German Startup Neura Robotics Eyes Up to €1 Billion Fundraising
German startup Neura Robotics is targeting to raise as much as €1 billion ($1.2 billion) in new funding as the company prepares to debut a humanoid robot, according to people familiar with the matter.
Neura Robotics has started approaching potential investors, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information is private.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Make $400,000 a Year and Want to Retire at 45 -- Should I Invest More in Stocks or Focus on Real Estate?
On balance, the returns on rental real estate more or less match the stock market's average returns. However, these two types of investments are dramatically different in terms of convenience. In one scenario, the more complicated and capital-intensive option could make the most sense. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › As always, The Motley Fool cannot and does not provide personalized investing or financial advice. This information is for informational and educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional financial advice. Always seek the guidance of a qualified financial advisor for any questions regarding your personal financial situation. If you'd like to submit your question for feedback, you can do so here. Which is the better investment: real estate or the stock market? It's a question that never seems to stop circulating, mostly because there's never a crystal-clear answer. There are pros and cons to both, and they can vary from one investor to the next. Fortunately, it's possible to figure out the best answer for you. The key is getting a handle on which upsides and which downsides are most applicable in your particular situation. Someone recently asked an entire Reddit community if he should stop buying and renting out residential real estate and instead start pouring this money into the stock market to achieve faster returns. What would you do if you were me?by u/Straight_Ad8203 in Fire It's a great question to be sure. To fully appreciate the answer though, there's a bit more context needed. The individual in question is a 35-year-old medical doctor earning on the order of $400,000 per year at a job that's very demanding. There's a fair amount of money already tucked away in a retirement account and plenty in an emergency fund as well. This person also owns -- and owes on -- four different rental houses. His plan is to accelerate the payoff on these properties with whatever net cash flow is left behind from their rent revenue. This plan at least implies there will be little to no net profit from these properties for the foreseeable future. But paying off these rental houses as soon as possible will allow this doctor to semi-retire at 45 and enjoy some income as an MD, as well as some respectable rental income. His only concern? "Real estate is great but just feels like a slow return." This feeling isn't an uncommon one. But it's also possibly misleading, mostly because the money involved with being a one-person rental real estate company isn't the neat and tidy matter it is when you're running an apartment complex or own enormous office buildings. Yes, the net gains in the value of real estate itself generally lag the stock market's average annual return of around 10%. Although the wild real estate market of late has been an exception to this number, mortgage lender Griffin Funding reports that since 1967, the average U.S. home gains just a little more than 4% per year. Not great. That's also not the whole story, however. In this instance, the property owner is also monetizing this real estate by (presumably) charging rent that's at least a little more than his mortgage payments. The taxes, mortgage interest, and depreciation on this real estate are also tax-deductible expenses, adding to the owner's net/reported profits even if not adding to his tangible cash flow. On balance, renting out real estate you're conventionally financing produces an annual return on your investment of anywhere from 5% to 12%, with an average of 10%, matching the stock market's average full-year return. But that might not be the actual concern to address here, particularly for this busy investor. Far more important are the stress and missed opportunity that come with this plan over the course of the coming decade before he reaches age 45. Being a small-time residential landlord isn't a great venture for busy people. Even just four different tenants are a lot to handle when they're living in four different properties. And, while these rental houses are almost certainly insured, as a landlord, one accident can wreck what's already relatively thin cash flow. Then there's the time factor. This individual is already busy. Finding a new tenant or coordinating with repair people will require more personal time that simply doesn't exist. Also consider the opportunity cost involved with this plan. That's the cost of tying up money to finance the purchase of real estate, or for that matter, just taking care of it. While interest payments are tax-deductible expenses, they're still a real out-of-pocket personal expense using money that could otherwise be invested for growth in other ways -- for free. Ditto for sales commissions and buying and selling. Tax-deductible? Yes. But they're a net cost all the same. (Remember, tax deductions aren't the same as tax credits. You may not get all of this spent money back on the back-end, even if you've got a great accountant.) These nickels and dimes add up when you're not looking. Perhaps the chief reason owning rental real estate isn't quite ideal in this scenario -- when there's a viable alternative use of after-tax income -- is the lack of liquidity should the owner choose to sell a property. You can always sell stocks, even if at a price you don't love. There's never a guarantee you'll be able to get rid of a rental home you no longer want, however, even if you're offering it at a great price. If all goes as planned and this doctor can cut back to working three days per week 10 years from now, the time to effectively manage four rental houses likely will exist then. The business will be net-profitable, with at least a big chunk of properties being paid off. That's a pretty big "if," though. There aren't a lot of part-time doctors who actually only work part-time hours these days. The job often just doesn't allow it. There are no absolutely correct answers, and there's always more to the story. Indeed, there may be a terrific unmentioned reason here to continue focusing on real estate rather than committing this money to stocks. On balance, though, what's known about this particular situation favors owning buy-and-hold stocks over rental homes. If this individual invests wisely over the course of the coming decade -- keeping things simple and efficient, like just owning an index fund -- and actually ends up cutting back to part-time hours at age 45, he can still buy rental property then. He may even be able to outright purchase rental real estate rather than financing it if that's still his goal at that time, saving at least some money as a result. He'll save some money in the meantime too, since the cost of being in the stock market is a pittance compared to owning rental real estate. But you're still committed to owning rental properties right now? Consider this: While it feels great to pay down these loans early, that's not necessarily the best financial move. If the interest rates on these mortgages are low enough, there's a case to be made for drawing out these tax-deductible loans on this cheap money for as long as you can, and investing the extra cash flow in something with a higher rate of return. Your cash flow is certainly going to grow. Remember, rental rates rise regularly, but the size of your mortgage payments usually doesn't. This real estate venture should at least be a measurably higher-margin one 10 years from now. That's one of the chief reasons to stick with it. If you've got time, inclination, money, and ability to own rental real estate, your answer may be different. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $402,034!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,158!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $704,676!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 James Brumley has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. I Make $400,000 a Year and Want to Retire at 45 -- Should I Invest More in Stocks or Focus on Real Estate? was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Psychedelic Drug Flopped on Trial Results. Should You Buy the Dip?
Psychedelic stocks are gaining attention as new ways to treat mental illnesses like depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Companies in the niche use substances like psilocybin to develop treatments that present alternatives to traditional pharmaceutical compounds. Investors are hopeful, but the road to approval is risky and drawn out. Compass Pathways (CMPS) just faced one of those setbacks when it ran a late‐stage (Phase 3) trial of its synthetic psilocybin drug (COMP360) in 258 adults with treatment-resistant depression. Those receiving the treatment had a 3.6-point greater reduction in symptoms versus those receiving the placebo, which met the trial's predefined goal of at least a 3-point difference, but came up short of the 5-point gap Wall Street had hoped for. As a result, shares plunged nearly 50% on Monday, June 23. Analysts: AMD Stock Will 'Close the Gap' With Nvidia by 2026. Should You Buy AMD Stock Here? The Saturday Spread: Data-Driven Trades That Cut Through the Noise (GILD, MCD, DJT) Why This Wildcard Stock Could Be a Future Star Get exclusive insights with the FREE Barchart Brief newsletter. Subscribe now for quick, incisive midday market analysis you won't find anywhere else. Despite the drop, analysts remain mostly bullish. The company has another major trial underway, with results expected next year. If that data is stronger, the stock could rebound sharply. Compass is also pushing ahead in studies for PTSD. For investors who believe in the future of mental health innovation, this dip might be an opportunity to get in at a better price. Based in London, Compass Pathways is a biotechnology company focused on developing innovative treatments for mental health conditions, primarily targeting psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Valued at $248 million in market cap, shares of this psychedelic drug company have plunged 54% over the past 52 weeks and are down 27% year to date, significantly underperforming the broader S&P 500 Index ($SPX). After the haircut, CMPS is more attractively valued with a price-book ratio of 1.31x, significantly cheaper than the sector median of 2.7x. This pricing suggests CMPS may offer a good entry point relative to its peers. While COMP360 met its goal in the COMP005 trial, the modest 3.6-point improvement disappointed markets, causing a sharp stock correction. Still, Compass Pathways is gearing up for a key catalyst in 2026, its 26-week readout from two Phase 3 trials testing its psilocybin-based treatment for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). While earlier data showed promising six- and twelve-week effects, investors remain cautious about long-term durability and patient variability. Some fear the treatment may be too niche or selective, especially with reports of adverse events in prior trials. Still, if the results are positive, Compass could gain serious momentum toward FDA approval. Compass Pathways appears to be on stable financial footing as it advances its clinical programs. In Q1 2025, the company reported $260.1 million in cash and cash equivalents. This capital base was secured through a combination of financing mechanisms, including a private investment in public equity (PIPE) deal, a loan agreement with Hercules Capital, and an established at-the-market (ATM) offering program. With a current quarterly cash burn of approximately $49.6 million, comprising $30.9 million in research and development expenses and $18.7 million in general and administrative costs, Compass projects that its existing cash reserves will support operations through the second half of 2026. This timeline aligns with the anticipated data release from its ongoing Phase 3 COMP006 trial. Wall Street analysts remain confident about the company's future growth prospects, as reflected in their consensus 'Strong Buy' rating. Among the 10 analysts covering the stock, eight rate it a 'Strong Buy,' one gives a 'Moderate Buy,' and one rates it a 'Hold.' The 12-month average price target is $16.40, implying upside potential of 483% from current levels. Compass Pathways is still a high-risk bet, with regulatory hurdles and clinical uncertainty ahead. But for investors who believe in the future of psychedelic medicine, this dip could be an attractive entry. While caution is warranted, the upside remains compelling for those with a long-term view. On the date of publication, Nauman Khan did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on 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
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Lidar is lame': why Elon Musk's vision for a self-driving Tesla taxi faltered
After years of promising investors that millions of Tesla robotaxis would soon fill the streets, Elon Musk debuted his driverless car service in a limited public rollout in Austin, Texas. It did not go smoothly. The 22 June launch initially appeared successful enough, with a flood of videos from pro-Tesla social media influencers praising the service and sharing footage of their rides. Musk celebrated it as a triumph, and the following day, Tesla's stock rose nearly 10%. What quickly became apparent, however, was that the same influencer videos Musk promoted also depicted the self-driving cars appearing to break traffic laws or struggle to properly function. By Tuesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had opened an investigation into the service and requested information from Tesla on the incidents. If Tesla's limited rollout of the robotaxi service was the culmination of more than a decade of work, as Musk touted on X, its struggles are also emblematic of technical decisions and fixations that the world's richest person has embraced as he pursues the goal of a fully autonomous car. Musk has cast the concept of a driverless car as a core part of the company's future business, and, as sales have sharply fallen this year, he has vowed that its robotaxi service will rapidly and drastically expand. Yet the faltering launch this week suggests Tesla is still facing technological challenges that have attracted regulators' notice, delayed Musk's vision of a robotaxi on every corner, and highlighted the gulf between it and its driverless rival, Waymo. The robotaxi launch featured about 10 cars traveling in a limited area of Austin with safety drivers in the passenger seat. The pilot included other restrictions, such as not operating in bad weather or during certain nighttime hours. Rides, which the company offered to a host of handpicked influencers, cost $4.20, in keeping with Musk's proclivity for cannabis memes. 'Tesla self-driving can be deployed anywhere it's approved. It does not require expensive, specialized equipment or extensive mapping of service areas,' an official Tesla account posted on X the day of the launch. 'It just works.' Footage from at least 11 rides showed that the trial run did not pan out as flawlessly as Tesla's tweet suggested. In one case, a robotaxi failed to make a left turn and instead drove into a lane meant for oncoming traffic, then corrected itself by driving across a double yellow line. Other videos appeared to show the cars exceeding the speed limit, braking for no discernible reason and dropping passengers off in the middle of an intersection. The videos drew the attention of the NHTSA, which said in a statement it was aware of the incidents and had contacted Tesla to obtain more information. Musk, meanwhile, posted throughout the technical failures and regulatory inquiry, retweeting pro-Tesla influencers who praised the service. One account Musk posted showed off a video of a robotaxi stopping to avoid running down a peacock crossing the road, and another told followers: 'Don't listen to the media.' Musk has long insisted that using only cameras on driverless cars is the singular way to achieve true self-driving capability. Tesla's consumer vehicles come with what it calls 'autopilot' and 'full self-driving' features that allow drivers to cruise on the highway hands-free. They rely on multiple external cameras to navigate, steer and brake. The company's robotaxis use similar software and also depend solely on cameras. The reliance on cameras alone stands in sharp contrast with other autonomous vehicle companies such as Waymo and Zoox. Those companies use arrays that combine cameras and sensors, including radar and lidar. For example, the newest version of a driverless Waymo uses about 40 external cameras and sensors, whereas a Tesla with one of the latest versions of full self-driving uses about eight external cameras, according to an analysis by Bloomberg. Lidar and radar allow for self-driving cars to better detect objects in bad weather and poor lighting. Despite the advantages to lidar and radar, Musk has been adamant that Tesla remain lidar-free. 'Lidar is lame,' Musk said during a Tesla autonomy day in 2019. 'In cars, it's friggin' stupid. It's expensive and unnecessary.' Lidar is far more expensive, costing roughly $12,000 per vehicle, as compared with cameras, which come in at around $400 per car, according to Bloomberg. Musk maintains that camera-only technology is the most 'human' way to approach self-driving, since people use their eyes to navigate the road. Musk's insistence on camera-only technology has landed Tesla in hot water over fatal crashes involving drivers using the full self-driving feature. The company is now the focus of government investigations and civil lawsuits, which allege that full self-driving is impeded by weather conditions such as sun glare, fog, dust and darkness. There have been at least 736 crashes and 17 deaths involving the technology, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. 'Tesla continues to have this fetishistic view that it's going to operate its system solely on cameras, despite every intelligent human being in this entire space saying that can't be done,' said Brett Schreiber, an attorney who represents several alleged victims of Tesla's autopilot failures. 'Everyone who has been following collision-avoidant technology since the 90s knows that the holy trinity is radar, lidar and cameras.' Schreiber said he was not surprised to see the wobbling rollout of Tesla's robotaxis in Austin. 'What you're also going to see, which is the true tragedy of this thing, is people continuing to be injured and killed by this technology,' he said. 'And that's where it becomes less of a 'Oh, isn't that cute? The vehicle can't make a left' to now we're actually at someone's funeral because of the choices Tesla makes.' Tesla did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuits, government investigations and crashes involving full self-driving. The differences between Waymo and Tesla's approaches to launching commercial self-driving services in dense cities don't end with the debate over lidar versus cameras. Waymo is seen widely as the frontrunner in the self-driving race in the US – a race that was once crowded with dozens of automakers, VC-backed startups and ride-share companies and has since been whittled down to just a handful of major players. There are numerous reasons why Waymo has outlasted so many of its competitors and why it's ahead of the curve. The Google subsidiary has historically spent months, if not years, mapping cities and testing its vehicles in them before launching. In San Francisco, one of the first cities where Waymo launched its fully driverless commercial service, the company began mapping out and testing its service in 2021 before launching it to the public in 2024. Even with a careful and gradual city-by-city approach, Waymo, which launched as a project under Google's X research lab in 2009, has encountered problems with its self-driving cars. Earlier this year, Waymo had to recall more than 1,200 of its vehicles over a software issue that was causing collisions with chains, gates and other stationary roadway barriers. The NHTSA also launched an investigation into the company last year after the agency received 22 reports of Waymo vehicles acting erratically or potentially violating traffic safety laws. Contrast Waymo's approach with Tesla's. While Tesla is still in the testing phase of its service, its robotaxi launch in Austin is the first time the car company's fully self-driving technology is being unleashed in the wild. The company has not released information on whether, or how long, it has spent mapping out or testing the driverless technology on Austin's streets. The launch is reminiscent of Uber's first foray into a self-driving ride-share service in 2016. The company launched a self-driving pilot in San Francisco without seeking a permit from the California department of motor vehicles, as was required. On the first day of the pilot, an Uber vehicle ran a red light. The company was forced to shut down the service a week later after the DMV revoked its registration. An Uber self-driving executive at the time had pushed the company's engineers to rush to launch the San Francisco pilot to attract more investor and public attention. After being sued by Waymo over its self-driving operations and struggling to catch up to its competitors, Uber sold its self-driving arm in 2020. Tesla also did not have a permit to operate its robotaxi service in Austin. Texas does not currently have a process to acquire a permit and won't have one in place until September. While there's at the moment less visibility into what Tesla's rollout of its robotaxi service looked like behind the scenes, the automaker is no stranger to rushing to meet deadlines set publicly by Musk. With the launch of robotaxis, Musk, who has been promising that Teslas will be fully self-driving since at least 2016, is perhaps getting closer to meeting the deadline that he set and has deferred several times over the past 10 years. 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
