Meet the 7.3% Yield Dividend Stock That Could Soar in 2026
Pfizer is doing well enough to pay down debt while sustaining its generous dividend.
Oncology and specialty drugs are driving growth.
The stock has a high ceiling heading into next year.
10 stocks we like better than Pfizer ›
It's been a tough stretch for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer (NYSE: PFE). The company enjoyed a vaccine windfall during the COVID-19 pandemic, but revenue and profits cratered as the pandemic eased and those tailwinds stopped blowing. The stock has tumbled, sending Pfizer's dividend yield to a whopping 7.3%.
But Pfizer's stock price recently bounced on its second-quarter earnings. Investors have been looking for a glimpse into Pfizer's future, and there is a lot to like as things begin to come into view.
Here is why Pfizer's newfound momentum could set the stock up to soar in 2026.
Prudent financial management secures a generous dividend
Pfizer's generous dividend has become a big reason why many people consider owning the stock. It's not easy to find a 7.3% dividend yield, and oftentimes, stocks that do are yield traps with significant underlying risks.
While the market's negative sentiment toward Pfizer and the company's post-pandemic struggles have driven the share price down and the yield higher, the dividend itself is on solid footing. Management has raised the dividend for 15 consecutive years, so losing those pandemic-related profits didn't force a dividend cut. Additionally, the current dividend of $1.72 per share is well below the mid-point of management's 2025 adjusted EPS guidance of $3 per share.
In other words, Pfizer is still earning plenty of money to afford its dividend, and is using that cushion to, wisely, pay down debt to improve its balance sheet. That's prudent financial leadership, and should give investors some confidence that they can count on the stock's robust 7.3% yield as a nice baseline for the stock's future returns.
Is Wall Street sleeping on Pfizer's growth?
It seems the broader market is cautious toward healthcare stocks at the moment. Not only could tariffs raise costs for drug companies, but there is also pressure from the Trump administration to cut prescription drug prices for Americans.
However, Pfizer seems to be increasingly confident that it can navigate these headwinds and grow its business. Management recently raised its 2025 adjusted earnings guidance from a range of $2.80 to $3.00 per share to $2.90 to $3.10. The company has focused its growth efforts on oncology and specialty drugs, which are less likely to face pricing pressure. And that's precisely where Pfizer is growing the most; the company's specialty drug sales are up 6% year over year, and oncology sales are up 9% through six months of 2025.
As specialty and oncology drug sales increase, they should have a greater effect on Pfizer's overall growth. These two segments combined for approximately $16.5 billion through six months of this year. Pfizer's primary care drug sales, totaling $11.2 billion, are down 8% year over year as COVID-19 sales continue to fall off. Six-month sales of Pfizer's COVID-19 drugs are now less than $2 billion, so their impact on the numbers is drying up. Additionally, Pfizer's top seller, Eliquis, faces patent expiration but likely won't face generic competition until at least 2028.
Analysts only anticipate Pfizer earning $3.10 per share next fiscal year, but that could be too conservative, given Pfizer's momentum in oncology and specialty drugs and the resulting boost to this year's guidance. It seems tariff and political concerns are weighing on short-term expectations. If you zoom out, analysts anticipate Pfizer growing earnings at an annualized rate of 9% over the next three to five years, which seems to underline the good things happening in the business.
The conditions are ripe for a dramatic sentiment boost, making Pfizer a coiled spring at its current price
So, what does this all mean? There's an argument that Pfizer's stock could face a boost in sentiment if the dark clouds (tariffs and political pressure) clear out, allowing investors to refocus on Pfizer's growth in oncology and specialty drugs.
Today, Pfizer trades at just 8 times the midpoint of its 2025 earnings guidance. That valuation resembles a company on the verge of going under, not one that could grow at a high-single-digit pace over the coming years. Even if the valuation stays the same, Pfizer needs very little growth to generate double-digit investment returns because the dividend starts you off at over 7%.
If things do go well and Wall Street warms up to Pfizer, the stock could produce some seriously outsized returns from a lucrative trifecta of:
A 7.3% dividend
Potential high-single-digit growth
A valuation that could soar with some positive sentiment
It makes Pfizer a fantastic choice for income-focused investors, as well as bargain hunters looking for some upside in a market already trading at all-time highs, chugging toward 2026.
Should you invest $1,000 in Pfizer right now?
Before you buy stock in Pfizer, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Pfizer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025
Justin Pope has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Pfizer. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Meet the 7.3% Yield Dividend Stock That Could Soar in 2026 was originally published by The Motley Fool
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Absolutely no one pays attention': I could steal from my children's trust fund without them having a clue
I don't believe the young person writing to your column this week is conflating their disappointment in their mother with financial mismanagement. It would be exceptionally easy to do if one were so inclined. My husband died about 18 months ago when our boys were in their early 20s. I handled all of the paperwork and transfers of accounts after he passed, and I could have been taking money out of the boys' trust for myself without them having a clue. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. Is the time-honored 15% tip for restaurant service becoming the norm again? What 20-year-old boy knows anything about such things? If I hadn't told them about the trust, they wouldn't even know it existed. I am on the paperwork as the guardian of the trust, and if I filed the IRS paperwork every year, who's to know where the disbursements go? Absolutely no one pays attention, and while our lawyer set it all up for my husband and me, she was not involved at all after his death. To be clear, I am managing all of it for my boys, not touching a penny. Before my husband passed away, our lawyer suggested changing me to the beneficiary of the trust in question, and I said no. I continue to manage it for our boys. I hope you will consider this scenario going forward. Widow & Mother Related: My brother's 'good daughter' siphoned $70,000 from her father's accounts. Should she still get an inheritance? Don't miss: 'Things are getting tougher': I'm struggling with $145,000 in debt. Should I refinance my 3.5% mortgage? The beneficiary of a trust or bank account can become vulnerable to bad actors, and, yes, that bad actor could be the remaining parent who decides to help themselves to the money or pay themselves exorbitant fees. You are correct about that. The daughter in the letter you mentioned was 20 at the time of her father's passing and, in the eyes of the law, was of age to control her own bank account if she was listed as a beneficiary. The financial institution has a fiduciary duty to pass that account along. If there was a will, as the daughter suggested, that will would be made public. She could contact the probate court in the county where her father lived to access a public copy of any will in existence. More likely, from her retelling, her mother inherited most of her husband's estate. But inheritance theft is real — and the pages of this column are rife with sordid tales of missing money and skullduggery. Such malfeasance could include forged amendments to wills or trusts, missing or destroyed documents, emptied safe-deposit boxes, and/or gifts becoming 'loans.' The best way to prevent this is to choose a trustworthy trustee and, even better, choose two trustees who they can keep an eye on each other. As you point out in your letter, transparency and full disclosure of an estate plan would keep everyone in the loop. When beneficiaries and heirs are kept abreast of the contents of an estate and who is named as a beneficiary, it is much harder to fritter away money without the knowledge of those parties. The more you disclose, the harder it is to hide criminal behavior in plain sight. 'Trustees are responsible for managing a trust in a way that avoids conflicts of interest and ensures it is administered in the best interest of the beneficiaries,' according to J.P. Morgan Wealth Management. Otherwise, they could face civil and criminal penalties. 'The trustee should not use the trust assets for the trustees' own profit and must avoid any adverse interests that conflict with those of the beneficiaries,' it adds. In some cases, it's wiser to appoint a professional rather than a family member who may be tempted to self-deal. 'Consider a scenario where a family business is owned by the trusts and a key executive who runs the business is also a potential trustee,' J.P. Morgan says. 'If that person is selected as a trustee while also running the business, it could lead to a conflict of interest.' Unfortunately, even if a couple has an agreement to pass assets down to the next generation, the surviving spouse can renege on that deal if the estate plan is not airtight. This can be particularly painful and common in blended families with second spouses. Managing a trust requires balance: Trustees can also be held liable if they act recklessly. Most states have adopted the 'Prudent Investor Act' where a trustee is required to invest trust assets under a program of diversification to provide income and/or growth of principal. The prior historical rule, known as the 'Prudent Man Rule,' focused more on the need to preserve assets, leading to conservative investments that may have provided income and did not allow for growth of the trust principal. 'No one can perfectly predict the outcome of every investment decision, but a trustee must apply the prudent investor rule when making investment decisions based on the information available at the time,' according to a guide from Fidelity. 'Whether the outcome is good or bad is not a factor if the trustee followed the principles of the prudent investor rule,' it adds. 'The nature and level of the investment risk should be compatible with the aims of the trust and its beneficiaries.' Not every trust will have the same goals, which should be set out by the grantor. 'Trustees are expected to analyze and make sound decisions that are compatible with portfolio distribution requirements, the level of risk tolerance and other factors,' Fidelity adds. A beneficiary who suspects dodgy dealings can take action. In most jurisdictions, the legal right exists to compel a trustee to provide a report of their activities, including financial information; if they refuse, they can compel the trustee to do so via a court petition. Under Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. rules: 'A trustee must keep and render accurate accounts. The accountings should reflect receipts and disbursements, gains and losses on investments, and other transactions affecting the account.' 'Such records are also necessary for completion of tax returns. Usually, the state law requirements apply to testamentary trusts or court-appointments and call for accountings to the court at specific intervals.' It's difficult to steal money from a trust outright, which is why we hear the phrases 'embezzlement' or 'misappropriation of funds' where a trustee diverts funds for their own use. That could involve something as simple as paying themselves extortionate fees. Your boys are fortunate to have a mother who is looking out for their interests. We may never know for sure whether the daughter in the previous letter was right to suspect her mother of mismanaging funds from the family trust. The good news: When beneficiaries do suspect foul play, there's a lot they can do. Don't miss: My late husband's employer is forcing me to take 10% 401(k) distributions. Help! Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell: 'I have a great mortgage rate': I need $80K to buy my husband out of our home. Do I raid my $180K Roth IRA? 'I'm tired of corporate America': My wife and I have $1.65 million. I'm 61. Can I retire already? 'This scam stuff is going to get worse': A man approached me in my car — he had a crazy story An economic reset is underway which will drive the S&P 500 to 7,500 next spring, one strategist says These Eli Lilly executives have been scooping up stock after its big drop Why a jumbo Fed rate cut in September would 'come across as panicky' Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Priscilla Presley's ex-business partners sue her for more than $50 million, alleging fraud
Priscilla Presley's former business partners have filed a lawsuit seeking more than $50 million in damages, alleging fraud and breach of contract. Brigitte Kruse and Kevin Fialko filed the lawsuit Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court. Among many other allegations, they say Presley used them to financially exploit her name, image and likeness, hiding the fact that she had sold those rights decades earlier. The lawsuit comes just over a year after Presley, the 80-year-old former wife of Elvis Presley, sued Kruse and Fialko, alleging they engaged in elder abuse in a 'meticulously planned and abhorrent scheme' to 'prey on an older woman by gaining her trust, isolating her from the most important people in her life, and duping her into believing that they would take care of her (personally and financially), while their real goal was to drain her of every last penny she had.' Kruse and Fialko's lawyer, Jordan Matthews, said in a statement Wednesday that the 'evidence will establish that the real victims here are my clients, who invested millions and years of hard work into revitalizing Priscilla Presley's brand, only to be betrayed and falsely accused once the money was on the table and every personal and business issue had been resolved.' An email seeking comment from Presley's lawyer was not immediately answered. Kruse and Fialko's lawsuit says Kruse is a well-known auctioneer and Fialko a successful entrepreneur, both of whom dealt in Elvis Presley memorabilia. The duo previously sued Priscilla Presley in Florida. They say she approached them in 2021 looking for help to save her from financial ruin, which they spent thousands of hours working to do. 'Kruse and Fialko deployed IP, know-how and creative marketing to enhance Priscilla's brand,' the lawsuit said, and formed several companies to exploit her name, image and likeness. But they say as this was happening, Presley hid from them that she had sold the rights to license her name as part of a $6.5 million deal with Elvis Presley Enterprises in 2005. The lawsuit says that when confronted about the previous agreement, Presley repeatedly denied making it, and later said she had forgotten about it when confronted with evidence of it. The lawsuit also alleges Presley sought to take advantage of the 2023 death of her daughter and Elvis Presley's heir, Lisa Marie Presley, to aggrandize herself and regain a stake in the Elvis' estate. Priscilla and Elvis Presley were married from 1967 to 1973, divorcing four years before the death of the rock 'n' roll legend. Kruse and Fialko say they brokered a 2023 deal to end a legal fight over the estate between Priscilla Presley and Lisa Marie Presley's daughter, actor Riley Keough, getting Priscilla Presley $2.4 million. But the lawsuit says she cut them off in violation of contracts soon after, publicly smeared them and later sued them. Priscilla Presley's lawsuit says that Kruse and Fialko fraudulently convinced her they were essential to her recovering financially, and that her former trusted advisers had been cheating her. It said they compelled her to take part in sham companies, lost control of her name, image and likeness, and forced her into 'a form of indentured servitude.' 'By isolating her and immersing themselves in every aspect of her life, the Defendants were able to fraudulently induce Presley into giving them power of attorney, control over her family and personal trusts, and control over her bank accounts," the lawsuit said. Priscilla became a major public figure when she was a teenager because of her relationship with one of the world's most famous men. She never left the public eye, but she has regained a special prominence in recent years through Baz Luhrmann's 2022 film 'Elvis' and Sofia Coppola's 2023 film 'Priscilla,' based on her memoir. She is also an actor who starred in the original 'Naked Gun' franchise in the 1980s and 1990s, and she had a cameo in the new reboot. Andrew Dalton, The Associated Press
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Twins owners halt sale of team in shocking move to keep club in the family
The Minnesota Twins are no longer for sale, executive chair Joe Pohlad announced Wednesday on behalf of his family. After exploring a variety of options since publicizing the sale 10 months ago, the Pohlad family will remain the principal owner of the club and add new investors instead. Carl Pohlad, a banking magnate and the late grandfather of Joe Pohlad, bought the Twins in 1984 for $44 million. Advertisement 3 Minnesota Twins executive vice president Joe Pohlad announced the franchise are no longer so sale. AP 'For more than four decades, our family has had the privilege of owning the Minnesota Twins. This franchise has become part of our family story, as it has for our employees, our players, this community, and Twins fans everywhere,' Joe Pohlad said in his announcement. 'Over the past several months, we explored a wide range of potential investment and ownership opportunities. Our focus throughout has been on what's best for the long-term future of the Twins. We have been fully open to all possibilities.' Pohlad said the family was in the process of adding two 'significant' limited partnership groups to bring in fresh ideas, bolster critical partnerships and shape the long-term vision of the franchise that relocated to Minnesota in 1961 after originating as the Washington Senators. Advertisement Details about the new investors were being kept private until Major League Baseball approves the transactions, Pohlad said. Financial analysis earlier this year by Forbes valued the franchise at $1.5 billion, ranked 23rd in MLB. Sportico ($1.7 billion) and CNBC ($1.65 billion) pegged the Twins higher. The Pohlads hired Allen & Company, a New York-based investment bank, to direct the sale and keep inquiries confidential. Advertisement Multiple published reports identified Justin Ishbia, a part owner of the NBA's Phoenix Suns, as the front-runner. 3 This decision follows a near 10 month search for a potential buyer. AP But the Chicago White Sox announced last month that Ishbia was becoming a limited partner in a deal that provides a runway for him to become controlling owner. MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred acknowledged during the All-Star break, without naming him directly, that Ishbia's decision sidetracked the process. Advertisement 'There will be a transaction,' Manfred said. 'You just need to be patient while they rework.' The Twins are on track for their lowest attendance total in 16 seasons at Target Field, and an ownership-mandated payroll reduction last year in light of decreased regional television revenue, among other factors, has contributed to a dissatisfied customer base. The Twins traded 10 players off their roster leading up to the July 31 deadline, furthering the frustration. Word that the Pohlads are staying put certainly won't help the morale of Minnesota baseball fans, who've been waiting for another World Series title since 1991 and saw the investment in the roster plunge right after an American League Central title in 2023. The Twins won a playoff series then, too, their first in 21 years. 3 The organization will now remain within possession of the Pohlad family, even after trading away 10 players prior to this past trade deadline. 'We see and hear the passion from our partners, the community, and Twins fans. That passion inspires us,' Pohlad said. 'This ownership group is committed to building a winning team and culture for this region, one that Twins fans are proud to cheer for.' Speaking before Minnesota's game at the New York Yankees, manager Rocco Baldelli said he was happy to hear the Pohlad family would be staying involved. Advertisement 'One of the main reasons why I came to this organization in the first place was because of the Pohlads and the types of owners they are and how they treat people, so just start there,' Baldelli said. 'They've been a big part of my stay here and lot of the successes that we've had here as well.' The Twins began the season ranked 17th in player payroll at a little more than $142.8 million, but their trading spree last month lopped about $26 million from that figure. Shortstop Carlos Correa was sent to the Houston Astros in a pure salary dump that reunited the three-time All-Star with his original team, which inherited $70 million of the more than $103 million that remained on his contract. Advertisement Pohlad, in an interview with the Minnesota Star Tribune published immediately after the announcement, said he understands the bad feelings from the fans and looks forward to helping rebuild the brand and the roster. He said one of the investment groups is made up of Minnesotans and the other is a family based on the East Coast. Pohlad also said the teardown of the roster was not driven by a request from ownership to further cut costs. 'It certainly set us up for more flexibility, but they were primarily baseball decisions,' Pohlad told the Star Tribune.
