RBC Raises First Horizon (FHN) Price Target After Management Meetings
First Horizon Corporation (NYSE:FHN) is one of the 8 cheap beginner stocks to buy right now. On June 9, RBC Capital Markets maintained its Outperform rating on First Horizon Corporation (NYSE:FHN) while modifying its outlook, increasing the bank's price target from $22 to $24. The change followed recent meetings with First Horizon's top executives—CFO Hope Dmuchowski, Head of Investor Relations Tyler Craft, and Chairman, President, and CEO Bryan Jordan.
The management team focused on a stabilization in deposit costs during the talks, which they stated should help maintain a stable margin. They also talked about possible strategies to lessen the impact in the event that the Fed lowers interest rates again.
Additionally, RBC Capital's analysis indicates that First Horizon's management is focusing on internal operations and strategy, even if investors were interested in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and the importance of exceeding the $100 billion asset benchmark. According to RBC, the revenue outlook remained stable even with some slowdown in near-term industry lending activity.
First Horizon Corporation (NYSE:FHN) is a financial holding corporation with headquarters in Tennessee. Its primary business divisions include Corporate, Specialty Banking, and Regional Banking.
While we acknowledge the potential of FHN as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
Read More: and
Disclosure: None.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Much the Average Middle-Class American Has Gained in the Stock Market Since Trump Announced His Tariffs
According to Gallup, 71% of middle-income Americans are invested in the stock market, and they've watched their fortunes rise and fall repeatedly during the volatile period since President Donald Trump announced his trade tariffs on April 2. But as the official start of summer approaches, those who resisted the urge to panic-sell during the frightening declines have largely seen their discipline pay off. Check Out: Read Next: It's impossible to gauge what the average middle-class investor might have gained or lost because the concept is a construct, regardless of the investor's socioeconomic class. Even if it were possible to put a dollar amount on the mean middle-class earner's stock investments, that would ignore critical variables like that investor's: Type, size and number of stock or fund holdings Portfolio makeup Portfolio diversity Degree of leverage from options trading or margin borrowing Trade frequency Fees and expenses Discover More: For context on just how differently two otherwise similar middle-class investors can perform, consider that Warner Bros Discovery Inc. (WBD) cratered on April 2 and retained a 24% overall loss through June 10. Conversely, Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR) has been one of the top performers in the post-tariff era, adding most of its 74% year-to-date gains since April 2. Two middle-class stock pickers with identical incomes and backgrounds who rolled the anti-diversification dice by purchasing identical amounts in either stock on April 1 would have had radically different outcomes between then and mid-June. A more reliable metric might be the major indices that so many middle-class households invest in through their 401(k)s, IRAs, index funds and ETFs. Between April 2 and June 10: The S&P 500, the benchmark index for the U.S. stock market, gained 6.16%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tracks the blue chips, gained 1.31%. The tech-heavy and more volatile Nasdaq gained 11.57%. The FTSE All Cap Index, which includes much of the global stock market with 10,000 small-, mid- and large-cap companies in both developed and emerging markets, gained 7.22%. The average among all four is 6.57%, which is roughly what typical middle-class earners might have gained since April 2 if they followed the conventional advice of diversifying their portfolios with a blend of blue chips, growth stocks and foreign equities, and holding their positions regardless of market behavior. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on How Much the Average Middle-Class American Has Gained in the Stock Market Since Trump Announced His Tariffs
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Valve does its homework the night before deadline: Switches Steam to run on Mac chips right as Apple announces it's ditching Intel for good
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. I've said it before and I'll say it again: my 2020 MacBook Air is the best gaming laptop I've ever owned. Not because it can run anything I throw at it (it can't) or because it's some ungodly-powerful slab of RGB (it's not). But it runs everything I want it to run—Infinity Engine RPGs, KOTOR 1 and 2, things of that nature—silently and with battery life out the wazoo. It does that because it's one of the first bits of Apple kit to use the megacorp's own, bespoke ARM line of M-series CPUs, breaking a dependence on Intel chips going all the way back to 2006. Which is neat, but there was a problem—damn near every app out there is built to work on x86 chips like Intel's, and not ARM. Apple solved that little issue with a thing called Rosetta 2, which effectively translated x86 apps to ARM on the fly when you tried to run them on ARM-based Macs. But nothing gold can stay: at this year's WWDC, Apple quietly pointed out to devs that, two macOS generations from now, Rosetta would pretty much be going the way of the dodo. Devs would have to make their apps ARM-native or sling their hook. Which brings us to Steam. Valve being Valve—and macOS making up an absolutely infinitesimal percentage of overall Steam users—it never bothered to create an Apple Silicon-native version of Steam in all these past five years. Until yesterday. With Apple suddenly putting a time limit on how long devs could rely on Rosetta, Valve has gotten its act together and released an ARM version of Steam as part of yesterday's Steam client beta. Gotta be honest, it's very relatable. It reminds me of all the university essays I scrambled to write the night before they were due. I imagine Gabe sitting on his yacht, watching Apple's coiffed execs intro WWDC, suddenly sitting bolt upright as he realises they forgot to make Steam run on modern Macs. The Apple-native version of Steam is currently only available in beta, which you can swap to by heading to your preferences, then Interface, then selecting the beta version of Steam from a drop-down menu. It works well! In my very limited (10 minutes or so) of mucking about with it, I've had better luck getting the Steam Overlay to work and game recording seems to actually function now (albeit without game audio, because Apple makes it borderline impossible to record system audio on Macs for some reason) which wasn't the case last time I messed with those features—which was admittedly a few updates ago. Anyway, the perhaps dozens of people playing Steam games on Mac can heave a sigh of relief. For a minute there, I wondered if Valve would bother to update Steam for Apple Silicon at all. Macs are a tiny fragment of its audience and Apple Silicon users are a tiny fragment of that. I'm glad Gabe still cares enough about those of us who love overpaying for hardware to keep things in working order. 2025 games: This year's upcoming releasesBest PC games: Our all-time favoritesFree PC games: Freebie festBest FPS games: Finest gunplayBest RPGs: Grand adventuresBest co-op games: Better together
