Moderna (MRNA) Plans to Cut 10% of Its Workforce amid Falling Vaccine Sales
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.
It is worth noting that the layoffs are just a part of the firm's plan to cut $1.5 billion in annual operating expenses by 2027, which builds on earlier cost‑saving measures. Interestingly, Bancel said that progress is being made on this front by scaling back on research and development, concluding trials on respiratory products, renegotiating supplier agreements, and lowering manufacturing costs. Although the CEO emphasized that everything was done to avoid job losses, he said that restructuring is still necessary in order to align with 'the realities of our business' while continuing to invest in new science.
It also doesn't help the firm that new policy challenges under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are creating an uncertain environment for the overall vaccine industry. Nevertheless, despite the cuts, Moderna maintains that its outlook remains positive. In fact, the company now has three approved products, including a next‑generation COVID-19 shot cleared by the FDA in May, and sees the potential for up to eight additional products in the next three years. Moderna will provide further business updates when it reports quarterly results on Friday.
Is MRNA Stock a Good Buy?
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on MRNA stock based on three Buys, 13 Holds, and three Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average MRNA price target of $48.14 per share implies 57% upside potential.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Countries With Highest US Visa Overstay Rates
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The State Department is proposing a pilot program that would require some visitors to post a bond of up to $15,000 before being granted a U.S. visa, targeting travelers from countries with high visa overstay rates. A map created by Newsweek shows what countries would be affected if the pilot program were implemented based on the most recent available overstay data. The map highlights nations like Angola, Liberia, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Cabo Verde and Burkina Faso—all with visa overstay rates above 10 percent in 2023. Why It Matters According to a notice published Monday in the Federal Register, the 12-month program would apply to applicants for business and tourist visas from countries identified as having high rates of visa overstays, poor internal document security or citizenship-by-investment programs that require no residency. The bond would be returned if the traveler departs the U.S. on time, and forfeited if they stay past the allowed date. What To Know The new visa bond program would take effect August 20, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek and a notice previewed Monday on the Federal Register website. The Department of Homeland Security says the goal is to ensure the U.S. government doesn't incur costs when a visitor violates visa terms. "Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates ... may be subject to the pilot program," the notice said. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, more than 500,000 people overstayed visas in 2023. By comparison, other countries have far more total overstays, but much lower rates. Colombia had the most total overstays in 2023 with 40,884, followed by Haiti (27,269), Venezuela (21,513), Brazil (20,811) and the Dominican Republic (20,259). Colombia also sent nearly 945,000 visitors to the U.S., resulting in a relatively low overstay rate. The administration of President Donald Trump first introduced a version of the visa bond rule in 2020, but it was never implemented due to the sharp decline in international travel during the COVID-19 pandemic. The revived proposal includes similar criteria and is part of a broader effort to tighten immigration enforcement. The list of countries subject to the bond requirement will be released at least 15 days before the program begins, according to the notice. The State Department said the program would help determine whether the long-standing assumption that visa bonds are too difficult to enforce holds up under modern conditions. What People Are Saying The public notice stated: "The Pilot Program will help the Department assess the continued reliance on the untested historical assumption that imposing visa bonds to achieve the foreign policy and national security goals of the United States remains too cumbersome to be practical." Andrew Kreighbaum, a journalist covering immigration, posted to X, formerly Twitter: "It's getting more expensive for many business and tourist travelers to enter the U.S. On top of new visa integrity fees, the State Department is imposing visa bonds as high as $15,000." What Happens Next Visa bonds are not new, but the State Department has rarely used them. A section of the Foreign Affairs Manual has described the process as impractical, a view the department now says was based on assumption rather than data.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Laura Loomer Files New Supreme Court Petition—'Accountability Is Coming'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Conservative firebrand Laura Loomer is going after social media giant Meta, claiming in a new filing to the U.S. Supreme Court that it and another large company were part of an alleged criminal conspiracy to censor conservative voices like hers, leading to unsuccessful election outcomes. Newsweek reached out to Loomer and Meta for comment. Why It Matters In late 2022, a treasure trove of emails now known as being part of the "Twitter files" questioned whether politicians and others of particular political persuasions were receiving due or unjust treatment on social media as a means to suppress free speech and nudge conversation. That was part of a broader public pushback against social media companies that were uniquely employing different fact-check methods, notably during the COVID pandemic and surrounding major elections—especially the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests. In January of this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg followed Elon Musk's lead by announcing a rollback of its censorship policies to become a free speech platform, saying, "The recent elections feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing speech." What To Know Loomer, an outspoken voice on social media, wrote Monday on X, formerly Twitter, that she filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case against Meta, Procter & Gamble and others. The Procter & Gamble portion of the claim alleges that the company provided Meta, then Facebook, with a list of conservatives who should have their speech suppressed. Newsweek reached out to Procter & Gamble for comment. "New evidence, like the Twitter Files and Zuckerberg's own admissions to government initiated censorship in support of the Democrats and against President Trump, reveals coordinated efforts to silence political speech and ruin the lives of those Big Tech deemed unworthy of having a voice over their support for President Trump," Loomer wrote on X. Laura Loomer shows her support for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump outside a campaign event for Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, not pictured, at The Vault on October 5, 2023, in Tampa, Florida. Laura Loomer shows her support for then-presidential candidate Donald Trump outside a campaign event for Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, not pictured, at The Vault on October 5, 2023, in Tampa, was unsuccessful in two separate congressional campaigns in Florida: one in 2020 and another in 2022. In 2020, she unsuccessfully faced off against Democrat Lois Frankel in the race to represent Florida's 21st Congressional District. In 2022, she lost in the Republican primary against incumbent Daniel Webster in the race for Florida's 11th District. More recently, she's been closely tied to President Donald Trump—sometimes to the point of Trump's own staffers wanting to keep distance between the pair due to questionable publicity. Trump in the past referred to her as a "free spirit." Loomer, as part of her new legal filing, claims that "nobody has been more viciously attacked," adding that her attorney views it as the most egregious violation of rights against a citizen journalist "that he has ever seen." "This case is about holding Big Tech accountable for racketeering that undermines our elections. ... Everyone involved in what happened to me will pay a price for what they did," she said. "It might not be today, but I promise you, it will happen someday. "You don't just get to pretend like you are supporting conservatives once Trump gets elected and do nothing to make those you damaged whole again." What People Are Saying Zuckerberg, in January: "We're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms." He added that fact-checkers "have just been too politically biased, and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the U.S." What Happens Next It's unclear whether Loomer's request will receive a look from the High Court. While the court is not obligated to hear all cases appealed to it, a writ of certiorari can help it decide which cases should take precedence.
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
How reliable is the jobs data? Economists and Wall Street still trust it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing,' Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to 'liven it up', but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers — when they are good. These are the figures is Trump attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's 'chances of Victory,' yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
