Latest news with #ownership
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
With 63% ownership, Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE:MO) boasts of strong institutional backing
Given the large stake in the stock by institutions, Altria Group's stock price might be vulnerable to their trading decisions A total of 25 investors have a majority stake in the company with 44% ownership Using data from analyst forecasts alongside ownership research, one can better assess the future performance of a company AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. If you want to know who really controls Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE:MO), then you'll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are institutions with 63% ownership. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). Because institutional owners have a huge pool of resources and liquidity, their investing decisions tend to carry a great deal of weight, especially with individual investors. Hence, having a considerable amount of institutional money invested in a company is often regarded as a desirable trait. In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of Altria Group. Check out our latest analysis for Altria Group Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices. Altria Group already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own a respectable stake in the company. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Altria Group, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too. Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. Altria Group is not owned by hedge funds. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is currently the company's largest shareholder with 9.4% of shares outstanding. With 7.4% and 4.6% of the shares outstanding respectively, BlackRock, Inc. and Capital Research and Management Company are the second and third largest shareholders. A deeper look at our ownership data shows that the top 25 shareholders collectively hold less than half of the register, suggesting a large group of small holders where no single shareholder has a majority. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future. The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. Our information suggests that Altria Group, Inc. insiders own under 1% of the company. Being so large, we would not expect insiders to own a large proportion of the stock. Collectively, they own US$88m of stock. It is always good to see at least some insider ownership, but it might be worth checking if those insiders have been selling. With a 37% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over Altria Group. This size of ownership, while considerable, may not be enough to change company policy if the decision is not in sync with other large shareholders. It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand Altria Group better, we need to consider many other factors. Take risks for example - Altria Group has 2 warning signs (and 1 which can't be ignored) we think you should know about. If you are like me, you may want to think about whether this company will grow or shrink. Luckily, you can check this free report showing analyst forecasts for its future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Taylor Swift Finally Owns All of Her Old Music
Taylor Swift has regained control of her recorded music catalog six years after her old label, Big Machine Label Group, sold it to Scooter Braun's Ithaca Holdings. The singer announced the purchase in a lengthy letter, writing, 'All of the music I've ever made now belongs to me.' Swift announced the news this morning with a note to fans on her website, as well as a handful of photos on Instagram showing her with vinyl copies of her original records. 'You belong with me,' she captioned the post. More from Rolling Stone How Taylor Won Taylor Swift Got Her Old Albums Back, But Her Re-Records Were Still a Massive Success Taylor Swift's Vinyl Records Are on Sale After Revealing She Now Owns All of Her Music The deal, as Swift wrote, covers not just the rights to her music, including unreleased tunes, but all of her music videos, concert films, album art, photography, and unreleased songs. And there are, of course, equally meaningful, more ephemeral aspects of the deal: 'The memories. The magic. The madness,' Swift wrote. 'Every single era. My entire life's work.' It's unclear how much the deal is worth, but a source tells Rolling Stone that a previously reported price range of close to $600 million, which emerged when rumors of the sale first started circulating, was 'highly inaccurate.' In her letter, Swift said that calling regaining control over her catalog her 'greatest dream come true' was 'actually being pretty reserved about it.' She thanked her fans for all their support, suggesting that the massive success of the Eras Tour and efforts to rerecord her old albums made it possible for her to buy back her music. 'I can't thank you enough for helping to reunite me with this art that I have dedicated my life to, but never owned until now,' she wrote. 'All I've ever wanted was the opportunity to work hard enough to be able to one day purchase my music outright with no strings attached, no partnership, with full autonomy.' Swift went on to say that she was grateful to Shamrock Capital — which has owned the rights to her catalog since 2020 — for 'being the first people to ever offer this to me,' saying their handling of the deal was 'honest, fair, and respectful.' A source close to the contract negotiations also pushed back against what was described as a 'previous false report' that there was an 'outside party' — Braun — who was encouraging the sale back to Swift. 'All rightful credit for this opportunity should go to the partners at Shamrock Holdings and Taylor's Nashville-based management team only,' the source said. 'Taylor now owns all of her music, and this moment finally happened in spite of Scooter Braun, not because of him.' Braun, in a statement shared with Rolling Stone, said, 'I am happy for her.' Ithaca's 2019 acquisition of Big Machine launched one of the most fascinating music industry sagas in recent years. While Big Machine owned the rights to music by an array of top country acts (Reba McEntire, Midland, and Sugarland, to name a few), Swift's first six albums were arguably the crown jewels, and a major reason the sale was valued at around $300 million. By the time Ithaca acquired Big Machine in summer 2019, Swift had already left the label and signed with Universal Music Group (the deal included provisions that would allow her to retain control of her master recordings). As Swift wrote in a blog post at the time, she was aware that, after leaving Big Machine, CEO Scott Borchetta was likely to sell the label — but she never expected Braun to be the buyer. In that same post, Swift highlighted her contentious history with Braun, largely via his work with her longtime foe, Kanye West. She claimed, for instance, that Braun got West and Justin Bieber 'to bully' her online amid the fracas over the leaked phone call regarding a lyric about Swift in West's song 'Famous.' Swift said she was 'sad and grossed out' over the deal, and claimed that any time Borchetta heard her speak Braun's name, 'it was when I was either crying or trying not to.' On top of all that, though, was Swift's desire to simply own the rights to her catalog. 'For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work,' she wrote. 'Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and 'earn' one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in. I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future. I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past.' Within a few months of the sale, Swift began teasing her ambitious response: She would rerecord her first six albums, thereby reclaiming some control over the music, while ostensibly diluting the value of the original recordings. In 2021, she launched her Taylor's Version campaign with rerecords of Fearless and Red, both of which were followed in 2023 by Speak Now and 1989. (Along with new versions of the original albums, the projects also included an array of previously unreleased tunes now known as 'vault tracks,' which were also rerecorded.) As for the future of that project, Swift said in her letter today that her 2006 self-titled debut has been 'completely re-recorded,' adding, 'I really love how it sounds now.' But her rerecord of 2017's Reputation is far from complete — 'I haven't even re-recorded a quarter of it' — and Swift admitted she wasn't sure if she would ever finish it. 'The Reputation album was so specific to that time in my life, and I kept hitting a stopping point when I tried to remake it,' she said. 'All that defiance, that longing to be understood while feeling purposely misunderstood, that desperate hope, that shame-born snarl and mischief. To be perfectly honest, it's the one album in those first six that I thought couldn't be improved upon by redoing it. Not the music, or photos, or videos. So I kept putting it off.' Swift went on to say she may share the unreleased Reputation 'vault tracks' at some point, but didn't give any release details. Nor did she share when the rerecord of Taylor Swift would see the light of day. 'Those 2 albums can still have their moments to reemerge when the time is right, if that would be something you guys would be excited about,' she said. 'But if it happens, it won't be from a place of sadness and longing for what I wish I could have. It will just be a celebration now.' Before Swift had originally begun the rerecord project though, her catalog changed hands again. Just over a year after the Big Machine acquisition, Braun's Ithaca Holdings sold Swift's catalog to Shamrock Capital in a deal reportedly worth over $300 million. Prior to that sale, Swift revealed, she'd been trying to get back control of her masters, but claimed that Braun's team was, as part of the deal, demanding she sign 'an ironclad NDA' that would prevent her from speaking negatively about him. Swift also said she considered partnering with Shamrock until she found out that the deal terms would still result in Braun profiting off her old recordings for 'a very long time.' Braun, for his part, later expressed some regret over his handling of the Big Machine acquisition and Swift catalog sale. In a 2022 interview on NPR's The Limits podcast, he admitted to coming from 'a place of arrogance,' assuming that he and Swift could work things out. 'The regret I have there is that I made the assumption that everyone, once the deal was done, was going to have a conversation with me, see my intent, see my character and say, great, let's be in business together,' he said. 'And I made that assumption with people that I didn't know.' Swift concluded her note today by mentioning a massive positive that has come from this saga: The attention it's brought to the hurdles that artists face in trying to control and own their creative output. 'Every time a new artist tells me they negotiated to own their master recordings in their record contract because of this flight, I'm reminded of how important it was for all of this to happen,' Swift wrote. 'Thank you for being curious about something that used to be thought of as too industry-centric for brand discussion. You'll never know how much it means to me that you cared. Every single bit of it counted and ended us up here.' This story was updated at 1:24 p.m. ET with a statement from Braun. Best of Rolling Stone The 50 Greatest Eminem Songs All 274 of Taylor Swift's Songs, Ranked The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
New faces in the boardroom and the hunt for a new boss... everything you need to know about the Rangers takeover
The long wait is over. Confirmation that an American consortium has taken control at Rangers sees one chapter in the story of the Ibrox club end and another begin. News that the group of businessmen, led by healthcare tycoon Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises, are prepared to invest £20million by purchasing newly issued shares will excite the club's supporters at the end of another barren season. With significant changes at boardroom level, the consortium has pledged to 'chart a new strategic vision for the club's future, prioritising on-pitch performance and long-term financial sustainability.' But who are the new faces who will sit alongside new chairman Cavenagh and vice Paraag Marathe? What obstacles had to be overcome for the deal to be struck? And what does the future now hold? Here Mail Sport's JOHN McGARRY provides the answers to all the pertinent questions on a momentous day for Rangers. How and when was the deal completed? After months of negotiations, the club changed hands just after 11pm on Thursday night when the Americans bought a 51-per-cent controlling stake. With many of the parties involved in different parts of the world, and e-signatures being remotely exchanged, there was no champagne moment as such. Are there any barriers still to overcome? Not in terms of the change of ownership. It only happened because the Scottish Football Association had confirmed that it had no objections in terms of dual ownership. There were some concerns that Marathe, who's the chairman of Leeds, is a key figure. But the SFA were happy that it's not a multi-club ownership model. Rangers and Leeds are separate entities with different structures at boardroom level and will function independently. The SFA are satisfied there would be no issue if Rangers and Leeds played in the same European competition in future. There's no conflict of interest with Marathe being the new Ibrox vice-chair. Is the £20m an investment a one-off and how will it be spent? It's an 'initial' investment which needs to be approved at a General Meeting on June 23 although this will be a formality. There's no promise of more to come, but there's an expectation that this will be the case. It will predominantly be spent rebuilding the first-team although some may be earmarked to improve infrastructure in the short term. Given chairman Cavenagh's commitment to 'laying a foundation of financial sustainability for the future', it can be taken that Rangers will seek to sign players who can deliver in the here and now but be sold for a substantial profit further down the line. Why was it felt necessary to invest via fresh share capital as opposed to simply spending the money? There would actually be nothing stopping a new owner simply writing a cheque for £20m, but doing it via the buying of freshly issued shares is just better all round. For a start, buying shares is not a loan. It's also better from a balance sheet perspective when you have to be mindful of UEFA's financial fair play regulations. It's just a stronger investment. Who are the new faces in the boardroom? Cavenagh, who succeeds Fraser Thornton as chairman, is a successful entrepreneur, best known in the US for founding healthcare insurance companies including ParetoHealth, which now boasts a million customers. The new vice chairman is Marathe, who'll balance his duties at Ibrox with those at Leeds, where he's currently chairman and San Francisco, where he currently serves as both president of 49ers Enterprises and Executive Vice President of Football Operations. Eugene Schneur, a fellow American, started working life as a mergers and acquisitions attorney before moving into the real estate sector, specialising in affordable housing. He's a board member and co-owner of Leeds. Andrew Clayton is a co-founder and vice chairman of ParetoHealth and a colleague of Cavenagh. Mark Taber is a managing director and member of the executive and investment committees at Great Hill Partners, a Boston-based growth equity firm. In terms of the new shares, who owns what? The finer details of exactly how the 51 per cent have been acquired have yet to emerge. All that's known is that between them the consortium have a majority stake. In practical terms, how will the day-to-day running of the club work? Chief executive Patrick Stewart is based in Glasgow and will lead the executive team. Although he's no longer chairman, Thornton remains on the board and will help with day-to-day operations. Many of the board are spread far and wide. Cavenagh is based in Pennsylvania, Marathe will split his time between Glasgow, Leeds and San Francisco. Schneur's family reside in Miami. Taber is based out in Boston. But in the age of Zoom, it's not so much of an issue these days. Cavenagh will seek to be present at as many Rangers matches as possible. Are any of the old guard still involved? As well as Thornton and Stewart, John Halsted, the Wyoming-based private equity investor, stays as a director together with George Taylor, the Hong Kong based investment banker. Graeme Park, Julian Wolhardt and Alastair Johnston are stepping down from the board but remaining shareholders. Dave King and John Bennett have sold up and now have no official connection to the club. Is there a role for Gretar Steinsson? Not officially. The Icelander will continue as technical director with 49ers Enterprises. However, he's been helping recruit the new head coach and will continue to assist Rangers ' new Sporting Director Kevin Thelwell from afar. Will there be fans' representation on the board? Not as things stand. But there's a strong commitment by the new board to ensure that engagement through things like the fan advisory board and working groups is a cornerstone of the club moving forward. Aside from investing in the first team and getting a player trading model properly up and running, how will the new regime hope to move the club forward? Making better informed decisions in the transfer market is the main focus. The £20m investment will help accelerate that process. It gives stability. But there's a belief that 49ers Enterprises's expertise on the commercial and business support side of the operation will also help to build the business. They know what they're doing in terms of infrastructure investments. But it won't be just putting a new hospitality suite in here and there. They're in for the long haul. Where do we stand in terms of appointing a new manager? The final rounds of talks with the remaining candidates will take place over the weekend with an announcement likely at the start of next week once Thelwell officially starts his new job. Davide Ancelotti is the front-runner. Both parties are on the same page and there is a willingness to get a deal done. However, Russell Martin, Francesco Farioli and Brian Priske are not yet out of the running. Steven Gerrard is apparently out of the race, though, after deciding to stay in the Middle East. What's the reason behind making the company private? Rangers has been an unlisted plc for over a decade so it's not been subjected to certain reporting requirements. The move to take the company private is to make it more agile in terms of investment. There will be the same levels of transparency and shareholders will still get to vote on key resolutions. But Rangers would not necessarily have to do that in the form of a General Meeting.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Individual investors own 32% of Intershop Holding AG (VTX:ISN) shares but private companies control 43% of the company
The considerable ownership by private companies in Intershop Holding indicates that they collectively have a greater say in management and business strategy A total of 3 investors have a majority stake in the company with 50% ownership Institutions own 20% of Intershop Holding AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10bn in marketcap - there is still time to get in early. To get a sense of who is truly in control of Intershop Holding AG (VTX:ISN), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are private companies with 43% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. And individual investors on the other hand have a 32% ownership in the company. In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of Intershop Holding. View our latest analysis for Intershop Holding Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices. We can see that Intershop Holding does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Intershop Holding's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. Intershop Holding is not owned by hedge funds. Looking at our data, we can see that the largest shareholder is Patinex AG with 40% of shares outstanding. With 6.3% and 4.4% of the shares outstanding respectively, UBS Asset Management AG and Hans-Jorg Graf are the second and third largest shareholders. To make our study more interesting, we found that the top 3 shareholders have a majority ownership in the company, meaning that they are powerful enough to influence the decisions of the company. While studying institutional ownership for a company can add value to your research, it is also a good practice to research analyst recommendations to get a deeper understand of a stock's expected performance. While there is some analyst coverage, the company is probably not widely covered. So it could gain more attention, down the track. The definition of company insiders can be subjective and does vary between jurisdictions. Our data reflects individual insiders, capturing board members at the very least. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. We can see that insiders own shares in Intershop Holding AG. This is a big company, so it is good to see this level of alignment. Insiders own CHF65m worth of shares (at current prices). If you would like to explore the question of insider alignment, you can click here to see if insiders have been buying or selling. The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a 32% stake in Intershop Holding. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run. It seems that Private Companies own 43%, of the Intershop Holding stock. It might be worth looking deeper into this. If related parties, such as insiders, have an interest in one of these private companies, that should be disclosed in the annual report. Private companies may also have a strategic interest in the company. While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. Be aware that Intershop Holding is showing 4 warning signs in our investment analysis , and 2 of those can't be ignored... Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Retail investors account for 58% of Fundamenta Real Estate AG's (VTX:FREN) ownership, while institutions account for 42%
The considerable ownership by retail investors in Fundamenta Real Estate indicates that they collectively have a greater say in management and business strategy A total of 25 investors have a majority stake in the company with 42% ownership Institutions own 42% of Fundamenta Real Estate This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. To get a sense of who is truly in control of Fundamenta Real Estate AG (VTX:FREN), it is important to understand the ownership structure of the business. With 58% stake, retail investors possess the maximum shares in the company. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Institutions, on the other hand, account for 42% of the company's stockholders. Insiders often own a large chunk of younger, smaller, companies while huge companies tend to have institutions as shareholders. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Fundamenta Real Estate. Check out our latest analysis for Fundamenta Real Estate Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it's included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing. As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in Fundamenta Real Estate. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see Fundamenta Real Estate's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. Fundamenta Real Estate is not owned by hedge funds. The company's largest shareholder is LUKB Expert Fondsleitung AG, with ownership of 13%. The second and third largest shareholders are UBS Asset Management AG and Gastrosocial Pensionskasse, with an equal amount of shares to their name at 5.6%. A deeper look at our ownership data shows that the top 25 shareholders collectively hold less than half of the register, suggesting a large group of small holders where no single shareholder has a majority. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. While there is some analyst coverage, the company is probably not widely covered. So it could gain more attention, down the track. While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. Management ultimately answers to the board. However, it is not uncommon for managers to be executive board members, especially if they are a founder or the CEO. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. Our data cannot confirm that board members are holding shares personally. Not all jurisdictions have the same rules around disclosing insider ownership, and it is possible we have missed something, here. So you can click here learn more about the CEO. The general public, who are usually individual investors, hold a substantial 58% stake in Fundamenta Real Estate, suggesting it is a fairly popular stock. With this amount of ownership, retail investors can collectively play a role in decisions that affect shareholder returns, such as dividend policies and the appointment of directors. They can also exercise the power to vote on acquisitions or mergers that may not improve profitability. I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Case in point: We've spotted 4 warning signs for Fundamenta Real Estate you should be aware of, and 2 of them are concerning. Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. 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
