Capital One (COF) Sees Discover Acquisition as Aligned with its Core Vision
He noted that most banks tend to expand by purchasing others and acknowledged that Capital One Corporation (NYSE:COF) did go through a period when it acquired banks, but the objective then was to shift its funding structure away from capital markets and toward FDIC-insured deposits. Fairbank stated that the phase has concluded. He described the Discover acquisition as a distinct opportunity that aligns more closely with what he considers an organic path of growth.
According to TipRanks, on June 5, BTIG analyst Vincent Caintic noted that Capital One (NYSE:COF) may improve Discover's acceptance rate by employing similar tactics that American Express previously used to grow its network. Caintic maintained a Buy rating with a $264 price target, and one of the main factors of being bullish on the stock is its potential for broader merchant acceptance.
A smiling face of a customer as they make a deposit at this company's branch.
Furthermore, on June 5, discussing the company, Cramer said:
'You know what, I'm hoping that COF, Capital One, which just bought Discover Financial, that it could enter the 52-week hallowed ground. It's cheap. It'll have a gigantic buyback come July… COF, I feel very lonely, but I won't come July.'
Capital One (NYSE:COF) is a financial services holding company that provides credit cards, loans, and banking services. Additionally, the company offers advisory services and capital markets solutions.
While we acknowledge the potential of COF as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money.
Disclosure: None.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
The surprising details of fashion entrepreneur Christine Hunsicker's fraud indictment
Clothing tech entrepreneur and CaaStle founder Christine Hunsicker is out on $1 million bail after she was charged on six counts of cheating customers out of more than $300 million over the past six years in a complex fraud scheme, including wire fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, making false statements to a financial institution, and aggravated identity theft. Hunsicker pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan federal court on Friday, after she turned herself in to authorities, and could face decades in prison if convicted, according to CNBC, who reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a related civil lawsuit. Here's what to know about the indictment. Why was Hunsicker indicted? Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was working with the FBI, announced on Friday that Hunsicker is charged with forging documents, fabricating audits, and making material misrepresentations about her company's financial condition in an alleged scheme to defraud investors in her clothing technology companies CaaStle Inc. and P180. The documents allege she continued to solicit millions of dollars in investments for both companies and 'persisted in her scheme' even after law enforcement agents approached her about the fraud. 'The promise of pre-IPO technology companies can be fertile ground for fraudsters who play on investor euphoria,' Clayton said in a statement. According to the statement, the fashion tech entrepreneur and founder of CaaStle, a 'clothing-as-a-service' business that enabled clothing brands to rent inventory to consumers, promoted the company 'as a rapidly growing business valued at more than $1.4 billion, [although she] knew that CaaStle was in financial distress with limited cash and significant expenses.' To raise the capital for CaaStle's operations, she 'provided investors with falsified income statements, fake audited financial statements, fictitious bank records, and sham corporate documents that grossly overstated CaaStle's operating profit, revenue, and available cash.' Surprising details in Hunsicker's indictment The indictment alleges, among other things, that Hunsicker provided two fabricated audits to investors and conducted internet searches for the terms 'fraud,' 'created an audit firm fake,' and 'JP morgan 4m records faked,' an apparent reference to fraud charges related to JPMorgan Chase's acquisition of her college financial aid startup called Frank, which resulted in the federal prosecution of its founder Charlie Javice. (Javice was convicted in March of defrauding JPMorgan Chase of $175 million by exaggerating her customer base tenfold, according to National Public Radio.) It also accuses Hunsicker of fabricating the existence of CaaStle shareholders, falsely claiming that the shareholders needed money for a 'family health emergency' or due to the FTX cryptocurrency exchange collapse. She allegedly then used investors' money to raise new capital for CaaStle, while concealing that the company needed cash. And to 'maintain the fiction,' she issued fake capitalization tables to the investors in order to demonstrate that they had purchased existing CaaStle shares. According to the documents, Hunsicker's scheme also allegedly involved providing an investor with a fake screenshot of CaaStle's bank accounts showing nearly $200 million in available cash, although the company had less than $200,000 in available cash at the time, in or around September 2024.
Gizmodo
a minute ago
- Gizmodo
Elon Musk-Founded Brain Implant Startup Says It's a ‘Disadvantaged' Business Despite Being Worth $9 Billion
Elon Musk, the rightwing culture warrior waging a 'civilization-saving' battle against the 'woke mind virus,' apparently isn't above taking advantage of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs when it serves his business purposes. Neuralink, the $9 billion brain implant startup that Musk founded, recently characterized itself as a 'small disadvantaged business' in a federal filing with the Small Business Administration. The SBA website notes that Neuralink attested in its filings that it is a 'Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business.' According to the SBA, businesses can qualify for this designation if the company is '51% or more owned and controlled by one or more disadvantaged persons.' The firm must also 'be small, according to SBA's size standards,' the site states. According to the code of federal regulations, socially disadvantaged people are defined thusly: …those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control. The filing was first spotted by MuskWatch, a Substack focused on the Tesla billionaire, which accuses the company of having 'falsified federal forms.' MuskWatch published an excerpt from a form that it said was filed by Neuralink on April 24, in which the company checked the box affirming that it is a small disadvantaged business as defined in the code. The blog points out that the SDB designation can also only be legally claimed by companies owned by 'economically disadvantaged individuals,' and that federal regulations state that 'individuals with a net worth exceeding $850,000, excluding the value of their primary residence,' do not qualify as 'economically disadvantaged individuals.' Musk is obviously worth a lot more than that. It is certainly difficult to understand what disadvantaged group Neuralink could claim maintains ownership over the company. The structure of Neuralink's ownership isn't publicly available, but Musk held a majority stake in the company in 2019. The startup has since engaged in raising more funds, but primarily from Silicon Valley's lily white venture capital community. Gizmodo reached out to the firm for more information. The news is amusing and infuriating because two of the things Musk enjoys whining about most are the societal scourge of DEI and people who ask for help from the government. Now, his own company appears to be claiming it should get a federal handout because it is socially and economically disadvantaged. Of course, federal handouts have been the lifeblood of Tesla and SpaceX for many years. Since it was founded in 2016, Neuralink has sought to use neural implants and experimental science to usher in a new era of computer-to-brain interfacing. The startup received FDA approval for human clinical trials in May of 2023. Last year, the company streamed an interview with a quadriplegic who used Neuralink's brain implant to play video games. Prior to human testing, Neuralink trialed its implants on animals. While many of those test subjects are still alive today, many ended up getting euthanized. Some, allegedly, died quite horribly, leading to accusations of 'grotesque' animal abuse and a lawsuit from a physicians' group.
CNET
a minute ago
- CNET
California DMV Seeking 30-Day Tesla Sale Suspension for Unrealistic 'Autopilot,' 'Full Self-Driving' Claims
The California Department of Motor Vehicles has brought suit against electric car manufacturer Tesla, alleging false advertising and misleading customers with its "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving" features. The DMV is angling for a 30-day suspension of the automaker's license to sell EVs in California for at least 30 days while the courts hash out whether fines or retribution should come next. Tesla is, of course, looking to fight the allegations. What does this mean for you? If the CA DMV's request for suspension is granted, it could throw Tesla into chaos. The suspension would come on the tail of a huge drop in sales during the first half of 2025 brought by a combination of the current administration's lukewarm attitude towards EVs, unpredictable tariffs and Tesla Head Musk's political meddlings. The brand is currently recovering from the dip and experiencing a surge of sales spurred on by customers rushing to save big before the imminent end of the Federal EV tax incentive, but a stop-sale today would kill that momentum in the state where over a third of the EVs in the US are sold, potentially until after the credit is gone in September. For drivers in the state of California, this could mean looking to other manufacturers to get their EV fix. Currently models in the portfolios of Hyundai, Kia, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Acura, Chrysler and Jeep qualify as alternatives for the EV tax break. Outside of California, a 30-day suspension could mean a surge of inventory at Tesla dealerships should the automaker rush to move stock to unaffected markets. Of course, we'll have to wait and see how things shake out in court this week to know for sure. The question of "Full Self-Driving" According to the CA DMV, Tesla (and CEO Elon Musk) is misrepresenting the capabilities of its vehicles' advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in the ways the features are named -- "Full Self-Driving" and "Autopilot" -- described and marketed to potential buyers and current owners. The DMV first initiated proceedings against Tesla in July 2022, later revising their claims in November 2023. (In 2021, the National Transportation Safety Board called Tesla "irresponsible" for similar reasons.) The CA DMV has called for a suspension of Tesla's licenses to sell vehicles in California for at least 30 days, along with securing a court order for the electric vehicle maker to pay a yet determined amount in restitution. Now Playing: Watch the First Rides of the New Tesla Robotaxi 02:59 The agency cites verbiage from Tesla making claims that its vehicles are able to, for example, "conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat" and "automatically search for a spot and park itself" as creating unrealistic expectations for the technology's current legal and technological capabilities. Tesla's rebuttal includes a claim that the DMV has been aware of its use of the "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving" branding since the features' debuts in 2014 and 2016, respectively, long before the DMV's first allegations. According to Tesla, this is paramount to "implicit approval" up to that point. Over the years, the automaker has also made small tweaks to its product descriptions. Today, the highest-tier ADAS feature is labeled on Tesla's website as "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" with footnotes stating that "currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous." However, the CA DMV doesn't think that's good enough and so the largest EV manufacturer in the US and the State with the largest EV market find themselves in court. Musk has been promising full self-driving cars "within three to six months" for well over 10 years stance on "autonomous driving" It's been CNET's policy since the features' inception to clarify when reporting on Tesla that neither Autopilot nor Full Self-Driving are true full self-driving autonomous car systems, rather they are advanced driver assistance systems that require (both practically and legally) the driver to remain engaged and attentive on the road. As CNET's automotive expert, I continue this practice -- which is in keeping with the currently accepted understanding and definition of levels of driver assistance technology as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) -- and aim ensure that our readers have an accurate understanding of what car tech can and can't do in order to be best informed when making buying decisions and staying safe on the road.
