Dell Stock At $90: Should You Buy Now?
The Trump administration has recently granted tariff exemptions for several high-tech imports, including smartphones, laptops, semiconductor equipment, and other electronics. This move stands to benefit companies such as Dell Technologies.
Despite a steep 30% decline this year amid tariff and trade war concerns, we believe DELL stock—currently priced around $88—offers a strong buying opportunity, albeit with certain risks. While our assessment of the stock's valuation in light of its recent operational performance and financial standing highlights weaknesses in areas like Growth, Profitability, Stability, and Downturn Resilience (outlined below), its current low valuation makes it appealing. For investors preferring lower volatility than single-stock exposure, the Trefis High-Quality portfolio offers a compelling alternative — having outperformed the S&P 500 with over 91% total returns since inception.
Based on sales and profits, DELL stock appears significantly undervalued when compared to the broader market.
Dell Technologies' Revenues have exhibited some growth in recent years.
Dell Technologies' margins are notably below average relative to other companies tracked by Trefis.
Dell Technologies' balance sheet appears relatively weak.
DELL stock has fared slightly better than the S&P 500 during some past market downturns. While hopes are pinned on a soft economic landing, investors may wonder how much worse things could get in a recession. Our dashboard How Low Can Stocks Go During A Market Crash explores how top stocks performed in the last six market crashes.
Here's how Dell Technologies measures up across key categories:
Despite certain risks stemming from its underwhelming performance in profitability and financial strength, DELL stock's deeply discounted valuation makes it a potentially attractive buy. Additional upside could come from recently announced tariff exemptions for electronics, along with Dell's $10 billion share repurchase program and dividend increase announced last month.
While DELL stock has promise, single-stock investments come with risk. In contrast, the Trefis High Quality Portfolio, which includes 30 stocks, has consistently outperformed the S&P 500 over the past four years. What's the secret?These HQ Portfolio stocks tend to deliver higher returns with lower volatility — a smoother ride, as demonstrated by the HQ Portfolio performance metrics.
Invest with Trefis
Market Beating Portfolios | Rules-Based Wealth
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns
Key Points CRISPR Therapeutics' first approved therapy, Casgevy, was a breakthrough. One of Casgevy's biggest achievements may be demonstrating the viability of CRISPR Therapeutics' strategy. The biotech company could soar if it can follow up that win with more clinical and regulatory milestones. 10 stocks we like better than CRISPR Therapeutics › Over the past few years, the market hasn't been kind to somewhat speculative, unprofitable stocks. CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CRSP), a mid-cap biotech, fits that description. The company's shares are down by 24% since mid-2022. The S&P 500 is up 50% over the same period. Despite this terrible performance, there are reasons to believe that CRISPR Therapeutics could still generate life-changing returns for investors willing to be patient. Here's how the biotech could pull it off. CRISPR Therapeutics' first success CRISPR Therapeutics' first approval was for Casgevy, a treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD) and transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDT), which it developed in collaboration with Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Before Casgevy, no CRISPR-based gene-editing medicine had been approved. While it became the first, it still faces some challenges. Ex vivo gene-editing therapies require a complex manufacturing and administration process that can only be performed in authorized treatment centers (ATCs). Moreover, they're expensive. Casgevy costs $2.2 million in the U.S. Getting third-party payers on board for that is no easy feat. Still, CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals are making steady progress. As of the second quarter, CRISPR Therapeutics had achieved its goal of activating 75 ATCs. It had also secured reimbursement for eligible patients in 10 countries. The two companies estimate there are roughly 60,000 eligible SCD and TDT patients in the regions they have targeted. Let's say they continue to strike reimbursement deals and can count on third-party coverage for 70% of this target population (42,000 people), then go on to treat another 30% of that group in the next decade (12,600 patients). Assuming they could extend that $2.2 million price tag to those countries, Casgevy could generate more than $27.7 billion over this period. Based on its agreement with Vertex, 40% would go to CRISPR Therapeutics, or roughly $11.1 billion over a decade. That's not bad, but it's not that impressive either. So, while Casgevy could contribute meaningfully to CRISPR Therapeutics' results -- and may even reach blockbuster status at some point -- the medicine may primarily serve as a proof of concept to demonstrate that the biotech's approach can be effective. Substantial progress with its first commercialized product will help the stock price. But the company's performance will depend even more on future clinical and regulatory milestones, especially as it shows with Casgevy that it can manage the intricacies and complexities of marketing gene-editing medicines. Can the pipeline deliver? CRISPR Therapeutics has six candidates in clinical trials, which isn't bad at all for a mid-cap biotech company. One of its leading programs is CTX310, a potential therapy designed to help reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with certain conditions. CTX310 is already producing encouraging clinical trial results. Additionally, it's an in vivo medicine, meaning it bypasses the need to harvest patients' cells to manufacture therapies; in vivo gene-editing treatments are easier to handle than their ex vivo counterparts. The company's path to creating life-changing returns hinges on its ability to deliver consistent clinical and regulatory wins over the next few years for CTX310 and other important candidates. If CRISPR Therapeutics can successfully launch several new products in the next five to seven years, its shares are likely to skyrocket. In the meantime, under this scenario, the company would succeed in making gene-editing medicines more mainstream. This would encourage third-party payers to get on board -- and healthcare institutions, and perhaps even governments, to help push for more ATCs, since there'd be a greater need to accommodate these treatments. Can CRISPR Therapeutics achieve this? In my view, the biotech stock is on the riskier side, but does carry significant upside potential. There's a (small) chance the gene-editing specialist will deliver life-changing returns in the next decade, but investors need to hedge their bets. It's best to start by initiating a small position in the stock, then progressively add more if CRISPR Therapeutics lands more wins. Should you invest $1,000 in CRISPR Therapeutics right now? Before you buy stock in CRISPR Therapeutics, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and CRISPR Therapeutics 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 $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% 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 13, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends CRISPR Therapeutics and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Here's How This Forgotten Healthcare Stock Could Generate Life-Changing Returns was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump stuns Wall Street, Washington with controversial BLS nominee
President Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is breaking the mold of his predecessors and causing alarm among economists of all stripes Commissioners of the BLS are usually academics or career civil servants with decades of experience in statistics and economics. But EJ Antoni, who Trump nominated to lead the agency after firing former BLS chief Erika McEntarfer on the heels of a disappointing jobs report earlier this month, has more bona fides as a pundit and conservative advocate than he does as a statistician. The choice of Antoni to lead a statistical division whose data is scrutinized by businesses and governments all over the world is getting major backlash from the economics profession and sparking concerns about the politicization of bedrock-level economic data. 'E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner,' Harvard University economist Jason Furman, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote on social media. 'He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant experience.' Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed Furman's words. 'He's utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets,' he told the Washington Post. Who is EJ Antoni? Antoni has been the chief economist of the Heritage Foundation's center on the federal budget for the past four months. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that produced the wide-ranging Project 2025 policy agenda. Project 2025 took aim at the 'permanent political class' in Washington, and many of its budget-cutting recommendations have been carried out by the Trump administration. He held two research fellowships at Heritage prior to his current position and two other fellowships at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group led by billionaire Steve Forbes. Antoni submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2020, in which he defends positions associated with 'supply-side economics,' a conservative policy doctrine that became popular in the 1980s. Besides stints as an adjunct at a community college and as an instructor at his alma mater of Northern Illinois University, he's held no other academic posts. By comparison, McEntarfer worked for 20 years as an economist with the Census Bureau. Her predecessor William Beach was the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee, and his predecessor Erica Groshen spent 20 years as an economist at the New York Federal Reserve and referees for about a dozen academic journals. Antoni is a frequent guest on a number of conservative media outlets. While BLS makes it a point to produce — rather than interpret — economic data, Antoni has been hitting talking points on recent BLS releases in media appearances, a stark contrast with the agency's typical cut-and-dry communications. Discussing the dismal July jobs report, he emphasized job growth among native-born Americans on former Trump adviser Steven Bannon's internet podcast. 'There was some good news in the report, too, that we should definitely highlight,' he said. 'All of the net job growth over the last 12 months has gone to native-born Americans.' The Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for an interview with Antoni. Backlash from economists Economists aren't mincing their words about Antoni's credentials. One economist at the University of Wisconsin refuted one of Antoni's recent papers, showing it contained basic statistical mistakes and finding that it wasn't possible to replicate its results — an academic kiss of death. Alan Cole, an economist with the conservative Tax Foundation think tank, described the errors in the paper as 'stunning.' 'Stunning errors in a tweet are bad, but worse to do it in long form, where there's more time and effort involved,' he wrote on social media. Conservative economists have also been blasting the firing of McEntarfer after the July jobs report showed that a meager 106,000 jobs have been added to the economy since May. Trump accused the agency — without any evidence — of producing 'rigged' data, which many economists have said is poppycock. 'The totally groundless firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer … sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau,' William Beach, a Trump appointee who preceded McEntarfer as head of the BLS, wrote online. Warnings to senators Antoni is expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate after he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will also need to approve his nomination. Antoni's critics are waging a long-shot effort to turn GOP members of the committee against the nominee ahead of his likely confirmation. Friends of the BLS, a group that advocates for the agency and that's chaired by Beach and his predecessor Erica Groshen, called out Antoni in a statement Wednesday, describing the debate about his nomination as 'contentious.' 'BLS now … faces the additional challenge of a contentious debate over the nominee for the next Commissioner, Dr. EJ Antoni,' they said. Groshen told The Hill they hope the nomination process will be 'very thorough.' 'The responsibility of the Senate HELP committee … is particularly important at this time,' she added. The Hill reached out to all Republican members of the committee about Antoni's qualifications, most of whom didn't respond. A representative for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she wouldn't be commenting on the nomination prior to the hearing. What would politicized labor data look like? Antoni has already floated some massive changes to BLS data releases, including canceling regular monthly reports in favor of quarterly releases — a change that would alter the entire cadence of economic data output and affect nearly every private and public sector model of the U.S. economy. He told Fox News before his nomination that 'the BLS should suspend issuing the monthly jobs reports, but keep publishing more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data,' since BLS data is often subject to revision. Former BLS chiefs told The Hill they're keeping an eye on a regulatory standard known as OMB Directive No. 3, which governs the rules of BLS releases, for any sign that agency data could become politicized. 'Violations of that would be very unusual, and therefore indicative of something unusual underneath it,' Groshen said. Antoni has delivered some conflicting remarks on BLS data revisions, attributing them to 'incompetent' leadership under McEntarfer during his appearance on Bannon's podcast and then noting later that the problems pre-dated her time as agency commissioner. 'I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems,' he said before adding that 'this is not a problem unique to the Trump administration.' Real problems with BLS data In fact, the downward revisions in the July jobs report that prompted Trump's firing of McEntarfer were due to the late reporting of educational employment figures by state and local governments, along with the more pronounced seasonal effects in that sector since teachers don't work in the summer. That's fairly typical for the agency, current and former employees of the BLS told The Hill. Political narratives aside, the BLS has seen a substantial drop in survey response rates in the aftermath of the pandemic, a decline that has made the data less reliable, but that has affected statistical agencies in a number of countries beyond the U.S. 'This is not a failure of the BLS … This is a phenomenon that is worldwide,' Erica Groshen told The Hill. 'This is a slow-moving train wreck,' she added, exhorting CEOs across the economy to make a priority of the surveys. 'There is no silver bullet. Believe me – people have been looking for it for a long time.' Economists have been lamenting the survey response rates for years. 'Like Orwellian newspeak, [the U.S. employment report] can often mean the reverse of what it says it means. The household and establishment surveys portray contrasting pictures of employment (and both have shocking response rates),' UBS economist Paul Donovan wrote earlier this month, having noted declines since 2023.
Bloomberg
30 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trade Partners Grow Restless Waiting for Trump's Tariff Breaks
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared at a Jaguar Land Rover factory in May that his world-leading trade deal with President Donald Trump included a cut in US tariffs on British steel to zero. More than three months later, steel lobbyist Peter Brennan was still waiting for that relief to become reality.
