Analysts Offer Insights on Healthcare Companies: Spyre Therapeutics (SYRE) and UnitedHealth (UNH)
Confident Investing Starts Here:
Spyre Therapeutics (SYRE)
BTIG analyst Julian Harrison maintained a Buy rating on Spyre Therapeutics yesterday and set a price target of $70.00. The company's shares closed last Tuesday at $15.18.
According to TipRanks.com, Harrison is a 3-star analyst with an average return of 1.1% and a 41.2% success rate. Harrison covers the Healthcare sector, focusing on stocks such as MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Rani Therapeutics Holdings, and Mereo Biopharma Group Plc. ;'>
The word on The Street in general, suggests a Strong Buy analyst consensus rating for Spyre Therapeutics with a $56.83 average price target, implying a 237.1% upside from current levels. In a report released yesterday, LifeSci Capital also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a $50.00 price target.
UnitedHealth (UNH)
Bernstein analyst Lance Wilkes assigned a Buy rating to UnitedHealth yesterday and set a price target of $377.00. The company's shares closed last Tuesday at $308.87.
According to TipRanks.com, Wilkes is a 2-star analyst with an average return of 0.0% and a 41.3% success rate. Wilkes covers the Healthcare sector, focusing on stocks such as Molina Healthcare, Elevance Health, and HCA Healthcare. ;'>
Currently, the analyst consensus on UnitedHealth is a Moderate Buy with an average price target of $367.68, representing a 19.6% upside. In a report issued on June 2, KeyBanc also maintained a Buy rating on the stock with a $400.00 price target.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
2 minutes ago
- CTV News
Google loses U.S. appeal over app store reforms in Epic Games case
Alphabet's Google on Thursday failed to persuade a U.S. appeals panel to overturn a jury verdict and federal court order requiring the technology company to revamp its app store Play. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous ruling, rejected claims from Google that the trial judge made legal errors in the antitrust case that unfairly benefited 'Fortnite' maker Epic Games, which filed the lawsuit in 2020. Epic accused Google of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps. The Cary, North Carolina-based company convinced a San Francisco jury in 2023 that Google illegally stifled competition. U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco ordered Google in October to restore competition by allowing users to download rival app stores within its Play store and by making Play's app catalog available to those competitors, among other reforms. Donato's order was on hold pending the outcome of the 9th Circuit appeal. The court's decision can be appealed to the full 9th Circuit and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a statement, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, said the appeals court's ruling 'will significantly harm user safety, limit choice, and undermine the innovation that has always been central to the Android ecosystem.' The company said it would continue to focus on 'ensuring a secure platform as we continue our appeal.' Epic CEO Tim Sweeney said in a social media post: 'Thanks to the verdict, the Epic Games Store for Android will be coming to the Google Play Store!' Google told the appeals court that the tech company's Play store competes with Apple's App Store, and that Donato unfairly barred Google from making that point to contest Epic's antitrust claims. The tech company also argued that a jury should never have heard Epic's lawsuit because it sought to enjoin Google's conduct — a request normally decided by a judge — and not collect damages. Epic has defended the verdict and court injunction, telling the 9th Circuit judges that the Android app market has been 'suffering under anti-competitive behavior for the better part of a decade.' In the trial court and in the appeal, Epic disputed arguments by Google that changes to its app business ordered by the court would harm user privacy and security. Microsoft MSFT.O filed a brief backing Epic, as did the U.S. Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission. Epic separately is battling Apple over a U.S. judge's order requiring the iPhone maker to give developers greater freedom to steer consumers to make purchases outside its App Store. Apple has appealed a ruling that said it violated a prior injunction in a lawsuit that Epic filed in 2020. (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario, Jan Harvey, Rod Nickel)
CTV News
2 minutes ago
- CTV News
Exxon, Chevron profits to drop to lowest point since pandemic, analysts say
HOUSTON — Top U.S. oil producers Exxon Mobil and Chevron are expected to report their lowest earnings in four years when they release second-quarter results on Friday, as weaker oil and gas prices slashed revenue. The April-June quarter covered a volatile period in which the OPEC+ group of producers continued raising their production volumes, putting pressure on crude prices and in turn cutting the profits of oil firms. Oscillating tariff policy from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration also added to fears about weakening economies and oil demand. Global benchmark Brent crude prices declined 11 per cent during the quarter from the previous three months, while U.S. natural gas futures declined nine per cent. While investors had previously been watching whether producers would cut spending in response to lower prices, the market is now likely to focus more on company-specific results and commentary about the macroeconomic environment, said Jeoffrey Lambujon, an analyst with TPH Energy Research, in a note last week. Exxon, the top U.S. oil producer, is expected to post US$6.67 billion in adjusted earnings for the second quarter, or $1.56 per share, according to the consensus analyst estimates compiled by LSEG. That would be a 27 per cent drop from the year-ago quarter and the lowest earnings since 2021, after the COVID-19 pandemic sank global demand. The company had signaled earlier this month that lower oil and gas prices could cut about $1.5 billion from its earnings compared with the first quarter. One bright spot is improved refining margins, which Exxon said could help boost second-quarter earnings by about $300 million, but refining is a smaller portion of its business compared with oil and gas production. The company has several projects slated for start-up in the second half of the year that should drive stronger earnings, said Jason Gabelman, an analyst with TD Cowen in a July 10 research note. These include Yellowtail, a fourth floating production, storage and offloading vessel in the prolific Stabroek Block in Guyana, the lucrative oil hotspot where profits soared 64 per cent last year. Wall Street expects Chevron, the No.2 U.S. oil producer, to report $3 billion in adjusted earnings, or $1.70 per share, down 33% from the same period a year ago and also the lowest in four years. Chevron closed its acquisition of smaller oil producer Hess on July 18 after triumphing in a legal challenge from Exxon that delayed the deal close by over a year. Chevron said the deal will lead to $1 billion in cost synergies by the end of the year. It will provide updated financial guidance for the combined company during its investor day in November. The company could report about one per cent lower production volumes compared with the first quarter following a well blowout in Colorado, and a two-week production shutdown at the Leviathan gas field in Israel during the country's conflict with Iran, said Barclays analysts in a July 13 note. French oil major TotalEnergies last week reported its lowest profit in four years as higher production was not enough to make up for lower oil prices. On Thursday, British oil major Shell reported a profit that tumbled by almost a third. Rival BP will release results next week. (Reporting by Sheila Dang in HoustonEditing by Marguerita Choy)
Globe and Mail
2 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs. Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government attorney's arguments. Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible" power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: "To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers. The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term, and continued by President Joe Biden. The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. ____
