Analysts Offer Insights on Healthcare Companies: Roche Holding AG (OtherRHHVF) and VYNE Therapeutics (VYNE)
There's a lot to be optimistic about in the Healthcare sector as 2 analysts just weighed in on Roche Holding AG (RHHVF – Research Report) and VYNE Therapeutics (VYNE – Research Report) with bullish sentiments.
Stay Ahead of the Market:
Discover outperforming stocks and invest smarter with Top Smart Score Stocks.
Filter, analyze, and streamline your search for investment opportunities using Tipranks' Stock Screener.
Roche Holding AG (RHHVF)
Kepler Capital analyst David Evans maintained a Buy rating on Roche Holding AG on April 24 and set a price target of CHF315.00. The company's shares closed last Friday at $318.07.
Evans has an average return of 10.6% when recommending Roche Holding AG.
According to TipRanks.com, Evans is ranked #6071 out of 9437 analysts.
The word on The Street in general, suggests a Hold analyst consensus rating for Roche Holding AG with a $351.87 average price target, representing a 12.6% upside. In a report issued on April 16, Exane BNP Paribas also initiated coverage with a Buy rating on the stock with a CHF300.00 price target.
LifeSci Capital analyst Rami Katkhuda maintained a Buy rating on VYNE Therapeutics yesterday and set a price target of $6.00. The company's shares closed last Friday at $1.43.
According to TipRanks.com, Katkhuda is a 5-star analyst with an average return of 14.5% and a 35.4% success rate. Katkhuda covers the Healthcare sector, focusing on stocks such as Mineralys Therapeutics, Inc., MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, and Eledon Pharmaceuticals.
VYNE Therapeutics has an analyst consensus of Strong Buy, with a price target consensus of $6.19, a 324.0% upside from current levels. In a report released yesterday, H.C. Wainwright also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a $4.50 price target.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Analysts' Top Energy Picks: Williams Co (WMB), Kinder Morgan (KMI)
There's a lot to be optimistic about in the Energy sector as 3 analysts just weighed in on Williams Co (WMB – Research Report), Kinder Morgan (KMI – Research Report) and Matador Resources (MTDR – Research Report) with bullish sentiments. Confident Investing Starts Here: Williams Co (WMB) In a report released today, Praneeth Satish from Wells Fargo maintained a Buy rating on Williams Co. The company's shares closed last Friday at $59.73, close to its 52-week high of $61.67. Satish has an average return of 19.2% when recommending Williams Co. According to Satish is ranked #1722 out of 9635 analysts. Currently, the analyst consensus on Williams Co is a Moderate Buy with an average price target of $64.46, a 6.8% upside from current levels. In a report issued on June 4, Bank of America Securities also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a $67.00 price target. Kinder Morgan (KMI) In a report released today, Michael Blum from Wells Fargo maintained a Buy rating on Kinder Morgan. The company's shares closed last Friday at $27.68. According to Blum is a 5-star analyst with an average return of 10.7% and a 64.8% success rate. Blum covers the NA sector, focusing on stocks such as Excelerate Energy, Inc. Class A, Enterprise Products Partners, and Venture Global, Inc. Class A. The word on The Street in general, suggests a Moderate Buy analyst consensus rating for Kinder Morgan with a $31.67 average price target, representing a 13.6% upside. In a report issued on June 4, Bank of America Securities also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a $32.00 price target. Matador Resources (MTDR) In a report released today, Zach Parham from J.P. Morgan maintained a Buy rating on Matador Resources. The company's shares closed last Friday at $50.85. According to Parham is a 4-star analyst with an average return of 8.1% and a 63.9% success rate. Parham covers the NA sector, focusing on stocks such as National Fuel Gas Company, Magnolia Oil & Gas, and Permian Resources. The word on The Street in general, suggests a Strong Buy analyst consensus rating for Matador Resources with a $62.93 average price target, implying a 23.3% upside from current levels. In a report issued on June 6, Siebert Williams Shank & Co also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a $60.00 price target.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
ETF launches continue to surge, with some popular market voices putting their names on funds. Starting an ETF involves significant expenses, including SEC filing and listing fees. Funds need strong performance and substantial assets under management to remain viable. A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as "Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products." Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Famed analysts and investors have been putting their names on ETFs. Here's what it takes for a fund to succeed.
ETF launches continue to surge, with some popular market voices putting their names on funds. Starting an ETF involves significant expenses, including SEC filing and listing fees. Funds need strong performance and substantial assets under management to remain viable. A string of widely followed strategists, economists, and investors have launched exchange-traded funds in recent years. There's famed NYU professor Nouriel Roubini — known colloquially as "Dr. Doom" — and his Atlas America Fund (USAF). Then there's Dan Ives — the tech and AI permabull who can often be found on CNBC wearing fluorescent blazers — who has parlayed his bold analyst calls into the Wedbush AI Revolution ETF (IVES). And let's not forget Fundstrat's Tom Lee — former chief equity strategist at JPMorgan — and his Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF (GRNY). They've stepped into a crowded market with thousands of funds competing for investors' money. A record 723 ETFs came to market in 2024 alone. And they're using their own high-profile personal brands to stand out in a crowded marketplace. But starting a fund is an entirely different beast than keeping one afloat for any sustained amount of time. Yes, strong performance is crucial. But running a fund is expensive, and it takes much more than good returns to ensure success. To start, the cost to launch a fund is hefty. Firms are looking at a $50,000-to-$100,000 filing fee with the SEC, according to Zachary Evans, analyst for passive strategies at Morningstar. puts that number between $100,000 and $500,000. Depending on the type of fund, there also may be an initial listing fee with NYSE or Nasdaq. But the bills don't stop there. Listing fees with the exchange come due every year. With Nasdaq, for example, it's a $4,000 annual fee. Then there's a long list of costs associated with running the fund itself, Evans said. Paying the staff who execute the trades. Paying compliance and a risk-management team. Paying sales and advertising teams to market the fund. Paying rent for your office space. And so on. It all adds up, and it means funds need to amass significant assets under management. ETF providers make money through the annual fees, or expense ratios, they charge investors. So the more money they manage, the more money they're bringing in. Performance also plays a role here — if a fund's value rises by 20% in a year, the fees it extracts will be 20% higher. "This can vary quite a bit, but a baseline number we've heard is that it should cost around $200,000 a year to run an ETF," Evans told BI. "More complicated strategies will cost more, simpler strategies will cost less, or if it's from a large firm that has economies of scale, it might cost less as well." He added: "Say an ETF charges 50 basis points with annual expenses of $200,000 a year. You need $40 million AUM in order to break even on that product." For some funds, there's also pressure associated with seed money. When an ETF launches, Evans said it might have some investors who promise to keep their capital locked up in the fund for a set period of time — say two or three years. Once that period ends, if the investors pull their money, it can be an existential threat to a fund if they haven't pulled in enough money from elsewhere. "Once that seed money dries up, in order for them to endure, they need to make sure they have enough investor interest, enough assets to sustain them," Evans said. Fund closures are increasingly common. Evans said a little more than 200 closed in 2023 — a record — and just under 200 closed in 2024. "As more companies are launching their products, more companies are closing down their products — the vast majority of which have really failed to catch on with investors," Evans said. "They've failed to generate either the performance or, in effect, the asset level to support these products." Read the original article on Business Insider 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
