Company's carbon credits raise questions about unproven ocean technology to fight global warming
Formed three years ago by a group of entrepreneurs in Israel, the company says it has designed particles that when released in the ocean will trap carbon at the bottom of the sea. By 'harnessing the power of nature,' Gigablue says, its work will do nothing less than save the planet.
But outside scientists frustrated by the lack of information released by the company say serious questions remain about whether Gigablue's technology works as the company describes. Their questions showcase tensions in an industry built on little regulation and big promises — and a tantalizing chance to profit.
Jimmy Pallas, an event organizer based in Italy, struck a deal with Gigablue last year. He said he trusts the company does what it has promised him — ensuring the transportation, meals, and electricity of a recent 1,000-person event will be offset by particles in the ocean.
Gigablue's service is like 'an extra trash can' where Pallas can discard his unwanted emissions, he said.
'Same way I use my trash can — I don't follow where the truck that comes and picks up my trash brings it to,' he said. 'I'll take their word for it.'
'Hundreds of thousands of carbon credits'
Gigablue has a grand vision for the future of carbon removal. It was originally named 'Gigaton' after the one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide most scientists say will be necessary to remove from the atmosphere each year to slow global warming.
The company began trials in the South Pacific Ocean last year, and says it will work with country authorities to create a 'sequestration field' — a dedicated part of the ocean where 'pulses' of particles will be released on a seasonal basis.
Gigablue says its solution is affordable, too — priced to attract investors.
'Every time we go to the ocean, we generate hundreds of thousands of carbon credits, and this is what we're going to do continuously over the upcoming years and towards the future, in greater and greater quantities,' co-founder Ori Shaashua said.
Carbon credits, which have grown in popularity over the last decade, are tokens that symbolize the removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On paper, companies that buy credits achieve a smaller carbon footprint without needing to reduce their own emissions — for instance, by paying another vendor to plant trees or capture carbon dioxide from the air.
Only a few countries have required local industries to purchase carbon credits. Most companies that buy them, including Microsoft and Google, do so voluntarily.
The credits have helped fund a band of startups like Gigablue that are eager to tackle the climate crisis, but they are also unevenly regulated, scientifically complex, and have in some cases been linked to fraud.
Gigablue's 200,000 credits are pledged to SkiesFifty, a newly formed company investing in greener practices for the aviation industry. It's the largest sale to date for a climate startup operating in the ocean, according to the tracking site CDR.fyi, making up more than half of all ocean-based carbon credits sold last year.
And it could beckon a rapid acceleration of the company's work. Gigablue hopes to reach a goal this year of capturing 10 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of particles it deploys, Shaashua said. At that rate, Gigablue would disperse at least 20,000 tons of particles in the ocean.
Gigablue wouldn't reveal what it earned in the sale, and SkiesFifty's team declined to be interviewed for this story. Most credits are sold for a few hundred dollars each — but a chart on Gigablue's website suggests its prices are lower than almost any other form of carbon capture on the market.
A mission to save the world
The startup is the brainchild of four entrepreneurs hailing from the tech industry. According to their LinkedIn profiles, Gigablue's CEO previously worked for an online grocery startup, while its COO was vice president of SeeTree, a company that raised $60 million to provide farmers with information on their trees.
Shaashua, who often serves as the face of Gigablue, said he specializes in using artificial intelligence to pursue positive outcomes in the world. He co-founded a data mining company that tracked exposure risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, and led an auto startup that brokered data on car mileage and traffic patterns.
'Three years ago, I decided to take the same formula, so to say, to climate,' Shaashua said.
Under his guidance, he said, Gigablue created an AI-driven 'digital twin' of the ocean based on dozens of metrics to determine where to release the particles.
Chief technology officer Sapir Markus-Alford earned a bachelor's degree in earth and environmental sciences from Israel's Ben-Gurion University in 2021, shortly before founding Gigablue.
Markus-Alford said she began her studies and eventual path to Gigablue after seeing bleached coral reefs and other impacts of warming waters on a series of diving trips around the world.
'I understood that the best thing we could do for the ocean is to be able to remove CO2,' Markus-Alford said.
A spokesperson for Gigablue did not answer whether the other co-founders have graduate degrees in oceanography or environmental science, but said the company's broader team holds a total of 46 Ph.D.s with expertise in biology, chemistry, oceanography, and environmental science. Markus-Alford said that figure includes outside experts and academics and 'everyone that supports us.'
The company's staffing has expanded from Israel to hubs in New York and New Zealand, Shaashua said.
In social media posts advertising open jobs, Gigablue employees encouraged applicants to 'Join Our Mission to Save the World!'
Trapping carbon at the bottom of the ocean
The particles Gigablue has patented are meant to capture carbon in the ocean by floating for a number of days and growing algae, before sinking rapidly to the ocean floor.
'We are an elevator for carbon,' Shaashua said. 'We are exporting the carbon from the top to the bottom.'
Algae — sometimes referred to as phytoplankton — has long been attractive to climate scientists because it absorbs carbon dioxide from the surrounding water as it grows. If the algae sinks to the deep sea or ocean floor, Gigablue expects the carbon to be trapped there for hundreds to thousands of years.
The ultimate goal is to lower carbon dioxide levels so drastically that the ocean rebalances with the atmosphere by soaking up more CO2 from the air. It's a feat that would help slow climate change, but one that is still under active study by climate scientists.
Gigablue's founders have said the company's work is inspired by nature and 'very, very environmentally safe.' The company's particles and sinking methods simply recreate what nature has been doing 'since forever,' Shaashua said.
Gigablue ran its first trial sinking particles in the Mediterranean in March last year.
Later, on two voyages to the South Pacific, the company released 60 cubic meters — about two shipping containers — of particles off the coast of New Zealand.
Materials kept a mystery
While Gigablue has made several commercial deals, it has not yet revealed what its particles are made of. Partly this is because the company says it will build different particles tailored to different seasons and areas of the ocean.
'It's proprietary,' Markus-Alford said.
Documents provide a window into the possible ingredients. According to information on the permit, Gigablue's first New Zealand trial last year involved releasing particles of pure vermiculite, a porous clay often used in potting soil.
In the second New Zealand trial, the company released particles made of vermiculite, ground rock, a plant-based wax, as well as manganese and iron.
A patent published last year hints the particles could also be made of scores of other materials, including cotton, rice husks or jute, as well as synthetic ingredients like polyester fibers or lint. The particles contain a range of possible binding agents, and up to 18 different chemicals and metals, from iron to nickel to vanadium.
Without specifying future designs, Markus-Alford said Gigablue's particles meet certain requirements: 'All the materials we use are materials that are natural, nontoxic, nonhazardous, and can be found in the ocean,' she said. She wouldn't comment on the possible use of cotton or rice, but said the particles won't include any kind of plastic.
When asked about vermiculite, which is typically mined on land and heated to expand, Markus-Alford said rivers and erosion transport most materials including vermiculite to the ocean. 'Almost everything, basically, that exists on land can be found in the ocean,' she said.
The company said it had commissioned an environmental institute to verify that the particles are safe for thousands of organisms, including mussels and oysters. Any materials in future particles, Gigablue said, will be approved by local authorities.
Shaashua has said the particles are so benign that they have zero impact on the ocean.
'We are not changing the water chemistry or the water biology,' Shaashua said.
Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has spent decades studying the biological carbon cycle of the ocean, says that while he's intrigued by Gigablue's proposal, the idea that the particles don't alter the ocean is 'almost inconceivable.'
'There has to be a relationship between what they're putting in the ocean and the carbon dioxide that's dissolved in seawater for this to, quote, work,' Buesseler said.
Buesseler co-leads a nonprofit group of scientists hoping to tap the power of algae in the ocean to capture carbon. The group organizes regular forums on the subject, and Gigablue presented in April.
'I left with more questions than answers,' Buesseler said.
Scientists raise questions
Several scientists not affiliated with Gigablue interviewed by The Associated Press said they were interested in how a company with so little public information about its technology could secure a deal for 200,000 carbon credits.
The success of the company's method, they said, will depend on how much algae grows on the particles, and the amount that sinks to the deep ocean. So far, Gigablue has not released any studies demonstrating those rates.
Thomas Kiørboe, a professor of ocean ecology at the Technical University of Denmark, and Philip Boyd, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania who studies the role of algae in the Earth's carbon cycle, said they were doubtful algae would get enough sunlight to grow inside the particles.
It's more likely the particles would attract hungry bacteria, Kiørboe said.
'Typical phytoplankton do not grow on surfaces, and they do not colonize particles,' Kiørboe said. 'To most phytoplankton ecologists, this would just be, I think, absurd.'
The rates at which Gigablue says its particles sink — up to a hundred meters (yards) per hour — might shear off algae from the particles in the quick descent, Boyd said.
It's likely that some particles would also be eaten by fish — limiting the carbon capture, and raising the question of how the particles could impact marine life.
Boyd is eager to see field results showing algae growth, and wants to see proof that Gigablue's particles cause the ocean to absorb more CO2 from the air.
'These are incredibly challenging issues that I don't think, certainly for the biological part, I don't think anyone on the planet has got solutions for them,' he said.
James Kerry, a senior marine and climate scientist for the conservation group OceanCare and senior research fellow at Australia's James Cook University, has closely followed Gigablue's work.
'What we've got is a situation of a company, a startup, upfront selling large quantities of credits for a technology that is unproven,' he said.
In a statement, Gigablue said that bacteria does consume the particles but the effect is minimal, and its measurements will account for any loss of algae or particles as they sink.
The company noted that a major science institute in New Zealand has given Gigablue its stamp of approval. Gigablue hired the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, a government-owned company, to review several drafts of its methodology.
In a recent letter posted to Gigablue's website, the institute's chief ocean scientist said his staff had confidence the company's work is 'scientifically sound' and the proposed measurements for carbon sequestration were robust.
Whether Gigablue's methods are deemed successful, for now, will be determined not by regulators — but by another private company.
A new market
Puro.earth is one of several companies known as registries that serve the carbon credit market.
Amid the lack of regulation and the potential for climate startups to overstate their impact, registries aim to verify how much carbon was really removed.
The Finnish Puro.earth has verified more than a million carbon credits since its founding seven years ago. But most of those credits originated in land-based climate projects. Only recently has it aimed to set standards for the ocean.
In part, that's because marine carbon credits are some of the newest to be traded. Dozens of ocean startups have entered the industry, with credit sales catapulting from 2,000 in 2021 to more than 340,000, including Gigablue's deal, last year.
But the ocean remains a hostile and expensive place in which to operate a business or monitor research. Some ocean startups have sold credits only to fold before they could complete their work. Running Tide, a Maine-based startup aimed at removing carbon from the atmosphere by sinking wood chips and seaweed, abruptly shuttered last year despite the backing of $50 million from investors, leaving sales of about 7,000 carbon credits unfulfilled.
In June, Puro.earth published a draft methodology that will be used to verify Gigablue's work, which it designed in consultation with Gigablue. Once finalized, Gigablue will pay the registry for each metric ton of carbon dioxide that it claims to remove.
Marianne Tikkanen, head of standards at Puro.earth, said that although this methodology was designed with Gigablue, her team expects other startups to adopt the same approach.
'We hope that there will be many who can do it and that it stimulates the market,' she said.
The road ahead
It remains to be seen whether New Zealand officials will grant permission for the expanded 'sequestration field' that Gigablue has proposed creating, or if the company will look to other countries.
New Zealand's environmental authority has so far treated Gigablue's work as research — a designation that requires no formal review process or consultations with the public. The agency said in a statement that it could not comment on how it would handle a future commercial application from Gigablue.
But like many climate startups, Gigablue was involved in selling carbon credits during its research expeditions — not only inking a major deal, but smaller agreements, too.
Pallas, the Italian businessman, said he ordered 22 carbon credits from Gigablue last year to offset the emissions associated with his event in November. He said Gigablue gave them to him for free — but says he will pay for more in the future.
Pallas sought out carbon credits because he sees the signs of climate change all around him, he says, and expects more requirements in Italy for businesses to decarbonize in coming years. He chose Gigablue because they are one of the largest suppliers: 'They've got quantity,' he said.
How authorities view Gigablue's growing commercial activity could matter in the context of an international treaty that has banned certain climate operations in the ocean.
More than a decade ago, dozens of countries including New Zealand agreed they should not allow any commercial climate endeavor that involves releasing iron in the ocean, a technique known as 'iron fertilization.' Only research, they said, with no prospect of economic gain should be allowed.
Iron is considered a key ingredient for spurring algae growth and was embedded in the particles that Gigablue dispersed in October in the Pacific Ocean. Several scientific papers have raised concerns that spurring iron-fueled algae blooms on a large scale would deplete important nutrients in the ocean and harm fisheries.
The startup denies any link to iron dumping on the basis that its particles don't release iron directly into the water and don't create an uncontrolled algae bloom.
'We are not fertilizing the ocean,' Markus-Alford said.
'In fact, we looked at iron fertilization as an inspiration of something to avoid,' Shaashua said.
But the draft methodology that Puro.earth will use to verify Gigablue's work notes many of the same concerns that have been raised about iron fertilization, including disruptions to the marine food web.
Other scientists who spoke with AP see a clear link between Gigablue's work and the controversial practice. 'If they're using iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth,' said Kerry, the OceanCare scientist, 'then it is iron fertilization.'
For now, scientific concerns don't seem to have troubled Gigablue's buyers. The company has already planned its next research expedition in New Zealand and hopes to release more particles this fall.
'They mean well, and so do I,' said Pallas, of his support for Gigablue. 'Sooner or later, I'll catch a plane, go to New Zealand, and grab a boat to see what they've done.'
—
This story was supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
__
Contact AP's global investigative team at Investigative@ap.org or https://www.ap.org/tips/

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Microsoft and Nvidia Are the Odd $4 Trillion Power Couple
Nvidia and Microsoft could soon become $4 trillion companies, forming the most exclusive club in the stock market. Enthusiasm over artificial intelligence is what got both of them there. But for Microsoft, the story is more complicated—and the payoff fuzzier. Where the Megabill Landed on the SALT Deduction UPS Offers Buyouts to Drivers, a First in Its 117-Year History Wall Street Worries as Crisis-Level Deficits Become the Government's Default Mode The Best Way to Take RMDs From Your Retirement Accounts The Corporate Winners and Losers in Trump's Big Tax Bill A much bigger company than Nvidia in terms of annual revenue, Microsoft also sits in a different spot in the AI value chain. Nvidia is booming because any company that wants to work with AI has to buy its chips first. Microsoft's boom will depend on the willingness of a high number of the customers it depends on—both businesses and consumers—to pay a premium for AI services. For that to happen, AI will have to become a more transformative corporate tool fully woven through everyday life—much like Microsoft's Windows operating system or Word office software became decades ago. Many think that's more a question of 'when' than 'if.' But the 'when' still matters after Microsoft's market value has grown by a trillion dollars in less than three months. And, at a market cap of $4 trillion, Microsoft's stock price would command the highest multiple against projected earnings that it has sported in more than 20 years. That leaves no room for error—and relatively little room even for speed bumps. Microsoft has had some of those of late. Its early partnership with OpenAI gave the company a front seat in the AI rocket ship, allowing it to infuse the technology behind ChatGPT into its own products. But that relationship has hit a rough patch. OpenAI wants to change its unusual corporate structure and become a regular for-profit company, part of a long-running effort to disentangle itself from a benefactor that is also a competitor. Worryingly for Microsoft, OpenAI has the right to limit access to its future technology when it reaches 'artificial general intelligence'—a nebulous threshold that could still deprive Microsoft of a crucial driver of its AI strategy. Microsoft has also reportedly had trouble developing its own line of in-house AI chips that could lessen its dependence on Nvidia. Adding to the internal drama, the company confirmed Wednesday that it plans to lay off 9,000 more workers, on top of the 6,000 roles it eliminated in May. Other tech giants have made cuts with the aim of boosting efficiency and investing more in AI. But Microsoft might still have a lot more ground to cover here. The company commands the lowest annual revenue per employee among its big-tech peers save for Amazon, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. Microsoft would need to cut its last-reported head count by 84,000 positions to simply catch up to Google-parent Alphabet on that metric. But taking costs out will only take Microsoft so far. The company still needs to make AI more than a bit player on its income statement. Analysts estimate that AI services within Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing arm generated revenue of $11.5 billion for the just-ended fiscal year, according to consensus estimates from Visible Alpha. That's more than double the prior year but still only about 4% of the company's total annual sales. The limited contribution of AI so far does give Microsoft some downside protection if that business doesn't pan out—or even grow at the rate its enthusiasts envision. That's a notable contrast to the more binary question faced by Nvidia. The chip maker's annual sales have surged more than 10-fold over the last three years and are still expected to average 32% growth annually over the next three years. But that could vanish quickly if AI demand doesn't materialize for its biggest customers—or if other technological breakthroughs render its chips less vital. Nvidia lost 20% of its market value in just a week's time in January after claims by Chinese AI startup DeepSeek raised the possibility that advanced AI models could be produced without having to spend billions on Nvidia's chips. Announced capital spending plans by Nvidia's largest customers strongly suggest that's unlikely to happen soon. Microsoft, though, still needs AI to actually become a ubiquitous and transformative corporate tool. The company behind Windows and Office is large and well-heeled enough to help make that happen. But it isn't clear whether it will take place as quickly as Microsoft needs to justify an ever-higher valuation. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell put it in congressional testimony last week, it usually takes more time than people expect for world-changing technologies to be implemented in ways that shift the economy. At its current size and valuation, timing is going to be everything for Microsoft. Write to Dan Gallagher at and Asa Fitch at Burberry Got Too Fancy. This American Is Taking It Back to Its British Roots. Bill Delivers Near-Term Economic Boost, Longer-Term Risks Steady Hiring Added 147,000 Jobs to U.S. Economy in June A Chinese Fireworks Maker Is Going All In on the U.S. Despite Tariffs JPMorgan Is Revamping Its Bank for the Superrich to Cater to Global Clientele 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


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Google to Propose Price-Comparison Box in Search to Appease EU
Alphabet Inc. 's Google will propose highlighting search results from other companies' shopping and travel platforms at the top of its page in an attempt to comply with the European Union's Digital Markets Act and fend off fines, people familiar the matter said. Under the plan, a box at the top of Google's search results will show ranked options from price-comparison companies' websites, the people said, asking not to be identified because the proposal is not yet public. Users will be able to either proceed to the sites of its competitors — such as Expedia or Booking — or click on individual results to go to the page of a hotel or airline, they said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
UnitedHealth Stock Is One of the Worst-Performing S&P 500 Stocks in 2025. Should You Buy the Dip?
Wall Street is cheering fresh highs as the S&P 500 Index ($SPX) wraps a solid second quarter, closing June 2025 strong. The rally has been powered by cooling inflation, resilient earnings, and fading tariff concerns after April's policy shock. Just three months back, the market briefly dipped toward bear territory amid geopolitical tensions, China's AI push, tariff fears, and fiscal uncertainty, keeping investors on edge about the rebound's staying power. Despite the S&P rallying over 28% from its April lows of $4,835, the bull run has still left many big names behind. Nearly a third of the index's stocks still ended the first half of 2025 in the red. UnitedHealth (UNH), a giant in health insurance and managed care services, has plunged 39% so far in 2025. UNH stock has been hit by soaring Medicare Advantage costs, a probe into Medicare fraud, and a sudden CEO exit, making it the index's fourth-worst performer. Michael Saylor Says 'You'll Wish You'd Bought More' Bitcoin as MicroStrategy Doubles Down Is Microsoft Stock About to Go Nuclear? Is Super Micro Computer Stock a Buy, Sell, or Hold for July 2025? Tired of missing midday reversals? The FREE Barchart Brief newsletter keeps you in the know. Sign up now! While UNH is at five-year lows, a 1.8% five-day bounce hints at some life. With the dividend-paying stock halved and trading at a compelling valuation, is this a classic 'buy the dip' setup? Or a moment for caution despite the allure of value and yield? Founded in 1977, UnitedHealth has grown into a $295 billion healthcare heavyweight. With its deep roots in health insurance and care services, the company runs on two powerhouse engines: UnitedHealthcare and Optum. UnitedHealthcare handles the insurance side, offering plans that serve over 50 million people. It's the backbone, giving the company scale, reach, and reliable revenue. But it's Optum that brings the spark, driving growth through data, tech, and pharmacy solutions. From analytics to care delivery, Optum's strategy pushes innovation across the system. Together, these segments give the company its edge in a complex healthcare landscape. UNH stock has been in free fall in 2025, hitting a low of $248.88 in May. Over the past 52 weeks, the stock has declined 38%, trailing far behind the broader S&P's surge of 13%. However, UNH stock is rebounding, up 1% over the past month. UnitedHealth's downfall in 2025 was not just a single bad headline. It was a chain reaction that started fast and spiraled hard. It kicked off on April 17, when the company shocked the Street by slashing its full-year earnings forecast. This was because a flood of higher-acuity Medicare Advantage patients drove costs far beyond expectations, exposing just how outdated and fragile their forecasting models had become. Then May hit like a wrecking ball. CEO Andrew Witty abruptly resigned, raising eyebrows amid growing pressure. Days later, reports surfaced of a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into alleged Medicare fraud. By mid-May, the stock had crashed, hitting five-year lows. Just when it seemed the damage was done, more scandal dropped with accusations of UnitedHealth secretly paying nursing homes to avoid costly hospital transfers. Even insider buying gave only a brief lift to UNH. In a short span, UnitedHealth went from a rock-solid name to a cautionary tale unraveling in real time. After its brutal springtime plunge, UNH stock is priced at 14 times forward earnings and 0.7 times sales, trading in bargain territory. Those multiples sit well below both the sector medians and its own five-year averages, catching the eye of value hunters sniffing out a possible rebound. Despite the stock's decline, UnitedHealth has signaled some confidence where it counts: dividends. In June, the company hiked its quarterly payout by 5.2% to $2.21, marking 15 consecutive years of increases. Paid out on June 24, the hike pushed its annual yield near 2.6%. On April 17, UnitedHealth reported Q1 2025 earnings, and it wasn't the kind of update Wall Street wanted to hear. Revenue climbed 9.8% year-over-year (YOY) to $109.6 billion but still came in shy of expectations. Adjusted EPS rose 4.2% to $7.20 yet missed the estimated mark of $7.27. UnitedHealthcare, the insurance arm, posted a solid 12.2% revenue gain to $84.6 billion. Meanwhile, Optum saw more modest growth of 4.6% to $63.9 billion, with Optum Rx doing the heavy lifting. Still, rising costs loomed large. Total operating expenses surged 9.4% annually to $100.5 billion. On the brighter side, the company exited the quarter with $34.3 billion in cash and short-term investments and generated $5.5 billion in operating cash flow. Shareholders weren't left in the cold either, with over $5 billion returned through buybacks and dividends. UnitedHealth's steep selloff wasn't just about Q1 results. It was the guidance cut that really rattled sentiment. Management slashed its 2025 adjusted EPS outlook to between $26 and $26.50, down from the initially forecast range of $29.50 to $30 in December 2024 and below fiscal 2024 adjusted EPS of $27.66. Surging Medicare Advantage costs and shifts in Optum's patient mix have taken a real bite. Now, all eyes are on the fiscal Q2 report, expected to be released on July 29 before the market opens. Analysts forecast the Q2 bottom line to be around $5.08 per share, down 25% YOY. Looking to fiscal 2025, adjusted EPS is expected to decline 20% annually to $22.07, then surge by 15% to $25.39 in fiscal 2026. Last Wednesday, UBS reiterated its 'Buy' rating on UNH stock but trimmed the price target to $385 from $400. The cut followed CEO Stephen Hemsley's cautious tone at the June 2 meeting, hinting at more conservative 2025 guidance. UBS anticipates fiscal 2025 EPS closer to $20, down from the earlier $22.50 consensus. Margins were also revised, with Medicare Advantage trimmed to 1.5% and Optum Health lowered to 4.5%. Despite the recent shakeups, Wall Street hasn't completely hit the panic button yet. Last month, UnitedHealth shook things up by axing broker commissions on select Medicare Advantage plans — a move aimed at trimming the cost that forced it to yank full-year guidance. Hightower Chief Investment Strategist Stephanie Link called it a smart pivot, saying the same issue 'got them in trouble' to begin with. Link is bracing for short-term volatility but stays bullish long-term, calling UNH stock 'too cheap' for a top-tier name in the industry. There's still optimism in the air, but with a touch of caution. UNH stock has a 'Moderate Buy' consensus overall, down from a consensus 'Strong Buy' rating a month ago. Of the 24 analysts covering the stock, 15 advise a 'Strong Buy,' two suggest a 'Moderate Buy,' and seven analysts play it safe with a 'Hold.' The mean price target of $363.43 implies shares could rise as much as 18%. The Street-high target of $440, way below this year's highs, signals that UNH has an upside potential of 43% from current levels. The U.S. healthcare industry, despite constant political firestorms, is built to endure. For years, UnitedHealth has stood as its crown jewel. Defensive, dividend-paying, and shock-resistant, it has been the kind of stock long-term investors can count on. But 2025 has shattered that illusion. While the broader market climbs to record highs, UnitedHealth's dramatic plunge reminds us that even giants can stumble hard. Sure, UNH stock now trades at a discount, offering an attractive dividend yield. Insiders are buying shares, and UnitedHealth still commands significant market share and robust cash flow. But is this really a 'buy the dip' moment? It's probably a bet that management can steady the ship, and the storm eventually clears. Until then, UnitedHealth sits in a gray zone between legacy and uncertainty, where long-term promise collides with short-term pain. Investors should exercise caution before jumping in. On the date of publication, Sristi Suman Jayaswal did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on 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