usdaed

Two analysts-let’s call them Optimist #1 and Optimist #2-decided to raise their price targets for Vistra. They’re bulls, these two, bullish enough to make you wonder if they’ve been sniffing something other than financial reports. Optimist #1, Ross Fowler from Bank of America Securities, nudged his target up to $220 per share from $214. Not bad, but then came Optimist #2, James Thalacker of BMO Capital, who went full cosmic leap, hiking his fair-value estimate to $229 from $191.

What cosmic irony is this? The indexes reached celestial heights as inflation data whispered promises of interest rate cuts-salvation for some, perhaps-but not for Etoro. No, for Etoro, the gods of finance turned their faces away. Despite posting earnings that exceeded expectations, the company suffered under the weight of investor disillusionment. Was it greed that blinded them? Or was it something deeper, more primal-a rejection of hope itself?

Underwear manufacturers, as a rule, do not inspire such frenetic behavior. Indeed, the entire industry operates under a suspiciously calm assumption that humanity will always require garments to wear next to its skin. But today, Hanesbrands found itself at the center of a corporate drama that could only be described as a rom-com if romances involved leveraged buyout terms sheets and comas. The Financial Times, that venerable institution of financial gossip, reported that Gildan Activewear (GIL)-a Canadian company that somehow owns both Gildan T-shirts and the rights to Champion, as though it had won a particularly niche lottery-was allegedly preparing to acquire Hanesbrands for $5 billion. (Including, one suspects, a small fee for the universe to pause its usual chaos just long enough for this deal to make sense.)

In a serendipitous twist, two analysts, that diligent pair of sentinels who keep vigil over Franco-Nevada, chose to elevate their estimations, both settling upon a delicate figure of $184 per share-an increment from their former convictions of $182. Derick Ma from TD Securities and Tanya Jakusconek from Scotiabank, however, bore the resolve to maintain their hold recommendations, almost as if they sought to temper the exuberance that might be incited by such an auspicious adjustment.

Initially adrift in a sea of uncertainty, Oklo’s shares had waned, burdened by the aftershocks of a quarterly earnings report revealing a net loss of $24.7 million, equating to $0.18 per share for the nascent, pre-revenue company. Investors, akin to scholars poring over an inscrutable manuscript, fretted over the nebulous timelines of their enterprise. Yet, as if a fateful turn of the page revealed a vital passage, the tide shifted dramatically with news from the Department of Energy (DOE).

The order, with the moral certainty of a man who has never lost a game of bridge, blames “opportunistic trial lawyers” for keeping crypto out of retirement plans. One imagines these lawyers as a particularly nosey flock of seagulls, swooping down to snatch your chips. The administration proposes “safe harbors” for crypto trading-a sort of legal bubble wrap for companies with the courage to offer digital assets. It is a charmingly literal solution to a problem that might have been better addressed with a firm handshake and a stiff drink.