's most important shipping ports, including the two that straddle the Panama Canal. The seller is C.K. Hutchison, a major Hong Kong operator that is one of China's 'big three' port giants — and the only one not owned outright by the Chinese government. Prying these ports from China's oversight is a critical move for both US national security and the global economy. Now the Chinese Communist Party is trying to block the deal, unless its state-owned COSCO joins the buyers' group and gains veto rights over port operations. Alarmingly, all three main parties are reportedly open to letting that happen, apparently thinking that a compromised deal is better than no deal at all. But with all that's at stake, President Donald Trump should use every tool available — starting with the ongoing US-China trade talks — to push the original deal through and keep COSCO out. The 43 ports that Hutchison seeks to sell would launch a global liberation from oppressive Chinese surveillance and control. If the plan falls through — or if it's altered to add COSCO to the ownership group — China could tighten its grip on the global shipping system, by replacing a Beijing-influenced company with a Beijing-controlled one. While the media has dubbed this the 'Panama Canal deal,' it's actually much bigger. The canal, a vital artery that runs through the center of the western hemisphere, is certainly critical — but many of the other ports involved in the deal are equally so. For example, this deal would include a port inside the Malacca Strait, the only direct maritime pathway between the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It sees 90,000 ships and $3.5 trillion worth of global trade every year. Hutchison is also looking to sell five ports that it owns on both sides of the Suez Canal, the preferred maritime commercial route between the Asian and European markets. About 12% of global trade, $1 trillion a year, passes through Suez. As China's purchases of sanctioned Iranian oil draw greater US scrutiny, Hutchison's four ports on the southern side of the Strait of Hormuz are also critical. Nearly all Iranian oil must pass through the strait, along with oil and gas from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar. In Europe, Hutchison controls 13 ports that act as a key entry point for Chinese goods into the European Union. The original deal would reduce China's port foothold on the continent — and the geopolitical influence that comes with it. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Like all major commercial deals, this one is complicated. Apart from the two Panama Canal ports, BlackRock would retain 20% ownership of the remaining facilities; its partner, Europe-based Mediterranean Shipping Corp., would control 70%, with Singapore's Sovereign Wealth Fund owning the rest. Meanwhile, China's power in global shipping is massive. China produces 95% of world shipping containers and all of the refrigerated ones. Ports around the world are plugged into China's logistical software platform, LOGINK, which tracks sensitive trade, market, maritime and passenger data. Huawei's 'Smart Port' 5G telecommunication towers provide Wi-Fi — and ready surveillance capacity — at ports worldwide. A Chinese state-owned company makes more than 70% of the world's ship-to-shore cranes (and 80% of the cranes used in America) — a major risk, according to the House Homeland Security Committee, which has alleged those cranes may be engaging in covert surveillance on behalf of the CCP. Adding state-owned COSCO to ports deal would give the CCP the power to veto any attempts to replace Huawei towers, LOGINK systems, Chinese cranes or other tools that may already be spying on behalf of the state. With BlackRock's minority interest in the vast bulk of these ports, replacing a private Chinese company with a state-owned one is even worse for the United States than the status quo. Breaking China's maritime monopoly is urgent. At the same time, America's economic leverage has never been higher. As Beijing trumps up patently absurd anti-monopoly investigations to stall or scuttle the BlackRock-MSC deal, the United States should Trump right back. He must make the choice clear: Access to American markets cannot continue unless Beijing releases its maritime monopoly. Elaine Dezenski heads the Center on Economic and Financial Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Susan Soh is a research associate.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump struck huge trade deals — but tariffs are about to go up on a huge swath of imports as Liberation Day tariffs hit
WASHINGTON — Countries around the world rushed Thursday to negotiate last-minute trade deals with the US before sweeping new tariffs take effect Friday — after President Trump already locked up major agreements accounting for about one-third of American trade. As of Thursday evening, the US had secured framework agreements calling for a 15% tariff on the European Union, a 10% duty on the United Kingdom, a 20% rate for Vietnam, a 19% levy for the Philippines and Indonesia, and a 15% levy on Japan and South Korea — while securing $2.25 trillion in promised investments and purchases of US goods. Trump also allowed extensions for China and Mexico — two of America's top economic partners responsible for 27% of US trade, as he irons out the details and tries to open their markets to more American goods. Countries who account for 40% of US trade were due to receive letters by midnight Eastern Time, informing them of new rates as high as 50%. Sectoral tariffs, including a 50% rate on foreign copper, aluminum and steel and a 20% on overseas pharmaceuticals, will also go into effect. Notably, Canada — America's second largest trading partner and a particular target of Trump's ire — looks set for a new 35% duty. But rates for more than 100 countries were still being negotiated with Trump's trade team Thursday afternoon, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Post in her regular briefing. 3 White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said tariffs will be imposed at midnight Eastern Time on Aug. 1, upon an executive order from Trump. REUTERS 'Upwards of 200 countries around the world have reached out to their trade and tariff team,' Leavitt told reporters of the conversations had throughout negotiations, noting that the White House will continue to 'prioritize' key trading partners on the last stretch. Leavitt wouldn't reveal the exact rates countries will be charged — but said Trump's team 'has been working around the clock to try to be in correspondence with as many countries as possible.' It looked unlikely a deal with Canada — which bought $350 billion in American goods last year while exporting $412 billion to the US — could be struck before the tariffs kicked. 'They have to pay a fair rate,' Trump told reporters of the holdup Thursday. 'They have been charging very, very high tariffs to our farmers.' Trump has also been leveraging America's economic power in the trade war by invoking other geopolitical grievances. India was threatened with a 25% tariff, plus an additional penalty for importing Russian weapons and energy. And even though the US has a trade surplus with Brazil, South America's biggest economy will be hit with an astronomical 50% rate due to their treatment of Trump ally and former president Jair Bolsonaro. 3 Trump has threatened countries with tariffs as high as 50%. AP Trump first announced tariff hikes as a part of his 'Liberation Deal' announcement on April 2, threatening to impose high rates at a 'reciprocal' level to account for trade discrepancies and levies charged by trading partners. He then paused his high tariffs a week later and set most rates at 10%, with the expectation that '90 deals' would be done in '90 days.' Since then, Trump has made a number of key deals with major trading partners, and the administration has predicted the Aug. 1 deadline will push others to follow suit in the coming weeks and months. Trump first made a deal with the UK in May, locking in a 10% tariff and securing the promise that the country will 'open up' their market to US goods, notably agricultural products like beef. 3 Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he won't accept a 'bad deal' from Trump, so the 35% rate may go forth. REUTERS The president then struck a 20% tariff deal with Vietnam, a 19% rate with the Philippines and Indonesia, a 15% rate with Japan and South Korea — and then announced a 15% rate on the European Union Sunday. The EU deal was particularly impressive, as it significantly raised rates from their previous levels and includes pledges for the EU to buy $750 billion in American energy, invest $600 billion in new money in the US and purchase additional military equipment. China, America's no. 3 trading partner, has separate ongoing negotiations and has a deadline of Aug. 12 to come to a final deal. Mexico received a 90-day extension in a last minute phone call with Trump on Thursday, pushing their talks to a later date while keeping the 25% tariff as punishment for fentanyl crossing the border, a 25% tariff on cars and a 50% rate on the country's aluminum, copper and steel. Other world leaders were calling Thursday asking for possible extensions, Leavitt said, but the ultimate decision rests with Trump, who has indicated that the deadline is firm. 'I think he's done really good work here to expand export opportunities for the US and our producers,' said Richard Stern, acting director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Stern said the preliminary frameworks for some of the deals will also ensure Americans' intellectual property isn't being stolen — and force a quicker decoupling from China critical for national security. 'We view tariffs as a good tool for statecraft negotiation,' he added. 'The EU is really on this knife's edge of moving closer to China or moving closer to us.' 'As of tomorrow, US tariffs will be higher than they have been in a century — and hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes will be paid for by American companies and consumers,' warned Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the libertarian Cato Institute. Other unknown variables that could affect the tariffs were upcoming rulings by federal courts on Trump's powers to tax imports without congressional approval. 'The way I've been trying to describe it is there's a lot we still don't know and a few things we know,' Lincicome said. 'The US tariffs system has gone from, almost overnight, simple and transparent to a labyrinth of new requirements.' Mark DiPlacido, a policy adviser at the trade protectionist think tank American Compass disagreed, saying: 'The Trump administration's trade strategy is working.' 'The trade deals struck in recent weeks will help reduce US trade deficits, reshore industry, and generate quality American jobs,' added DiPlacido, who worked in the Office of the US Trade Representative during the first Trump administration. 'While many predicted the worst when higher rates were announced in April, the administration has shown that tariffs can be used effectively to increase market access, revenue, and investment without major price increases, job losses, or economic instability.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
The death of cable TV may be the birth of streaming sports aggregation
For about a decade, media executives have heavily invested in live sports as the primary value proposition for consumers to keep subscribing to traditional pay television. While tens of millions of Americans have ditched cable for a variety of streaming services, ESPN's marquee live sports have remained exclusive to cable subscribers. The broadcast networks (CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox) have been able to charge increasingly high fees to pay TV operators because they've invested in NFL games and college football, the most-watched American programming. When ESPN launches its direct-to-consumer service (likely next month), for the first time ever, Americans will be able to consume all major sports without having to subscribe to cable. (By the way, Disney — ESPN's majority owner — reports earnings next week. Sources suggest to me and my colleague Mike Ozanian that would be a logical time for ESPN to announce not only the DTC launch date but also the finalized details of its deal for NFL Media assets, which I reported on in last week's newsletter. Spokespeople for the NFL and ESPN declined to comment.) The changes in the pay TV landscape have led to one question that's dominated the strategic choices of the biggest media companies for the last decade: Will traditional pay TV die off completely, or will it level out and exist for decades to come as a profitable, albeit smaller, business? There was an interesting data point last week in Charter Communications' earnings report that suggests the answer could be the latter. Charter's earnings results weren't good. The stock fell 18% after the company reported it lost 117,000 internet customers during the quarter. Companies like Charter and CNBC's parent company, Comcast, have largely traded on residential broadband additions (or subtractions) for many years. Still, a bit hidden in the Charter numbers, the second-largest U.S. cable company reported a decline of just 80,000 video customers in the quarter. A year ago, that number was 408,000 in the same quarter. That's a five-fold improvement. There may be two reasons for plateauing losses. First, Charter has aggressively added 'free' access to streaming services for customers who pay for the full bundle of cable networks. It's, of course, not actually free — consumers are still paying for it, but it's included in the cost of the bundle. This has probably made cable subscribers less likely to cancel their plans. Now, if a customer cancels cable, that household is also giving up access to Disney's Disney+ and Hulu, NBCUniversal's Peacock, Paramount Global's Paramount+, and Warner Bros. Discovery's (soon to be just Warner. Bros.) HBO Max. When ESPN's direct-to-consumer application launches in the coming weeks, a cable customer would also lose access to that. Charter CEO Chris Winfrey noted in last week's earnings conference call that those offerings add up to 'over $100 worth of programmer apps.' 'That's going to be the stickiest product,' Winfrey said. 'It's going to be the best for customers and for programmers, us, and it's going to be the best for our broadband churn as well.' Second — and this one's the biggie to look out for — it's at least possible that pay TV losses are finally subsiding after more than a decade of losses. Comcast posted its earnings release Thursday morning and reported video customer losses of 325,000, an improvement over 419,000 losses in the year-earlier period. It's possible most of the U.S. households that want to cancel cable have now canceled, and the ones remaining plan to stick around for a little while. If that's the case, cable TV may effectively morph into the primary aggregation video service for sports. You may remember Venu, the never-launched sports streaming application from Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery. For $42.99 per month, Venu planned to give customers all sports owned by Disney/ESPN, Fox and WBD's Turner Sports. Experts estimated the offering included about 60% of all sports on TV. Over time, Venu hoped to add Paramount Global and NBCUniversal to the mix, according to people familiar with the matter. That would have given consumers most sports, outside of regional sports networks and the NFL and NBA packages on Amazon. Venu's value proposition was its price — $42.99. I highly doubt we'll see a service like Venu come to market at that low of a price. Fox is getting ready to launch its new streaming service, Fox One, which will give non-cable customers access to all of Fox's pay TV programming. While Fox hasn't revealed the pricing for the service yet, it won't be cheap. 'Pricing will be healthy and not a discounted price,' Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch said in May. Fox doesn't want you to cancel cable TV, so it won't incentivize churn by coming to market at a low price. 'We do not want to lose a traditional cable subscriber to Fox One,' Murdoch said, bluntly. Other pay TV operators have debuted skinny bundles of sports, such as DirecTV. Its MySports offering costs $69.99 per month, but it includes more than Venu would have. Comcast followed this year with a $70-per-month version of its own. The future of cable TV may slowly morph into something that resembles these skinny sports bundles. Sources tell me that once Skydance formally merges with Paramount Global next month, incoming CEO David Ellison plans to heavily invest in sports because pay TV economics still justify the spending. If video subscription losses are flattening, broadcast networks can continue to raise retransmission fees as long as they have premium programming — and sports are the most premium programming. How will he balance spending on sports when he's already promised more than $2 billion in cuts when the merger closes? What's likely to go is spending on anything that isn't sports or hit primetime (between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET) programming. See: 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' as Exhibit A, which fits the strategy even if Skydance wasn't involved in that decision. Maybe we should all stop thinking about cable TV as doomed to death and start viewing it in a new way — the next-generation aggregation service for sports. In this lens, it's not surprising NBCUniversal is thinking about developing a new cable sports network even while it plans to spin off almost all of its other cable networks (including CNBC). The battle may be between the cable companies, YouTube TV and ESPN's direct-to-consumer app as the go-to destination to access all sports. To quote esteemed cable analyst Craig Moffett from his note to clients last month, 'Maybe, just maybe, we're finding the long-imagined bottom for traditional pay TV, where sports and news fans are all that's left.'
