Nokia price target lowered to EUR 5.60 from EUR 6.05 at JPMorgan
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.
Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
How banks from Goldman to JPMorgan are defending against private equity poaching of junior bankers
Wall Street banks have recently adopted policies to curb private equity poaching of junior bankers. Each bank has a different stance, from reassigning bankers to terminating their employment. Business Insider broke down the current rules juniors should know at each of the five major banks. Private equity recruiting on Wall Street has turned into a bit of a saga this summer. It started in June when JPMorgan sent a memo to incoming junior bankers that it would fire those who accept future-dated jobs at buyout firms. Within days, three PE shops, starting with Apollo, began announcing that they'd stall recruiting until 2026. Since then, the other biggest banks have hopped on the train to roll out their own new policies for junior bankers interested in one day jumping to the buy-side. Every week seems to bring a new twist, and it has undoubtedly been a whirlwind for recent grads starting their first investment banking jobs. In the interest of clarifying all the disparate developments, Business Insider has compiled the policies on accepting pre-dated private equity jobs from the five largest banks — Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley — in one place. The policies run the gamut. Some banks will terminate you immediately if they find out you've accepted a pre-dated job. Others won't fire you so long as you tell them you have the job lined up, but may move you to another team. They've all said that their rules are directed at preventing potential conflicts of interest — since investment banks often seek to advise the very firms young bankers can agree to work for two or three years down the road. Understanding the rules will help junior bankers navigate their careers. The stakes are high. Young bankers who lose their banking jobs, or are reassigned to a non-dealmaking job, risk losing the very private equity offers banks are now eager for them to disclose. These firms sign future candidates with the expectation that by the time they arrive at their own offices, they'll have two years of experience under their belt in M&A. Here's how top investment banks are defending against private equity poaching of junior bankers, in alphabetical order by name: Bank of America Analysts will be asked to disclose whether they have offers for future-dated jobs, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. BofA juniors who accept future-dated job offers will not be terminated but rather reassigned to another area within the bank. Citi Citi sent out a memo to new junior bankers in July telling them they'll have to "complete an attestation disclosing whether they have accepted any future employment offers from other employers." As for potential disciplinary action, the bank said each analyst will be assessed on "a case-by-case basis," said the memo, a copy of which was obtained by Business Insider. Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs said in a July memo to junior analysts that they'd be asked every quarter to attest whether they have another job lined up, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. If you disclose, you won't be fired. Goldman has also offered a potential alternative for young employees with buyside ambitions. Their new program, which was communicated to this summer's interns, "will offer a select group of applicants a full-time offer to join Investment Banking, followed by mobility to Asset Management after two years," according to a memo. JPMorgan JPMorgan junior bankers who accept another job before or within the first 18 months of employment will "be provided notice" and their "employment with the firm will end," according to a June letter the bank sent to incoming analysts. JPMorgan also said it would terminate junior bankers who skip job trainings and meetings to interview with private equity firms, as many did in 2023. Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley formalized its policy on PE recruiting in May before all the hubbub, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. It requires analysts to attest to their status on a quarterly basis. If you disclose a job, you won't be fired. If you don't disclose, you may face disciplinary action, including termination. Read the original article on Business Insider 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
Miami Herald
7 hours ago
- Miami Herald
JPMorgan revamps strong forecast on Federal Reserve rate cuts
Buzzy rumblings are escalating that the Federal Reserve is on the cusp of a dovish pivot to lower interest rates in your wallet and household budget. JPMorgan has revised its outlook as to when the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter JPMorgan cited mounting uncertainty around President Donald Trump's temporary Fed appointee, plus growing signs of weakness in the labor market. Economists and market watchers are concerned over what is perceived as the president's efforts to politicize the independent central bank's monetary policymaking. Related: Trump makes surprise decision on Federal Reserve There's also uncertainty around the impact of President Trump's tariffs on inflation. In addition, many worry the Trump's administration's aggressive immigration campaign is decimating the low-wage and blue-collar work force, while the AI revolution wipes out entry-level roles for many new college graduates. "This is an unusual administration to say the least,'' Kevin O'Leary of "Shark Tank" told CNN. Image source: Watson/Getty Images President Trump announced on Aug. 7 that he was nominating Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran to temporarily fill a vacant Federal Reserve Board seat. Miran, a Trump loyalist, has joined the president and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in heavily criticizing the Fed and Chair Jerome Powell over interest rates. Miran, if confirmed by the Senate this fall, will serve in an interim appointment lasting until Jan. 31, 2026. The Harvard-educated labor economist advocates stronger control over the Fed by the executive branch, shorter terms for the Board of Governors and nationalizing regional Federal Reserve banks. Analysts warned that his proximity to the president's aggressive stance on interest rates may increase a growing internal divide within the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed's policymaking panel that sets benchmark interest rates. Related: A divided Federal Reserve mulls interest rate cut after wild week Danske Bank's chief strategist Frederik Romedahl told Bloomberg that Miran's appointment "adds some uncertainty," even if it's not a total game-changer. Market watchers like Andrew Brenner have deemed Miran controversial and questioned his business experience. Others say the Miran appointment is unlikely to affect the expected pace of rate cuts in the short term because of the macroeconomic dynamics rippling through the economy. Long term, the president could gain two appointees to the Fed board in 2025. First, he needs a permanent replacement for Miran's role (which very well could be Miran, depending on the president's whims). Second, Powell's term as chair ends in May, and he has said he hasn't decided if he plans to serve out the rest of his term into 2028. Historically, Fed chairs leave the board when their chair terms expire. Theoretically, that would give President Trump four seats on the seven-member board. Fed Governors Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller are both Trump appointees from his first administration. Waller is considered the current top candidate to replace Powell next year. The Federal Reserve's dual congressional mandate requires monetary policy that balances low unemployment and low inflation using interest rates as the benchmark tool. Higher interest rates lower inflation but increase job losses. Lower interest rates decrease unemployment but increase inflation. More Federal Reserve: GOP plan to remove Fed Chair Powell escalatesTrump deflects reports on firing Fed Chair Powell 'soon'Former Federal Reserve official sends bold message on 'regime change' The president's personal and professional attacks on Powell have escalated since the FOMC voted in July to hold the benchmark Federal Funds Rate steady at 4.25% to 4.50%. The vote was noteworthy because Waller and Bowman both dissented, saying that emerging weakness in the labor market justified a .25 percentage-point rate cut. That was the first dissenting FOMC vote since 1993. The last rate cut was in December 2024. President Trump wants a 3-point cut, saying it is necessary to curb recession fears, ease the stagnant housing market with lower mortgages, and reduce the interest on the federal deficit. Economists and markets must consider not only data but also volatile political dynamics now swirling around the Fed. JPMorgan had originally forecast one .25 percentage-point rate cut in December 2025. It pulled that forward, forecasting a .25 cut at the Sept. 17 Fed meeting, Reuters reported. JPMorgan added three additional .25 cuts before the Fed pauses. The note did not give a firm timeline for those cuts. Analyst Michael Feroli wrote that "the risk-management considerations at the next meeting may go beyond balancing employment and inflation risks." Meanwhile, market odds for a September cut have surged, with the CME Group's FedWatch tool forecasting the likelihood at 88.9%. Related: Consumers fear inflation as tariffs hit home: Federal Reserve report The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
New York Post
21 hours ago
- New York Post
Gasparino: Inside the enormous Biden effort to 'debank' Trump after Jan. 6
The scale of the effort to 'debank' Donald Trump because of pressure from Biden administration regulators went far beyond JPMorgan and Bank of America, The Post has learned. At least 10 other financial institutions closed their windows to the billionaire real estate tycoon over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill melee. The moves came in the months after Trump left the White House in 2021, sources inside the Trump Organization told me. The stunning scale of the blacklisting is being revealed here for the first time. 3 President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 8, 2025. REUTERS It should be reported as much as possible for the simple reason that if any big bank can cancel a former president over politics as opposed to illegality, then every American citizen is in danger of facing the same mistreatment. For expressing an opinion, or starting a business out of step with the progressive culture norms that have infected so much of society, you too can see your economic livelihood go up in smoke and 'debanked.' Debanking is such an odd word for one of the most insidious parts of cancel culture, and its sponsors like it that way. It sanitizes, via clumsy, obtuse lingo, what is essentially something of dangerous Orwellian magnitude: negating an American citizen's ability to save, and conduct business through a big bank. That's why Trump and Republicans like South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott are taking steps to end the politicization of banking. Keep in mind, there are already laws preventing the likes of JPMorgan, BofA and Capital One — the banks Trump has publicly stated canceled him — from being conduits for drug kingpins and Mafiosi. (Trump has sued Capital One, which denied Trump's allegations.) Debanking takes it further. It forces banks to remove customers who might pose nothing more than 'reputational risk,' a flighty rule enforced by bank regulators in recent years to keep financial institutions from doing business with people like Jeffrey Epstein. The now-deceased convicted child sex predator was a JPMorgan customer for years, and in theory making it impossible for Epstein to finance his illegality sounds like what should be happening. That is until you dig deeper. Under pressure from the Biden administration, just after Trump lost the 2020 election and started to act out (which the last time I checked was his constitutional right), the enforcement of reputational risk took a decidedly political turn, bank officials tell me. If you believe people at the two largest banks, Jamie Dimon's JPMorgan and Brian Moynihan's BofA, the Biden administration unleashed its bank regulatory cops at the Office of Comptroller of Currency, the FDIC and the semi-independent Federal Reserve to go beyond nixing perverted financiers from their platform. 3 A Chase bank sign in Richmond, Virginia, Wednesday, June 2, 2021. AP They used the amorphous nature of what is reputational risk to enforce a political regime, the bank officials said. The Bidenistas hated crypto, thought it was an affront to their power to control the economy, and pressured banks from doing business with this somewhat heterodox emerging industry, according to the bank sources. So was anything related to guns and certain conservative religious organizations, they added. And most of all, anything MAGA, including the multibillion-dollar real estate and resort empire of Mr. MAGA himself, Donald J. Trump. Such an effort isn't easy to prove because there's no direct smoking gun, no memo (at least not yet) telling banks to cancel Trump from their system. 3 A general view of a Bank of America sign as seen in Wyckoff, New Jersey, on April 13, 2020. Christopher Sadowski The banks say the pressure was more subtle but still real: Failure to remove Trump or crypto types and others would result in heightened enforcement, harassment and possibly fines. The banks decided to drop customers, even rich ones like Trump, because it wasn't worth the hassle. I have covered finance for three decades now and thought I saw it all: Bernie Madoff, Epstein, the 2008 financial crisis, Wall Street scandals, penny stock scams and hedge fund implosions. But what happened to Trump in 2021 was truly surprising given the breadth of big banks dropping him as a client and scary given their rationale. As bad as the events of Jan. 6 were, Trump did tell the crowd that crazy afternoon to protest peacefully. Trump didn't break the law holding a rally. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters You may disagree with his rhetoric that day. He had just lost a closely fought election against Joe Biden. Trump said he really won it. Millions of people seemed to agree. He wouldn't be the first politician to pull that lever. Democrat Stacey Abrams never really fully conceded when she lost in her first attempt to become governor of Georgia against Republican Brian Kemp. How many times did Hillary Clinton say Trump was an 'illegitimate president' after she lost the 2016 contest to him? During the violent social justice protests of 2020, Gwen Walz, the wife of Minnesota Gov. and 2024 Democrat VP candidate Tim Walz, said she 'kept the windows' open to smell the burning debris. 'I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,' she said. Or how about what Kamala Harris proudly said around the same time. The then-Biden VP candidate, who went on to get trounced by Trump in 2024, supported the defunding of the police movement that led to much more mayhem than what occurred on Jan. 6. Her rationale for the 'largely peaceful protests' that burned cities to the ground, delivered to fellow-traveler lefty late-night host Stephen Colbert, is at least as cringey as anything Trump said on Jan. 6. 'They're not going to stop,' she said during an appearance on the show. 'They're not. This is a movement. I'm telling you. They're not going to stop, and everyone, beware . . . That they're not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.' Did Jamie Dimon tell Harris that her money isn't good at JPM?
