GLJ upgrades SolarEdge to Hold on ‘solar friendly' Senate
GLJ Research analyst Gordon Johnson upgraded SolarEdge (SEDG) to Hold from Sell with a $6.90 price target The firm cites the recent selloff in the shares and the 'solar friendly' Senate for the upgrade. Being short carries risks as Senate budget bill language favors residential solar, creating risk of a near-term 'swift move higher' in the shares, the analyst tells investors in a research note. However, GLJ still sees SolarEdge's core business as 'structurally flawed.'
Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions
Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter
Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>>
See Insiders' Hot Stocks on TipRanks >>
Read More on SEDG:
Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue
SolarEdge upgraded to Hold from Sell at GLJ Research
Charged: Solar stocks under pressure after House passes revised tax bill
SolarEdge Technologies Faces Stock Slump Amid Market Turmoil
Solar Stocks Bounce Back as Senate Disagrees with Clean Energy Cuts
Stocks slide as Trump threatens new tariffs against EU and Apple: Morning Buzz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Some Dems Warn Colleagues: Crypto Bill Could Inject Some 19th Century Chaos Into US Economy
The Senate is poised to pass the GENIUS Act in the coming weeks. The bill will bestow upon the crypto industry a long-sought blessing: a key form of the digital currency, stablecoins, will now be subject to a bespoke (and notably light-touch) regulatory system created by Congress. With it will come the U.S. government's stamp of approval. After years spent being dismissed as a haven for money launderers and speculators, the bill is in part a marker that the crypto industry has arrived in Washington. And yet, there are a few problems. The bill could open multiple pathways toward contagion that could spread throughout the financial system, Hill staffers and experts familiar with the legislation warn TPM. Some argue that it would create a financial system that operates with many of the same risks the U.S. left behind in the 20th century, including banks and private companies issuing their own, alternate currencies; others regard the bill as priming the country for a series of runs on digital currencies. Among legislators, the fighting over the proper level alarm about these possible eventualities has been most acute among Senate Democrats. While nearly the entire Republican Senate conference supports the bill, a few Senate Dems have broken off to lead negotiations over the legislation and persuade others in their party to support it. Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) was the first Democrat to co-sponsor the bill; others, including Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), have taken the lead in pushing it. Stablecoins, the form of crypto that the GENIUS Act addresses, are cryptocurrencies that are pegged to the value of a state-issued currency, like the dollar. Crypto advocates tout stablecoins as solving a few problems: consumers can use their stability to buy other forms of cryptocurrency; they can also, advocates say, double as a means to quickly transfer payments between people. In that sense, they're kind of like Venmo, only based in the blockchain and, often, possessing perplexing foreign ties. (One of the biggest stablecoins, Tether, is run from El Salvador.) It's that quality that causes anxiety among many experts in banking and financial regulation, including Democratic staffers on the Senate Banking Committee. Stablecoins, under the GENIUS Act, will receive the benefits that the U.S. legal system gives to deposits, but without most of the qualities that make that system secure. 'The GENIUS Act folds stablecoins directly into the traditional financial system, while applying weaker safeguards than banks or investment companies must adhere to,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in a speech last month. Under the bill, there's no deposit insurance to guarantee stablecoin holdings. But more troubling than that, for critics, is the limited regulation of how stablecoin issuers can use the money they receive and how, in the event of a crisis, customers would be made whole. New kinds of businesses will be able to issue stablecoins under the legislation, including banks (typically via subsidiaries) and tech megafirms like Meta, X, Amazon, and others. The risk, experts told TPM, partly stems from how stablecoin issuers would meet a run on their coins. Stablecoins are typically backed up by bank deposits or investments in treasuries; customers pulling their stablecoin deposits at once could resemble an old-school bank run, depleting these assets. 'It would be a financial crisis grease fire,' one Senate staffer told TPM about the possibility. Under this scenario, even people who don't hold crypto investments could be affected. A bank that holds a large amount of stablecoin deposits, when faced with mass withdrawals to shore up one or multiple failing stablecoins, could see its balance sheet falter. The same thing could happen if treasury securities or other backing assets are sold en masse, causing prices to plummet. Mark Hays, who covers cryptocurrency issues for American for Financial Reform, told TPM last month that banks themselves might be exposed in another way. Bank subsidiaries that issue stablecoins could experience a run, meaning that the parent bank would have to bail it out. These are all means by which risks inherent to the form of cryptocurrency might spread. 'The more banks get exposed to that, the more the fallout could be significant,' Hays said. Many critics of the GENIUS Act say that features of the bill will revive the problems that America's financial system experienced in the 19th century. There's an irony here. Some of Trump II's staunchest backers, particularly those on the new tech right, frame their support for the president as part of an effort to return to the 1890s. Trump himself has supposedly become enamored with President William McKinley; some supporters speak about going further than undoing the social changes of the 1960s or the New Deal, and instead call to undo the changes brought by the Progressive Era. That includes the federal reserve, income tax, and many early banking regulations. Of course, in the case of cryptocurrency, this effort to turn back the clock skips right past a key point of the push for legislation. The GENIUS Act, some observers say, could prompt mass adoption of the coins. That, in the event of a crisis, could prompt the Federal Reserve to bail out issuers — a decidedly post-1890s backstop. But one feature of the bill would turn time back: it would allow banks and some businesses to issue their own stablecoins. This hasn't escaped the attention of analysts at JP Morgan; strategists at the bank reportedly noted in a letter to clients that such a system would recall that of 'the 19th century, when various types of banknotes were valued differently.' For big tech firms, stablecoins present an opportunity: users could pay for purchases entirely within an app. Companies with operations around the world could unify transactions under one, in-house coin; they could also charge small transaction fees on each purchase that would open up a new way of making money. Hilary Allen, an American University professor who studies financial regulation, told TPM that the problem, again, would be that these are not actual bank deposits: they are lightly regulated cryptocurrencies. 'People will quite happily leave all their money in an app offered by a big tech platform,' she said. The scale of the risk to the financial system all depends on how many people adopt the use of stablecoins. Relatively few people use cryptocurrencies, though industry boosters argue that passing the GENIUS Act and market structure legislation later this summer will spur more people to do so. Big tech firms issuing their own coins as a means to buy products sold by the firms would also prompt more people to join. But even that, Allen said, could raise troubling questions about how it affects the nature of these businesses. 'Do they become too-big-to-fail financial institutions with all the power and the implicit bailouts that come with that?' 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
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
A cohort of Senate Republicans already troubled by the House GOP's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" found a common ally in Elon Musk, who again trashed the legislation on Tuesday. Musk, who just exited his tenure as Trump's efficiency bloodhound leading the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) last week, doubled down on his position that the House's reconciliation package was an "abomination." White House Stands By Tax Bill After Musk Calls It A 'Disgusting Abomination' "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk said on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," he continued. "You know it." Senate Republicans have already vowed to make changes to the colossal bill, which includes the president's desires on tax, energy, immigration, defense and national debt policies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., lauded Musk for his work with DOGE, but noted that the Senate GOP and the tech-billionaire had "a difference of opinion." Read On The Fox News App Elon Musk Criticism Of Trump Tax Bill Frustrates Some Republicans: 'No Place In Congress' He didn't believe that Musk's comments would derail the bill entirely in the upper chamber, either. Thune has pledged to get the bill to the president's desk by Independence Day. "The legislation, as passed by the House, can be approved here in the Senate, can be strengthened in the Senate, in a number of ways," Thune said. "We intend to do that, but when it's all said and done, we'll send it back to the House and hope that they can pass it and put it on the president's desk." Still, fractures have emerged among lawmakers, with some viewing the bill through the same lens as Musk. "Well, he has some of the same skepticism I have, you know, towards the big, beautiful bill," said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Trump Criticizes Rand Paul Over Tax Bill Opposition: 'Votes No On Everything' Paul has vowed not to support the bill as is without a serious overhaul to the legislation that would nix a $5 trillion increase to the nation's debt ceiling — a stance that has gotten him into hot water with Trump. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has similarly pledged not to support the bill unless much steeper spending cuts are achieved. The House's product includes $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson would like to see a return to pre-pandemic spending levels, which would effectively amount to a roughly $6 trillion cut in spending. "I share his concerns," Johnson said of Musk. "I also appreciate what he and President Trump did with his DOGE effort." And Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a fiscal hawk whose views are closely aligned with Johnson's, argued in response to the tech billionaire's social media post that "federal spending has become excessive." "The resulting inflation harms Americans and weaponizes government," Lee said on X. "The Senate can make this bill better. It must now do so." Other Senate Republicans, including those with outstanding concerns with the current legislation, were much less receptive to Musk's tirade against the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has remained steadfast in his position that he would not support the current Medicaid proposals in the House's bill, especially if they cut benefits to his constituents and people across the country. When asked his reaction to Musk's rant, he shrugged, "Well, he's entitled to his opinion, it's a free country." Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.V., who has expressed reservations on the contents of the megabill, was more blunt. "My reaction to that is just simply this — and y'all may like this or not like this — but you know, Donald Trump is our president, not Elon Musk," he article source: GOP senators express 'concerns,' 'skepticism' over Trump's spending bill after Musk rant
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No direct money for Paycor Stadium in Senate budget, but two potential funding avenues
There is no money specifically for Paycor Stadium renovations in the Ohio Senate version of the state budget, though the budget did include some potential avenues for funding. The Bengals and Hamilton County requested $350 million in the state budget for stadium renovations, which are estimated to cost $830 million in total. Ohio senators announced their version of the state budget on June 3. Like the House budget, it did not include specific funding for the Bengals' stadium renovations, but it did lay out a system for grants for major sports facilities, with the first $600 million grant going to a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns in Brook Park. Money for the grants would come from Ohioan's unclaimed funds. Sen. George Lang, a Butler County Republican, estimates $1.7 billion of those funds have been left unclaimed for so long they're considered abandoned. It's not clear whether the Bengals or Hamilton County could apply for a grant through the new system. The budget language specifically refers to the stadium project in Cleveland. "I hope we can help the Bengals and FC Cincinnati. Whatever we do for one – we treat everybody on a fair basis," Lang said. Sen. Bill Blessing, a Hamilton County Republican, said he is disappointed that the budget did not include a more comprehensive solution to stadium funding, but that the unclaimed funds idea could mean better protection for taxpayers. "Though not sold on the overall idea, at least we're moving in a better direction," he said. The Senate budget also includes language to allow Hamilton County to levy a cigarette tax to benefit a regional arts and culture district. Ohio law already allows the county to create a regional arts and culture district. Blessing said he thinks the cigarette tax could be used not only to fund area museums but also for stadiums. He said it would help take pressure off the county sales tax and property taxes. At least two of the three Hamilton County commissioners would need to vote to put the tax on the ballot and then it would need approval from Hamilton County voters. Hamilton County Commission President Denise Driehaus said she is watching the budget process with great interest to see if the state will make a financial contribution to the Paycor Stadium renovations. Driehaus has said she would like to see one-third of the funding from the county, one-third from the team and one-third from the state. The June 3 version of the Senate's budget is not the final version. Once the Senate approves its version, a conference committee composed of House and Senate members will examine both budget proposals and create a final version that both chambers will need to approve before Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine can sign it. DeWine must sign the budget by June 30, which is the same deadline the Bengals have to let the county know if they plan to extend their current lease. Regional politics reporter Erin Glynn can be reached at eglynn@ @ee_glynn on X or @eringlynn on Bluesky. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Senate budget: No Paycor Stadium money, but potential cigarette tax
