Home Blog Page 7

Second Cornerstone: Collaboration

0
Second Cornerstone: Collaboration

Second Cornerstone: Collaboration

At CH Insurance, COLLABORATION stands at the forefront of our values, a key part of the team’s foundation. “It supports everything we do,” explains Joe Convertino, Jr., President of CH Insurance. “Both our clients and carrier partners can trust that no matter what, we’re in their corner. This commitment to leveraging our collective talents and insights, is anchored deeply by our four cornerstones, and critical to fulfilling our promise.”

The CH Team’s excited to highlight COLLABORATION as the second of these cornerstones. It’s essential and part of every interaction and every decision at CH Insurance.

Success is never a solo act. – Joe Convertino, Jr.

Joe Collaboration is the second cornerstone at CH Insurance. How does CH embody teamwork, the essence of teamwork to deliver every day on being in people’s corner?

It’s a great question, Angela. Collaboration IS team in my mind, and that’s the heart of what we do here at CH. As I always say, success is never a solo act. Our diverse team collaborates seamlessly every day with their expertise to craft personalized solutions for all our clients and prospects. By working together, we’re not just providing insurance, we deliver peace of mind. It’s about being in your corner every day, every way through a collective effort. From our team to clients, our carrier partners, community relationships we have, we are all better by working together – where everyone wins.

Here at CH Insurance, the four cornerstones allow us to live our promise to you. We’re in your corner every day, every way.

Secrets To Profit From SPAC Investing In 2024

0
Secrets To Profit From SPAC Investing In 2024

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) have seen a meteoric rise between 2020 and 2022, sparking interest from investors.

Over the last few years, SPACs have revolutionized the public market entry for many companies, emerging as a viable alternative to IPOs, and offering a quicker way to go public. 

Let’s explore SPACs, understand the surge in their popularity, the mechanics behind their operation, and their benefits to sponsors, investors and target companies. 

Secrets To Profit From SPAC Investing In 2024

SPACs, often referred to as “blank check companies”, offer a fresh and intriguing way to list on the public markets, diverging from the conventional initial public offering (IPO) route.

At their core, SPACs are shell companies established to raise capital through an IPO, to merge with an existing company.

The SPAC model is unique because, unlike traditional IPOs, SPACs go public without any assets or optional business, apart from the funds raised for a future acquisition.

Understanding SPACs 

The SPAC structure is useful for a few reasons, since it provides a faster track to the public markets, and reduces regularity scrutiny, making it an appealing alternative for businesses going public.

SPACs originated in the 1990s, but were initially viewed with skepticism due to regulatory concerns and mixed performance, but evolved over the decades, gaining credibility and refinement.

The early 2000s saw improved regulatory frameworks enhancing its appeal, and by the 2010s SPACs began attracting notable investors and corporate leaders, signaling a shift in perception.

The SPAC Process Today 

SPACs are conceived by sponsors, who are typically a team of investors or experienced business leaders having expertise in particular sectors like energy or technology.

Sponsors then create these SPACs, by investing their capital to cover the initial expenses, and then raise money through an IPO.

In the initial stages, Investors in a SPAC IPO buy units, which comprise shares and warrants, with the funds raised from the offering being placed in a trust account.

Post-IPO, the SPAC has a set timeframe, usually 18-24 months, to identify and propose an acquisition of a target company, with the phase involving meticulous searching and due diligence to find a suitable private company that could benefit from going public.

The proposed deal is then subject to approval by SPAC shareholders. If approved, the SPAC and the target company merge, and the latter becomes a public company.

If the SPAC fails to complete a transaction within the designated timeframe, it must return the capital to investors, dissolving the entity.

SPACs vs Traditional IPOs

SPACs and IPOS offer distinct paths for companies going public, each with its unique pros and cons.

In a traditional IPO, a company undergoes a rigorous, often lengthy process, involving detailed financial disclosures, underwriting by investment banks, and extensive regulatory compliance.

Thus, IPOs provide market validation and can attract institutional investors, but the process has previously been costly and time-consuming.

On the other hand, SPACs provide a quicker, more streamlined option for companies looking to go public, reducing time and regulatory hurdles.

However, SPACs can carry higher risks and costs due to their speculative nature and reliance on sponsor reputation, making them a more uncertain, albeit faster, alternative to traditional IPOs.

Who Benefits from SPACs?

SPACs offer a structure that is rewarding to sponsors, investors, and target companies, who are each driven by distinct incentives.

For target companies, especially startups and growth-stage businesses, SPACs offer a faster, more straightforward path to public markets compared to traditional IPOs.

Investors also stand to benefit from SPACs as they get to access companies early in their growth cycle, with the potential to generate significant returns, while offering downside protection, with the ability to redeem shares at the IPO price if they don’t agree with the merger target. 

Performance Analysis of SPACs 

Post-merger performance of SPACs has yielded mixed returns, especially over the last few years.

While fee companies have posted significant growth and returns, a majority of stocks have significantly underperformed the broader market even when compared to the performance of traditional IPOs.

Successful SPAC deals like Symbotic and DraftKings have enabled the companies to attain rapid market entry and capital growth. 

However, there are several instances like Nikola and Lordstown Motors, which have faced regulatory and operational setbacks, leading to a slump in their market value.

Broadly, there have been several factors that have led to the underperformance, including over-optimistic valuations during the merger process, inadequate due diligence, and the speculative nature of the merger targets.

Moreover, the influx of SPACs in the last three years has led to increased competition for quality target companies, resulting in rushed deals without enough due diligence.

Furthermore, sometimes, the incentive structure for SPAC sponsors focuses on deal completion rather than long-term performance, which can lead to misaligned objectives with investors looking at value creation. 

The Future of SPACs

The downturn is attributed to the disappointing performance of newly merged SPACs and an uncertain future macroeconomic outlook.

The future of SPACs holds more regulation and scrutiny, especially based on the proposed rules by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

These rules aim to improve the clarity and usefulness of information provided to investors, addressing concerns over target company valuations, conflicts of interest, and potential dilution issues.

This increased legal and regulatory oversight might lead to a more cautious approach in SPAC formations and mergers.

Additionally, the challenges faced by dual-class SPACs in Delaware, as evidenced by recent court rulings, suggest that future SPACs may need to adapt their structures and strategies to comply with evolving legal standards​

SPACs have taken the investment landscape by storm. Hailed for their flexibility and speed in taking companies public over the last few years, SPACs have faced significant challenges recently, including market volatility and increased regulatory scrutiny.

The regulatory landscape has also notably evolved, with a notable shift towards greater transparency and investor protection. While the future of SPACs seems to be aligning with more stringent standards, their role in the financial ecosystem remains significant.

Apple’s $3.3 Trillion “Self-Destructive” Secret…

0
Apple’s .3 Trillion “Self-Destructive” Secret…

What if you built a whole business around killing your most successful product?

Seriously.

What if you spent years of your time and billions of dollars to revolutionize personal computing…

What if you built an unprecedented new platform for business, art, self-expression and software development…

Then, as soon as your breakout product took over the world — you did your best to destroy it.

As I’ve described it above, this business plan sounds like complete lunacy.

But in reality, this “self-destructive” plan was the most important factor for Apple Inc.’s (Nasdaq: AAPL) continued growth from a garage startup into a $3.3 trillion market titan.

Here’s why…

A Legacy of Relentless Innovation

Even from very early on, Apple was a relatively popular name in home computing.

The company’s early Apple II computer was one of the most sought-after computers of the late 1970s, and its Macintosh desktops would eventually become a staple in schools across America.

Apple’s user-friendly approach was a godsend in the early era of computing, when most platforms were designed for coders. But computer prices remained high, and the company’s market share stayed relatively small.

As technology evolved and users began to prefer smaller, more mobile computers, Apple poured its resources into developing laptops.

Apple’s .3 Trillion “Self-Destructive” Secret…

Remember the iBook? Source: Shutterstock.

Many companies would balk at this idea. They’d fixate on defending their meager market share or fret about diluting their offerings. But Steve Jobs ruthlessly drove his company forward.

By 2006, Apple had released the first Macbook. The company’s laptops quickly developed a reputation for reliability and stable performance that continues to this day.

But Jobs and Apple weren’t done…

Just one year later, Apple released a whole new device that would become the computing platform of choice for 60% of global internet browsing. The iPhone.

It’s easy to take each of these breakthroughs for granted in hindsight. But in each case, Apple was spending a fortune developing new products … products that would almost inevitably compete with its existing lineup for buyers and market share.

Of course, this is a simplified take on Apple’s success, but the lesson is still clear. Each of the company’s new breakout products served as a form of “Creative Destruction,” simultaneously moving technology forward while erasing older business.

Renowned economist Joseph Schumpeter originally conceived of the concept. And in his words, Creative Destruction is:

In the case of Apple, that means killing off one breakthrough product only to replace it with another one.

Which means your iPhone will be the next product Apple kills off.

And it will happen sooner than most folks expect…

End of the iPhone Era?

The idea of Apple killing off the iPhone might seem silly, but the writing is on the wall.

Global smartphone sales have been shrinking for years.

Case in point: With the release of the iPhone 15, Apple finally grabbed the top spot for smartphone market share … yet the company had its sharpest decline in sales since 2020.

Put simply, anyone who wants an iPhone probably already has one.

And therein lies the “problem” for Apple.

The smartphone market is fully mature, with “peak innovation” having already been reached … roughly three years ago.

Therefore, it’s impossible for a new smartphone to hit store shelves — seemingly out of nowhere (much like the iPhone in 2007) — that inspires the masses to replace what they’re already happy with.

What’s needed is a whole new paradigm shift. Like the evolution from desktops to laptops, and from laptops to tablets and smartphones, Apple needs a major breakthrough to stay on top.

To good profits,

Adam O’Dell

Chief Investment Strategist,

Money & Markets

Abbott Laboratories (ABT) Q3 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

0
Abbott Laboratories (ABT) Q3 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

ABT earnings call for the period ending September 30, 2024.

Abbott Laboratories (ABT) Q3 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Image source: The Motley Fool.

Abbott Laboratories (ABT 1.40%)
Q3 2024 Earnings Call
Oct 16, 2024, 9:00 a.m. ET

Contents:

  • Prepared Remarks
  • Questions and Answers
  • Call Participants

Prepared Remarks:

Operator

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to Abbott’s third quarter 2024 earnings conference call. [Operator instructions] This call is being recorded by Abbott. With the exception of any participants questions asked during the question-and-answer session, the entire call, including the question-and-answer session, is material copyrighted by Abbott.

It cannot be recorded or rebroadcast without Abbott’s expressed written permission. I would now like to introduce Mr. Mike Comilla, vice president, investor relations.

Mike ComillaVice President, Investor Relations

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. With me today are Robert Ford, chairman and chief executive officer; and Phil Boudreau, executive vice president, finance, and chief financial officer. Robert and Phil will provide opening remarks. Following their comments, we’ll take your questions.

Before we get started, some statements made today may be forward looking for purposes of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including the expected financial results for 2024. Abbott cautions that these forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Economic, competitive, governmental, technological, and other factors that may affect Abbott’s operations are discussed in Item 1A, Risk Factors, to our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31st, 2023. Abbott undertakes no obligation to release publicly any revisions to forward-looking statements as a result of subsequent events or developments, except as required by law.

On today’s conference call, as in the past, non-GAAP financial measures will be used to help investors understand Abbott’s ongoing business performance. These non-GAAP financial measures are reconciled with the comparable GAAP financial measures in our earnings news release and regulatory filings from today which are available on our website at abbott.com. Note that Abbott has not provided the GAAP financial measure for organic sales growth on a forward-looking basis because the company is unable to predict future changes in foreign exchange rates which could impact reported sales growth. Unless otherwise noted, our commentary on sales growth refers to organic sales growth, which is defined in the press release issued earlier today.

With that, I will now turn the call over to Robert.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Thanks, Mike. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Today, we reported organic sales growth of more than 8%, excluding COVID testing sales and adjusted earnings per share of $1.21.

In addition to delivering another quarter of strong financial performance, we accomplished several key objectives this quarter, which included entering new strategic partnerships, launching new products, and making several key advancements in our R&D pipeline, and I’ll elaborate further on these accomplishments when discussing the performance of our businesses and summarize our third quarter results in more detail before turning the call over to Phil. And I’ll start with nutrition, where sales increased 3.5% in the quarter. Growth in the quarter was led by double-digit growth in the U.S., and this included growths of 12% in U.S. pediatric nutrition, driven by market share gains in the infant formula business, and growth of 11.5% in U.S.

adult nutrition led by our market-leading Ensure And Glucerna brands. As the market leader in adult nutrition, we continue to expand our portfolio to meet the growing global demand for products that offer a combination of high protein, low sugar to help people optimize their health and wellness. Moving to diagnostics, where sales and core laboratory diagnostics increased 4.5%, excluding COVID testing sales, growth in core Lab was driven by global demand for routine diagnostic testing and continued adoption of our market-leading diagnostic systems and testing platforms, including recent large account wins that will help continue to sustain our growth into 2025. In our rapid and point-of-care diagnostics businesses, we continue to expand our test menus and capitalize on the growing demand for respiratory tests that can be performed at home or in more traditional healthcare settings.

In September, we announced an exciting new partnership with the Big Ten Conference to help boost the U.S. blood supply through a blood donation competition. Students, alumni, and fans can donate blood for any of the 18 member universities at blood centers located across the country, and our goal with this competition is to help rebuild the nation’s blood supply which is currently at an extremely low level while also helping to create a new generation of blood donors. Turning to EPD where sales increased 7% in the quarter.

Growth was well balanced across the markets and therapeutic areas in which we participate. Our performance this quarter was driven by double-digit growth in several countries across Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, where our broad product portfolios focused on addressing local market needs continues to enhance our unique position in these markets. From a portfolio perspective, we continue to deliver broad-based growth across our key therapeutic areas of focus, including strong growth in the quarter in the areas of gastroenterology, cardiometabolic, central nervous system, and pain management. We also achieved several milestones this quarter as it relates to advancing our portfolio of biosimilars which we built and continue to expand through collaboration agreements.

The first of these biosimilars is on track to launch in emerging markets in late 2025. And I’ll wrap up with our medtech portfolio where sales grew more than 13%. In diabetes care, sales of continuous glucose monitors exceeded $1.6 billion in the quarter and grew 21%. In August, we announced that we had entered into a unique global partnership with Medtronic to connect Abbott’s world-leading FreeStyle Libre CGM sensor with their automated insulin delivery systems.

Abbott now has partnerships with five of the largest companies that offer automated insulin dosing pumps, allowing more people around the world to benefit from the connectivity with the Libre technology. In September, we announced the U.S. launch of Lingo, our new glucose monitoring sensor available for purchase without a prescription. The Lingo wearable sensor and app track real-time glucose data and provide personal insights and coaching based on your body’s reaction to nutrition, exercise, and other lifestyle choices to help create healthier habits and improve overall well-being.

In electrophysiology, growth of 14% was driven by double-digit growth in both the U.S. and international markets. And similar to previous quarters, the growth was broad based across the portfolio, including double-digit growth in catheters and cardiac mapping-related products. We also achieved several important milestones as it relates to our electrophysiology new product pipeline, and this includes completing enrollment ahead of schedule in our VOLT-AF U.S.

IDE trial. And after we complete the required patient follow-up phase, we expect to file for FDA approval next year. Earlier this month, we announced that we began enrolling patients in our FOCALFLEX clinical trial that is designed to assess our new TactiFlex Duo catheter which offers physicians the option of using PFA and radiofrequency energy to treat atrial fibrillation. And finally, we received FDA approval and launched our new Advisor HD Grid X Mapping Catheter, which further enhances the cardiac mapping process when using PFA or RF ablation catheters to treat AFib.

In structural heart, growth of more than 16% was driven by growth across our market-leading comprehensive portfolio of surgical valves, structural interventions, and transcatheter repair and replacement products. This quarter, we continue to capture market share in TAVR and saw accelerating adoption of Amulet and Tri-Clip, which we launched in the U.S. earlier this year. And earlier this month, CMS began the process of evaluating Tri-Clip for national coverage determination, which, if approved, would help expand the addressable market through broader access in the U.S.

for this first-of-its-kind technology. In rhythm management, growth of 7% was led by AVEIR, our highly innovative leadless pacemaker; and Assert, our newest implantable cardiac monitor which launched in the U.S. last year. In heart failure, growth of 14% was driven by our market-leading portfolio of heart-assist devices which offer treatment for chronic and temporary conditions.

In vascular, growth of 5% was led by double-digit growth in vessel closure and coronary imaging, along with Esprit, our below-the-knee resorbable stent that launched in the U.S. in the second quarter. And lastly, in neuromodulation, sales grew 5%, driven by strong demand in international markets for our Eterna rechargeable spinal cord stimulation device. So in summary, we delivered another quarter of strong top-line growth with sales growth — with sales growing more than 8%.

We continue to make good progress expanding our gross margin profile and remain on track to improve our profile by 75 basis points on a full-year basis compared to last year. And as you saw, we achieved several important new product pipeline milestones this quarter, and we’re well-positioned for a strong finish to the year and have great momentum heading into 2025. And I’ll turn over the call to Phil.

Philip BoudreauSenior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer

Thanks, Robert. As Mike mentioned earlier, please note that all references to sales growth rates, unless otherwise noted, are on an organic basis Turning to our third quarter results. Sales increased 7.6% on an organic basis and increased 8.2% when excluding COVID testing sales. Foreign exchange had an unfavorable year-over-year impact of 2.5% on third quarter sales.

During the quarter, we saw the U.S. dollar weaken versus several currencies, which resulted in a favorable impact on sales compared to exchange rates at the time of our call in July. Regarding other aspects of the P&L, the adjusted gross margin ratio was 56.3% of sales. Adjusted R&D was 6.5% of sales, and adjusted SG&A was 27.2% of sales in the third quarter.

Lastly, our third quarter adjusted tax rate was 15%. Turning to our outlook for the fourth quarter. We forecast adjusted earnings per share guidance of $1.31 to $1.37. And based on current rates, we expect exchange to have an unfavorable impact of less than 1% on fourth quarter reported sales.

With that, we’ll open the call for questions.

Questions & Answers:

Operator

Thank you. [Operator instructions] And our first question will come from Travis Steed from BofA securities. Your line is now open.

Travis SteedAnalyst

Hi. Good morning, everybody. In Q3, devices were really strong, but nutrition and diagnostics came in below expectations, but you still maintain the full-year guidance, which is implying a step-up of 9.5% or more growth in Q4. So I just want to understand what happened in those divisions in Q3? And what’s giving you the confidence to still reiterate the full-year revenue guidance?

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Sure, Travis. Listen, we’ve got multiple business units here. I think, by my count, it’s close to like 17. We always want all 17 to beat and top your estimates here.

The reality is sometimes, some of them fall short. And then the question is, is there something more long term? Is it more of kind of a one-time kind of challenge? I’d put that more in the second bucket over here. I think one of the benefits that we do have in having a broad, diversified portfolio is that when you do have situations like that, Travis, other businesses can overperform and kind of make up for that. And I think that’s what you saw in this quarter.

I mean, you opened your question with devices did really good, and that’s what helped us deliver on our quarter. And as you look forward to Q4, yeah, we do have still very high confidence in the businesses. If I was at all concerned about it, I wouldn’t have raised our guidance now for the third time this year. So yeah, we’re still very confident in both the EPS forecast that we’ve got.

I think this is a great quarter now as we’re into Q4. And there’s less COVID comps, we’ll see our EPS grow double digits back to the growth model that we had during pre-COVID. And yeah, revenue at that 9.5% to 10%, still feel very good about that. The issues that you raised there are kind of one time in nature.

On nutrition, the entire business did really well with the exception of our international pediatric business. U.S. was up 12%; pediatric, U.S. Adult was up almost 12%; international adult was up high single digits.

So what ended up happening there is we saw some softness in the beginning of the quarter in some of our international markets for pediatric. Team quickly determined that it wasn’t market. It was actually us, and it was our commercial execution or lack thereof that was leading to some share loss. So team took action pretty quickly in the quarter.

We made some personnel changes, recalibrated our demand generation. And what ends up happening in the quarter there as a result of that share loss is we didn’t want to build excess inventory, so we shorted our sales to the distributors just to align that, but I feel good about what the team has put together. Early indications show that, that was the right move to do, and we’ve seen good progress there. So yeah, disappointed, but the team knows that, and they acted quickly.

So I expect to see international pediatric and overall nutrition growth step up in the quarter. It doesn’t change my thinking about nutrition for the quarter or for next year, for the long-term aspect of it, just something that we had to address. And then I think you mentioned core lab, also came a little bit shorter than expectations. I’d say there, really, the driver of that was just the VBP implementation in China.

If you look at our core lab business, our international core lab business, excluding China, the international business was up double digits. So the teams in those markets are doing really well. And I’d mentioned this in January, we were going to see the VBP impact the core lab business. We had originally forecasted in April, it got delayed and pushed out to Q3.

If you look at our growth rate in the first half of this year, it was over 7% and some of that favorability that we saw in the business and that we rolled into higher guidance as a result of a little bit of that delay here. So we’ll go through the VBP transition. We’ve done it in a lot of our businesses. There’s the pricing impact going forward.

There’s some transition-related items that happen, whether you’re making pricing accommodations for the inventory that’s already in the channel, etc. So I still feel very good about the business we’ve got there. I feel good about — China continues to be a very attractive market for us, so we’ll just work our way through this. But to your question on the quarter, yeah, we feel good about the quarter.

I wouldn’t have kept the guidance if we didn’t. We’ve got great momentum in the business. We’re meeting with the management team yesterday. They’re very committed and feel good about the momentum, so I think we’ll have a very good year with a good, strong close in Q4.

Travis SteedAnalyst

Great. I appreciate the extra color. Thanks a lot.

Operator

Thank you. And our next question will come from Larry Biegelsen from Wells Fargo. Your line is open.

Larry BiegelsenAnalyst

Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. Robert, I wanted to ask about Libre and just big picture. You had 21% growth in Libre in Q3, which was good, but your competitor is obviously having some issues.

So it would be helpful to hear your view of the state of the CGM market. Talk about your confidence in the overall CGM market outlook and your goal of $10 billion in sales by 2028 and maybe just give us some color on what you’re seeing so far with Lingo. Thanks for taking the question.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yeah, sure. Larry, I’ve always been very bullish about this market and talk about this market a little bit differently than when we talk about general medtech markets, right? This is a mass market opportunity that we have.And yeah, we grew 21%. U.S. was actually up 26%, and we feel good about the market.

The fundamentals are still very much there, and they’re still very much intact. This is — you’ve got about 10 million CGM users globally, I think, right now. And you’ve got over 100 million diabetics in the developed world, over 0.5 billion globally. So yeah, I think this is a market that’s got mass market potential to it.

As long as you stay ahead from a technology perspective, as long as you stay ahead from a scale perspective, as long as you stay ahead from a cost perspective, for me, those are the three elements here that allow us and have guided our strategy from day one. And I don’t think that you’re going to have some changes in the market when you’ve got a market that’s, whatever, $12 billion, $13 billion, growing 15%. There’ll be more players, for sure. There’ll be more competition, for sure, but we feel good about our position and the strategy that we’ve built.

We’ve thought about this not just for the next year. We’ve been thinking about this, what is it going to look like a decade from now and how we built our portfolio and our position. So I feel very good about this market. And I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally here that’s significantly changed, at least from our internal way of thinking about it.

So yeah, I think this is a great opportunity for us. Libre is — it will be a $6 billion-plus product. It will grow 20% this year. When we put out the $10 billion target, Larry, we talked about a compound annual growth rate of 15%.

So we’re ahead of that, and we’re going to work hard to make sure that we stay ahead of that, and we continue to gain share. We’ll add $1 billion of revenue this year, add 1 million users. You’ve got opportunities in type 1s on the pump side, on the connectivity side with pens. You’ve got opportunities with type 2s and basal.

I mean, I think that’s just really still so much opportunity in those markets, so I feel very good about it. And as we’ve talked about Libre, we always viewed it as a platform. So you mentioned Lingo, glad to see that launch. Just as a reminder, we’re really focusing on a very different population with this technology, right? We’re targeting people that don’t have diabetes, so it’s a little bit of a different kind of business model, sale model.

But so far, we’ve seen really, really good early interest. Great, great feedback from the users so far. The app, the data, the website, the Hello Lingo website, the delivery, the whole nonprescription stuff, that’s working out very well. The two-sensor pack is the most popular version right now, and I think that’s a good — it’s a great way to start.

I was looking at some of the initial reorder rates that came in last night. And wow, was I surprised at really, really much higher reorder rates than what we saw in the U.K. And I thought that — I think the team did a really good job at adapting some of the learnings from the U.K. into that.

So I think, overall, over time, this is going to be a great opportunity to be able to add to that $10 billion target as we build this user base out. So overall, back to your question on Libre, I feel very good about our position, what we’re doing, and Lingo is off to a very good start.

Larry BiegelsenAnalyst

All right. Great. Thanks so much.

Operator

Thank you. And our next question will come from Robbie Marcus from J.P. Morgan. Your line is open.

Robbie MarcusAnalyst

Oh, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Congrats on a nice quarter. Robert, I wanted to ask, this time of the year, we all — we’re looking for fourth quarter, but we’re also turning our focus to 2025.

I see The Street sitting at about 7% on the top line, 10% on the bottom line. I wanted to see if you had any comments about how you feel about that or your view into next year, realizing it’s still on the early side. Thanks.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yeah. It’s a little early to give real, specific guidance there, Robbie. But similar to you, we’re also looking at ’25. We’ve been looking at ’25 also as part of our strategic planning process here, too.

So yeah, this is the time of the season, right? I’d say, yeah, similar to last year, I look at the analyst estimates going into 2025, high single-digit growth, 10% EPS. And like I said last year, that feels like a very reasonable starting point. I think the difference going into 2025 versus when we were coming into 2024 is, as we go into 2025, one of the things that we don’t have is what I would call kind of like the COVID cloud, at least for a couple of the quarters ahead of us, and that kind of masked a little bit of our underlying kind of base EPS kind of business growth. So I am looking forward to, in a way, not having that be kind of this kind of comp issue.

But I think the high single digit, 10% EPS, yeah, that sounds like a very kind of, I’d say, reasonable starting point. But if I take a step back also, I look at that and say, OK, here we have a company that’s $40 billion in revenue, and we’ve been driving high single-digit top-line growth. I think that’s pretty unique for us. And I think one of the reasons, that is a combination of two factors.

First of all, the markets that we’re participating, they’re very attractive, Robbie, whether it’s their size, their growth outlook, whether their alignment to favorable demographic trends, the positions we have in them. And there’s a couple of different types of markets that we’re in, right, markets that are probably a little bit lower from a growth rate perspective, but we’ve got tremendous scale, tremendous positions in them, and that scale and that position disproportionates us. And they provide great financial stability to our business. We’ve got other markets that are very exciting, high-growth markets that our goal there is to enter and capture share, whether it’s TAVR, LAA, new diagnostic systems that we’ll be launching and then other markets we’re building, right? And we’re building them and creating them with first-of-their-kind types of products, whether it’s Lingo that we talked about, TBI testing, leadless, biosimilars in emerging markets, etc.

So it’s a nice collection of markets that really allow us to set these high single-digit target growth rates for us. And then the other part is pipeline, which is fundamental, right? And I think it’s been highly productive. Recently launched products this year, are going to contribute about $1 billion of revenue this year, and that’s double to what it was in 2023. And I expect that to be the case again next year, right? So I think it starts at the top line.

We’ve made a lot of effort right now in expanding gross margin and delivering. That was a topic that we talked about last year, expanding margins, and gross margin is a key focus of ours. But I also think we’ve been a pretty proficient allocator of investment. We’ve invested — we’ve done increasing investments in areas that are — we know are high-growth areas, and we’ve still been able to generate over $1 billion of spending leverage over the last five years.

So I’d say as we go down the P&L, I think that’s another opportunity for us as we go down into 2025, is our discipline in terms of how we make the investments and our focus on gross margin. So I think the combination of that will allow us to have that op margin expansion. And the balance sheet is in a great year — sorry, balance sheet is in a great shape here. So I think we’ve got all the elements that we need to go into 2025 with great momentum, markets, positions, and financial flexibility there.

Robbie MarcusAnalyst

They’re great. Thanks a lot.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question will come from David Roman from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

David RomanAnalyst

Thank you, and good morning, everybody. Robert, maybe if I could push a little bit more on the investment spending and help us think a little bit about the shape of the P&L on a go-forward basis. During the quarter, you did accelerate R&D and SG&A spending on a year-over-year growth basis. And maybe you could help us think through where are some of those incremental dollars going.

How should we think about the trajectory of operating expenses in the context of gross margin expansion? And then with the announced share repurchase program, should we think about that as an effort to keep the share count flat or a view that this is an opportunity to return incremental capital to shareholders and reduce the share count?

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Sure. Yeah. I guess, on the investment side, if you look at what we’ve done with our expenses here, they’ve gone from 37% in 2019 down to about 34% this year. So that’s where that $1 billion of spending leverage comes, right? If you look at our five-year CAGR, it’s high single digits, and our operating expense CAGR is about 4%.

But it’s not a cookie-cutter approach, David. We look at the businesses and look at their opportunities and make those decisions. R&D investments, they’re a little bit more longer term, right? So once you commit to R&D programs, they tend to be a little bit more longer term than making some SG&A decisions where you could toggle up and down a little bit easier. But I mean, I think you could see where some of the growth is coming from, and that’s being supported by those investments.

Obviously, our medtech portfolio has been getting investments, I’d say, in EP, in structural heart, in diabetes care, in neuromodulation. I mean, all of the businesses, they come with a strategic plan. And we look at where it makes more sense, whether it’s to put more investment in the field with sales force and clinical people, whether it’s to make the investment in a clinical trial. So we tend to have a pretty good process about how to do that.

We’ve been making investments in diagnostics. Soon, we’ll probably be talking about a new system that we’re going to be launching for a whole new segment of the diagnostic industry. That’s a longer-term program that’s been a couple of years, so I think we’ve got a good process about how to make the investments knowing that R&D investments are a little bit more longer than SG&A. So — and I think that’s what we’ve been able to show, and I think that’s one of the reasons we’ve been able to get to our op margin profile to pre-pandemic levels, which I’m not sure a lot of companies would be able to kind of say that.

So — but we haven’t driven our op margin by expenses. I mean, we’ve been driving our top line pretty effectively, too, so I think that’s probably the best proof point that we know how to do this allocation and the cycles of the allocation, etc. And then I think you had a question regarding share count and buybacks. Listen, we — as I’ve said, we’ve got a pretty balanced approach about how we allocate our capital.

I’ve talked about the importance of the dividend and supporting that growing dividend, and we’ll continue to do that. The buybacks is just another element in that capital allocation strategy. We just announced that the board recently approved a new $7 billion buyback program. The previous one that we had approved in 2021 was running down, and we thought it was a good time to put that in place.

We’ve deployed around $8 billion toward buyback over the last five years. We took a little bit of a step up during a couple of years after the acquisitions that we did. We’d stepped that down a little bit. So we’ve stepped that up.

Q3, we did about $750 million. I thought given our strong performance outlook here that we saw a disconnect between what we were doing in our PE ratio, and in fact, I still do. So it made sense to buy shares, and the buyback announcement is just part of our balanced approach to allocating capital. And we’ve got that authorization set.

So if we feel that there is a disconnect going forward, we’ve got that opportunity to try and correct that. So — and if that reduces the share count, yeah, then it will reduce the share count, but we’re not trying to drive our EPS through a lower share count. We’re ultimately trying to drive our EPS through top-line growth, David.

David RomanAnalyst

Excellent. I appreciate all the color. Thanks, Robert.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question will come from Joshua Jennings from TD Cowen. Your line is open.

Joshua JenningsAnalyst

Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. Robert, I wanted to ask about just structural heart markets.

The TAVR market is slowing down or decelerating. There’s been some investor concerns about U.S. provider capacity and whether there’s a bottleneck. I think Abbott is uniquely positioned because you do have offerings in transcatheter aortic, mitral and tricuspid solutions, and left atrial appendage occlusion.

We’ve got interventional — heart failure interventions coming down the pike. Are you seeing any capacity constraints limiting growth? You had a strong structural heart quarter this — in 3Q. Or are you concerned about that? Is that on the horizon? Or should we just think that hospitals are seeing this growth opportunity as well and building out capacity, adding cath labs, hybrid ORs, etc.? I’d love to get your view on the current situation and whether you’re worried in the next 12, 24, 36 months that we could run into a bottleneck in the U.S. Thanks.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Not seeing the bottleneck, not forecasting the bottleneck, not concerned about the capacity here. Obviously, this is a very growing area, not only for those that are developing the technologies, but also for the healthcare systems that are delivering them and deploying them. I’ve been to some large centers over the quarter. I’ve been to some smaller centers over the quarter.

There’s always challenges, but I put it as a challenge, not specific to a given technology or challenge. It’s just whether it’s ramping up a new technology, getting more people to train. So — but I’m not hearing that the centers that we’ve been working with that capacity is a big rate-limiting factor today. I think if it started to become one and the demand is there, I think history has shown that make the right investments, the investments will be made to accommodate that demand.

So — I mean, this is obviously what’s happened in structural heart over the last decade, investments will be made to accommodate that demand. So I’m not hearing that, and we continue to be very excited about the prospects that we have in our structural heart portfolio. I think the team has kind of hit its stride right now. We’ve got new management, new products launching, and I’m very optimistic right now with what the teams are putting together across the entire portfolio.

I think like you said, we’re one of the few companies here that we can see the full spectrum, right, from — all the way from surgical, structural interventions, all the occlusion and appendages and then looking at being able to see mitral, tricuspid, aortic, whether it’s repair, whether it’s replacement. I think the team is hitting its stride right now. And our focus here is going to be on both sides, making the investments on the R&D side. I think we’ve got a lot of new product investment in structural heart, new clinical trials, new indications, investments over there.

And I think the different part of our investment profile — and we’ve been doing that for many years in mitral — in structural heart, and I think that’s why we have the portfolio we have. I think the piece that we’re adding on now is like, OK, we’ve got the products. Now we’ve got to increase our field presence to support either the market share gain that we aspire to or to support these growing new fields, whether it’s tricuspid. So our focus now is really to start to add more on the field side in these businesses to be able to kind of support that growth.

But no, I think this is a tremendous area of growth of opportunity of under penetration of R&D, of clinical work. So we’re really excited about it.

Joshua JenningsAnalyst

Appreciate it. Thanks.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question will come from Vijay Kumar from Evercore ISI. Your line is open.

Vijay KumarAnalyst

Hi, Robert. Good morning, and thanks for taking my question. I had one on, I guess, NEC infant formula. The FDA, CDC, and NIH have put out a joint statement.

It’s a pretty strong statement saying — noting that there’s perhaps no causative relationship between infant formula and NEC. So I guess my question is how does this change Abbott’s position in these lawsuits? Does it matter? What else can we expect from the government? Could we expect more announcements similar to this? What shape or form could it be? What can Abbott to do to perhaps ring-fence liabilities related to these cases?

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yeah, sure. Well, listen, as it relates to our position, it’s great to see the statement. And I agree with you. I think it was a very strong statement.

It doesn’t change what I have been saying, which is — and the statement seems to be aligned and support what I hear from the market and what I hear from neonatologists, which is these products, they’re medically necessary. They are considered the standard of care, and they’re a valuable tool. They’re a valuable tool for the neonatologists in their decisions and their discussions with parents and how to feed premature. And the labels, which is a component in all of this, they’ve been reviewed by the regulators and never called for NEC warning.

So this is a consensus statement made by these three agencies, three regulators here in the U.S. And they’re basically — Vijay, they’re actually endorsing an expert panel with dozens of researchers that were conveyed by the secretary of HHS. And I think the researchers issued a 100-page document or so. I think they looked at thousands of publications.

I think it was 600, specific to the relationship between NEC and feeding. And in that joint statement, the agencies, they reiterated the importance of preterm formula as the standard of care, and they also clearly state there’s no conclusive evidence that the formula causes NEC. So I think this is only one of a handful of times where the three agencies, the most prominent and significant health agencies and regulators in the U.S. have come together and put out a joint statement.

Obviously, we saw that during the COVID pandemic. But I think before that, I think it was during the HIV pandemic. So I think the statement says a lot, Vijay. At this point, though, at this point, the judge in our trial right now has not allowed the joint statement or the underlying report to be entered into evidence.

I don’t know the reasons there, but I think it would be — we believe that it’s — the joint statement, the report, the expert testimony, I think those are important pieces of information for a jury to consider as they’re making their decisions. So I don’t know how to cap that. But I would say beyond this case and as the cases move to more of the federal side, my expectation here is that the juries in these cases would be allowed to consider the criticality of that important evidence. So to your question on the liability portion and kind of what to do, if I take a step back on this one, I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit.

But as healthcare innovators, we develop healthcare products based on problems that we see. We run the clinical trials. We gather the data. We review the data with the regulators.

You guys know this process pretty well. And ultimately, the regulator decides if the products are safe, and they’re fit for purpose, and they decide how they’ve got to be labeled. And that’s the country, that’s the market that I want to be in where the products, the labels, they’re evaluated through a well-established regulatory process by expert regulators that have unfettered access to the best scientific evidence rather than trying to do this, regulate products through uncertainty and unpredictable jury trials. So ultimately, to your question, if the regulatory process is disregarded, if the science is disregarded, it’s going to be very difficult for any company to remain on the market with these products.

Taking on that indefinite liability here, at least in the United States, that would be an issue that the United States would confront. It wouldn’t be an issue for premature babies in international countries because this issue — this is not an issue, and the products are still available there. So yeah, I do think there needs to be some fortitude here by those that can make decisions. Prioritize the babies, prioritize preterm babies, all 370,000, every single year that rely on these products over those that seem to kind of distort and abuse this Tort system, this Tort system that we have in our country here for financial gains.

I’m hoping it doesn’t come to that, but I’ve been pretty clear that this is — we stand behind the products. But if the process won’t be — is going to be disregarded, then this is something that we will not continue adding to the liability here. So there’s a playbook, it seems, for these things to happen. You take a decade, 10-plus years to litigate this and come to some resolution.

I don’t intend to follow that playbook, and I intend to resolve this faster. And yeah, there are different ways to resolve this and different ways to look at this. And we are having conversations at all levels to be able to express the concern that this could cause to families here in the United States.

Vijay KumarAnalyst

That’s helpful. Thank you.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question will come from Joanne Wuensch from Citi. Your line is open.

Joanne WuenschAnalyst

Good morning, and thank you for taking the question. Congratulations on earlier-than-expected completion of enrollment in your PFA catheter clinical trial. But I would really love to get your view on the state of the electrophysiology market, what you’re seeing in terms of PFA uptake and how that is impacting your mapping and navigation systems. Thank you again.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Sure, Joanne. I mean, I think this quarter was a continuation of the trend that we’ve been seeing since the arrival of PFA. We’re growing a little bit lower than the market. The market has kind of grown pretty significantly here.

But if you look at our growth rate, prior to PFA, we’re actually growing faster now with PFA. And I think there’s a couple of factors there. I think you mentioned one of those, which is cardiac mapping. Right now, we’re seeing about 90-plus percent of the cases, at least here in the U.S., being mapped.

If you look at where we were before, Joanne, we were mapping about maybe between 25% and 30% of RF cases, we’re now mapping 50-plus. So that is a little bit of a tailwind for us. We’re seeing a pretty strong growth in procedures. So — and I think that’s probably what’s helped drive some of the market growth that we’re seeing, but I also think that the volume increase is actually due to improved treatment guidelines that we’re seeing and quite frankly new technologies that are helping to identify AFib patients, too.

So I think it’s a combination of factors there that are helping to drive more procedures. And then for us, the RF portion of it is still a growth piece for us. As I said in my comments, we grew ablation catheters double digits, too, so we’re seeing about 20% of the PFA cases, at least the ones that we’re mapping, use RF catheters, and we’re in those cases. So I think the key thing here is just to at least right now, PFA is really being used for de novo procedures, right? So if you kind of break that out, it’s about a third of all ablation procedures are de novo.

The other two-thirds are VT ablation, SVT ablation, redos. And in those cases, they’re using — we’re still using RF. And RF plays an important role there, which is why we’ve initiated our FOCALFLEX trial, to be able to have the optionality, to be able to toggle between PFA and RF. So we still think that’s an important part there.

So — but I think the team has done a really good job here at leveraging our open mapping system. I made comments we used the open mapping system as a design input for R&D programs to start off with, and now that open system is allowing us to be in more cases and partner more with the electrophysiologists. So I think that is — that’s what we’re seeing, and we’re very committed to be able to bring PFA to the market. We’ve completed the enrollment, like you said, and we completed the CE mark enrollment beginning of this year.

So we’re committed to the space, but we do feel that it’s a full portfolio approach. You need good mapping which is why we invested in our next-generation HD grid. You need to have a PFA portfolio that’s pretty complete. You need to have RF, and I think that’s what the team has been building, I’d say, very, very successfully.

Joanne WuenschAnalyst

Wonderful. Thank you.

Operator

Thank you. Our next question will come from Matt Miksic from Barclays. Your line is open.

Matt MiksicAnalyst

Hey, thanks so much for taking the question. I have a follow-up on Libre in the diabetes business. Just a couple of topics that come up quite a bit, particularly in the last few months around the market and competition, the first being kind of anything you can comment on regarding your share trends, in particular, in the DME channel. Anything you’re doing there differently, did differently, what you’re seeing as a user of Lingo for the last couple of months? I complimented the team on putting together a great product.

Question, just curious about the timing and the plan for Rio and thoughts on potential reimbursement for that certain non-insulin-intensive type 2 community. And then lastly, just zooming out for a sec and getting back to your comments and plans for gross margin, how — if you could scale the expansion into OTC of Libre in this platform kind of plays a role in hitting your ’24 gross margin plans and your plans for expansion, going forward, as you scale this business. Thank you.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

You lined up a lot there, Matt. I’m going to make sure that Mike here helps me stay with all the questions that you laid out there. I mean, I think regarding your Libre question on competitiveness, yeah, I think the team has done a really good job here in the U.S., not just in the DME channel, but at the endo’s offices, at the primary care channel with the basal population. I think it’s kind of an all-out all-channel, real strong execution there.

U.S., we grew 26% in the U.S. this quarter, and that was having some of the challenges we had there regarding some kind of temporary supply challenges with Libre 3. So we haven’t really unleashed Libre 3 fully yet, and a lot of the share gains that we’re getting are with Libre 2. But that piece is behind us.

We invested in a new manufacturing line. We have a new manufacturing, a whole brand-new manufacturing facility come up and — toward the end of the year. So that will — as we go into next year, that will all be kind of behind us. So I think our position here in the U.S., and globally, quite frankly, is strengthened by the product portfolio, the cost position that we had.

You’re mentioning gross margins in Libre. That’s a key aspect here. We’ve always talked about, you’ve got to have cost leadership here because as the market expands to basal and oral meds, GLP-1 users and as that population grows, you’re going to have a much larger TAM to operate in. But yeah, you are going to see — you’re going to have to make some pricing adjustments to be able to get that reimbursement, so you got to have your cost structure in place to be able to benefit, have the top-line growth and not have that come at the expense of gross margin.

And our gross margins, as we’ve grown Libre, have actually expanded. As our manufacturing scale continues to ramp up, some of the costs associated with these products, because there’s a lot of automation, we’ve been doing this from day one, some of the costs are depreciation in the equipment. So as a lot of our facilities are running through their depreciation schedules. Those will help our gross margins, too.

So I feel good about our opportunity to drive the market, to be competitive, to lead in technology, to lead in scale and cost and take advantage of what we believe is a mass market opportunity for us. I think you had a question on Rio. Listen, the initial focus is on Lingo right now. We’ve got that — think of Rio as another arrow here in the quiver that we can pull out if we need to ahead of schedule.

We do have a schedule. I’m not going to lay out what that schedule is. But for some reason we need to do that, we’ll be able to do that. But the focus is on Lingo right now, and we’ve got a nice opportunity here to build a completely new segment of biowearables with consumers.

So —

Matt MiksicAnalyst

That’s great. Thanks so much.

Mike ComillaVice President, Investor Relations

Operator, we’ll take one more question, please.

Operator

Thank you. And our last question will come from Danielle Antalffy from UBS. Your line is open.

Danielle AntalffyAnalyst

Good morning, guys. Thank you so much for squeezing me in. Congrats on a really good quarter here. I just wanted to follow up on the structural heart component of the business.

Robert, you talked about this earlier in response to Josh’s question. But just digging a little bit deeper, as we look into 2025, I mean, you’ve got potential indication expansion for LAA closure, but you do have some competitive data coming on the tricuspid side of things at TCT and whether or not that shows a mortality benefit. So just curious about how you think about those two markets specifically and sustainable growth in those franchises. There are some puts and takes there, so I just wanted to get your sense of how to think about that as we head into next year.

Thanks so much.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Sure. Just to remind me again there, Danielle, tricuspid, and what was the other one?

Danielle AntalffyAnalyst

Sorry, left atrial appendage closure.

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

OK. Yeah. OK, good. Yeah, these are great areas of investment for us and the investment of money, time, effort, thinking, power, all of that.

So I think, as I said on business hitting its stride, I definitely would say that about the Amulet team. They’re definitely hitting their stride. We saw nice growth this quarter, 25% globally, 40% growth in the U.S. here, so — and we’re making the investments.

I mean, I think you saw our registry data shows really good positive results from Amulet. 95% of the closure rates achieved and sustained after 45 days, I think that’s pretty good, 90% closure rate when using Amulet for those that have failed proper closure with the competitor product. So — but we’re investing in there. We’ve got our CATALYST trial that’s looking at comparing Amulet to anticoagulants for people that have a risk of AFib, expect to complete that trial next year.

And then the team has been working on Amulet 2.0, and I expect that we will be beginning or entering to trial in that business with that product toward the end of this year. So really nice progress on the appendage side, whether it’s Amulet, and quite frankly, PFO, too, is doing really well, and that’s a great growth driver for us, too. On the tricuspid side, yeah, there’s going to be a lot of data coming out over the next 12, 24 months. I expect that.

I think with any new category here, Danielle, you’re going to have to make the investments. I mean, nobody was doing anything from an interventional perspective on the tricuspid, right? So as companies are developing technologies, I think you are going to see a lot of clinical readouts and clinical data more to be able to kind of support the use of these technologies. I think we saw one recently at ESC specifically to Tri-Clip, a European study, and this is the second RCT that’s basically confirming what the TRILUMINATE RCTs showed, which is much superior to medical therapy and extremely effective at reducing TR. So I think that’s an area of investment for us.

Without a doubt, I think that there’s an opportunity here that the team’s been working on regarding our full portfolio approach with our structural products, and I think Tri-Clip plays an important role there. We’re excited about the NCD that was opened and looking forward to that, so that’s another opportunity for us in 2025. But quite frankly, I just think there’s a great opportunity here with our team. We’ve got, I would say, some built-in advantages as it comes to the Tri-Clip product.

We’ve got manufacturing scale, the sales force and all of that. And there’s definitely demand, and we’re seeing that, and the launch is going very well. So I think that, yeah, you’re going to see more data, and that’s good. And it’s a growth opportunity for us.

I think this is a $1 billion business for us here over time, but you’re going to have to make the investments on the clinical side to be able to kind of support the adoption of it. So very excited about structural heart overall and ultimately excited about the entire company and business. We’ve had — I’m really pleased with the performance of the first three quarters. We’re on track to finish the year at the high end of the initial guidance that we provided back in January.

Sales growth has been strong. Gross margin profile continues to expand. EPS growth is now accelerating throughout the year as we are lapping some of those COVID comps. The pipeline is richer than ever, so I think we’ve got great momentum heading into next year.

And with that, I’m going to wrap up and thank all of you for joining us.

Mike ComillaVice President, Investor Relations

Thank you, operator, and thank you all for your questions. This now concludes Abbott’s conference call. A webcast replay of this call will be available after 11 a.m. Central Time today on Abbott’s investor relations website at abbottinvestor.com.

Thank you for joining us today.

Operator

[Operator signoff]

Duration: 0 minutes

Call participants:

Mike ComillaVice President, Investor Relations

Robert B. FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Philip BoudreauSenior Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer

Travis SteedAnalyst

Robert FordChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Larry BiegelsenAnalyst

Robbie MarcusAnalyst

David RomanAnalyst

Joshua JenningsAnalyst

Vijay KumarAnalyst

Joanne WuenschAnalyst

Matt MiksicAnalyst

Danielle AntalffyAnalyst

More ABT analysis

All earnings call transcripts

Will New Regulations Make Selling Houses Harder and More Expensive?

0
Will New Regulations Make Selling Houses Harder and More Expensive?

Will New Regulations Make Selling Houses Harder and More Expensive?Will New Regulations Make Selling Houses Harder and More Expensive?

Will the Department of Justice (DOJ) and new regulations make selling houses harder and more expensive? The landscape as we know it is poised for some dramatic shifts, and I want to unpack what that means for home buyers, sellers, agents, and investors. While we do not know for sure what will happen the DOJ has given many hints as to what they want to happen. The DOJ may think what they are doing is helping consumers, in my opinion it will do the opposite if these ideas come to fruition.

Video: How the DOJ is Making Buying and Selling Houses Much Harder and More Expensive

The Disappearance of Open Houses

One of the potential changes is the disappearance of open houses. This traditional method of showcasing properties might become much harder to execute, which could complicate the buying and selling process. The intention behind these changes is to lower costs and make it cheaper for buyers. However, the reality might be quite the opposite, making it more expensive and challenging for buyers to purchase homes, ultimately impacting sellers and agents negatively.

One of the major changes the DOJ wants to see implemented is all buyers must have a buyers agency agreement signed with an agent before viewing homes for sale. It has been rumored the DOJ does not want buyers and sellers working with the same agent which could make open houses very difficutl!

Government Intervention and Lawsuits

A significant driving force behind these changes is the involvement of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Previously, I discussed some lawsuits from home buyers and sellers against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and other agencies. What I didn’t realize then was the extent of the DOJ’s involvement. They have been working on these lawsuits from the beginning, essentially approving or disapproving changes that could alter laws and regulations across states.

Commission Transparency on the Chopping Block

One of the most contentious issues is the DOJ’s push to remove buyer commissions from being listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other sources as well. Traditionally, the seller pays both their listing broker and the buyer’s broker, making it easier for buyers who might not have the funds to pay their agent directly. The DOJ’s stance is that this information should not be visible, aiming to avoid the misconception that buyer agents are “free” for buyers, even though their commissions come from the seller’s proceeds.

Should You Sell Your House Yourself? (For Sale By Owner)

The Impact on Agents and the Industry

This move has stirred a lot of debate, as it fundamentally changes how transactions have been handled. Buyers will now likely have to sign a buyer agency agreement, committing to an agent and agreeing on their compensation before even seeing a property. This could make open houses and for-sale-by-owner situations much more complicated. Furthermore, there’s talk about potentially banning dual agency, where an agent represents both the buyer and seller, adding another layer of complexity.

How Much Money Do Real Estate Agents Make Their First Year?

The Economics of Regulation

Many believe these changes could weed out less competitive agents and streamline the industry. However, basic economic principles suggest otherwise. Reduced competition typically leads to higher prices, not lower. With fewer agents and more complicated processes, costs are likely to rise. Agents might start charging more due to the increased complexity and reduced competition.

Federal vs. State Control

The DOJ’s involvement also raises concerns about federal overreach. Traditionally, states have had the authority to regulate real estate practices within their borders. Now, the federal government seems to be stepping in, overriding state laws and regulations, which could lead to a one-size-fits-all approach that might not be suitable for every market.

Potential Consequences for Buyers and Sellers

For buyers, this could mean higher out-of-pocket expenses, as they might have to pay their agent’s commission directly, on top of other closing costs. This change could particularly affect first-time buyers or those with limited financial resources. Sellers might feel pressured to still offer commissions to make their properties attractive, but the lack of transparency could create confusion and miscommunication.

The Broader Economic Impact

Real estate has long been a cornerstone of wealth building in the United States. Making the buying process more complicated and expensive could hinder people from purchasing homes, leading to fewer homeowners and more renters. This shift could drive up rental prices and decrease housing affordability overall, impacting the broader economy and wealth distribution.

The Road Ahead

As these changes loom closer, the real estate industry must brace for a period of adjustment. The outcomes are still uncertain, and the industry will need to adapt quickly to navigate the new rules and regulations. The hope is that these changes, though challenging, will eventually lead to a more transparent and fair market for all participants.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, feel free to share. I will continue to keep you updated on these developments and provide insights into how they might impact your real estate ventures. Stay tuned for more videos and updates on real estate trends, my flips, rentals, and other projects.

Why do you think? Let me know in the comments below.

How Big Tech Rescued the Market in 2023!

0
How Big Tech Rescued the Market in 2023!

I was planning to finish my last two data updates for 2024, but decided to take a break and look at the seven stocks (Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla) which carried the market in 2023. While I will use the “Magnificent Seven” moniker attached by these companies by investors and the media, my preference would have been to call them the Seven Samurai. After all, like their namesakes in that legendary Kurosawa movie, who saved a village and its inhabitants from destruction, these seven stocks saved investors from having back-to-back disastrous years in the stock market.

The What?

    It is worth remembering that the Magnificent Seven (Mag Seven) had their beginnings in the FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google) stocks, in the middle of the last decade, which morphed into the FANGAM (with the addition of Apple and Microsoft to the group) and then to the Mag Seven, with the removal of Netflix from the mix, and the addition of Tesla and Nvidia to the group. There is clearly hindsight bias in play here, since bringing in the best performing stocks of a period into a group can always create groups that have supernormal historical returns. That bias notwithstanding, these seven companies have been extraordinary investments, not just in 2023, but over the last decade, and there are lessons that we can learn from looking at the past.

    First, let’s look at the performance of these seven stocks in 2023, when their collective market capitalization increased by a staggering $5.1 trillion during the course of the year. In a group of standout stocks, Nvidia and Meta were the best performers, with the former more than and the later almost tripling in value over the period. In terms of dollar value added, Microsoft and Apple each added a trillion dollars to their market capitalizations, during the year.

How Big Tech Rescued the Market in 2023!

To understand how much these stocks meant for overall market performance, recognize that these seven companies accounted for more than 50% of the increase in market capitalization of the the entire US equity market (which included 6658 listed companies in 2023). With them, US equities had price appreciation of 23.25% for the year, but without them, the year would have been an average one, with returns on 12.6%.

    While these seven stocks had an exceptional year in 2023, their outperformance stretches back for a much longer period. In the graph below, I look at the cumulated market capitalization of the Mag Seven stocks, and the market capitalization of all of the remaining US stocks from 2012 to 2023:


Over the eleven-year period, the cumulative market capitalization of the seven companies has risen from $1.1 trillion in 2012 to $12 trillion in 2023, rising from 7.97% of overall US market cap in 2012 to 24.51% of overall market cap at the end of 2023.  To put these numbers in perspective, the Mag Seven companies now have a market capitalization larger than that of all listed stocks in China, the second largest market in the world in market capitalization terms.

    Another way to see how much owning or not owning these stocks meant for investors, I estimated the cumulated value of $100 invested in December 2012 in a market-cap weighted index of US stocks at the end of 2023, first in US equities , and then in US equities, without the Mag Seven stocks:

It is striking that removing seven stocks from a portfolio of 6658 US stocks, investing between 2012 and 2023, creates a 17.97% shortfall in the end value. In effect, this would suggest that any portfolio that did not include any of these seven stocks during the last decade would have faced a very steep, perhaps even insurmountable, climb to beat the market. That may go a long way in explaining why both value and small cap premium have essentially disappeared over this period.

    In all of the breathless coverage of the Mag Seven (and FANG and FANGAM) before it, there seems to be the implicit belief that their market dominance is unprecedented, but it is  not. In fact, equity markets have almost always owed their success to their biggest winners, and Henrik Bessimbinder highlighted this reality by documenting that of the $47 trillion in increase in market capitalization between 1926 and 2019, five companies accounted for 22% of the increase in market value.  I will wager that at the end of the next decade, looking back, we will find that a few companies accounted for the bulk of the rise in market capitalization during the decade, and another acronym will be created. 

The Why?

    When stocks soar as much as the Mag Seven stocks have in recent years, they evoke two responses. One is obviously regret on the part of those who did not partake in the rise, or sold too soon. The other is skepticism, and a sense that a correction is overdue, leading to what I call knee-jerk contrarianism, where your argument that these stocks are over priced is that they have gone up too much in the past. With these stocks, in particular, that reaction would have been costly over much of the last decade, since  other than in 2022, these stocks have found ways to deliver positive surprises. In this section, we will look at the plausible explanations for the Mag Seven outperformance in 2023, starting with a correction/momentum story, where 2023 just represented a reversal of the losses in 2022, moving on to a profitability narrative, where the market performance of these companies can be related to superior profitability and operating performance, and concluding with an examination of whether the top-heavy performance (where a few large companies account for the bulk of market performance can explained by winner-take-all economics,

1. Correction/Momentum Story: One explanation for the Mag Seven’s market performance in 2023 is that they were coming off a catastrophic year in 2022, where they collectively lost $4.8 trillion in market cap, and that 2023 represented a correction back to a level only slightly above the value at the end of 2021. There is some truth to this statement, but to see whether it alone can explain the Mag Seven 2023 performance, I broke all US stocks into deciles, based upon 2022 stock price performance, with the bottom decile including the stocks that went down the most in 2022 and the top decile the stocks that went up the most in 2022, and looked at returns in 2023:

As you can see in the first comparison, the worst performing stocks in 2022 saw their market capitalizations increase by 35% in 2023, while the best performing stocks saw little change in market capitalization. Since all of the MAG 7 stocks fell into the bottom decile, I compared the performance of those stocks against the rest of the stocks in that decile, and th difference is start. While Mag Seven stocks saw their market capitalizations increase by 74%, the rest of the stocks in the bottom decile had only a 19% increase in market cap. In short, a portion of the Mag Seven stock performance in 2023  can be explained by a correction story, aided and abetted by strong momentum, but it is not the whole story.

2. Operating Performance/Profitability Narrative: While it is easy to attribute rising stock prices entirely to mood and momentum, the truth is that momentum has its roots in truth. Put differently, there are some good business reasons why the Mag Seven dominated markets in 2023:

  • Pricing power and Economic Resilience: Coming into 2023, market and the Mag Seven stocks were battered, down sharply in 2022, largely because of rising inflation and concerns about an economic downturn. There were real concerns about whether the big tech companies that had dominated markets for  the prior decade had pricing power and how well they would weather a recession. During the course of 2023, the Mag Seven set those fears to rest at least for the moment on both dimensions, increasing prices (with the exception of Tesla) on their products/services and delivering growth. In fact, if you are a Netflix subscriber or Amazon Prime member (and I would be surprised if any reader has neither, indicating their ubiquity), you saw prices increase on both services, and my guess is that you did not cancel your subscription/membership. With Alphabet and Meta, which make their money on online advertising, the rates for that advertising, measures in costs per click, rose through much of the year, and as an active Apple customer, I can guarantee that Apple has been passing through inflation into their prices all year.
  • Money Machines: The pricing power and product demand resilience exhibited by these companies have manifested as strong earnings for the companies. In fact, both Alphabet and Meta have laid off thousands of employees, without denting revenues, and their profits in 2023 reflect the cost savings: 

  • Safety Buffers: As interest rates, for both governments and corporates, has risen sharply over the last two years, it is prudent for investors to worry about companies with large debt burdens, since old debt on the books, at low rates, will have to get refinanced at higher rates. With the Mag Seven, those concerns are on the back burner, because these companies have debt loads so low that they are almost non-existent. In fact, six of the seven firms in the Mag Seven grouping have cash balances that exceed their debt loads, giving them negative net debt levels.

Put simply, there are good business reasons for why the seven companies in the Mag Seven have been elevated to superstar status. 

3. Winner take all economics: It is undeniable that as the global economy has shifted away from its manufacturing base in the last century to a technology base, it has unleashed more “winner-take-all (or most” dynamics in many industries. In advertising, which was a splintered business where even the biggest players (newspapers, broadcasting companies) commanded small market shares of the overall market, Alphabet and Meta have acquired dominant market shares of online advertising, driven by easy scaling and network benefits (where advertising flows to the platforms with the most customers). Over the last two decades, Amazon has set in motion similar dynamics in retail and Microsoft’s stranglehold on application and business software has been in existence even longer. In fact, it is the two newcomers into this group, Nvidia and Tesla, where questions remain about what the end game will look like, in terms of market share. Historically, neither the chip nor car businesses have been winner-take-all businesses, but investors are clearly pricing in the possibility that the changing economics of AI chips and electric cars could alter these businesses. 

This may seem like a cop out, but I think all three factors contributed to the success of the Mag Seven stocks in 2023. There was clearly a bounce back effect, as these firms recovered from a savage beatdown in 2022, but that bounce back occurred only because they were able to deliver strong profits and solid cash flows. And looking across the decade, I don’t think it is debatable that investors have not only bought into the dominant player story (coming from the winner-take-all economics), but have also anointed these seven companies as leaders in the race to dominance in each of their businesses.

The What Next?

   At the risk of stating the obvious, investing is always about the future, and a company’s past market history, no matter how glorious, has little or no effect on whether it is a good investment today. I have long argued that investors need to separate what they think about the quality of a company (great, good or awful) from its quality as an investment (cheap or expensive). In fact, investing is about finding mismatches between what you think of a company and what investors have already priced in:

I think that most of you will agree that the seven companies in the Mag Seven all qualify as very good to awesome, as businesses, and the last section provides backing, but the question that remains is whether our perceptions are shared by other investors, and already priced in.

    The tool that most investors use in making this assessment is pricing, and specifically, pricing multiples. In the table below, I compute pricing metrics for the Mag Seven, and compare them to that of the S&P 500:

Trailing 12-month operating metrics used

On every pricing metric, the Mag Seven stocks trade at a premium over the rest of the stocks in the S&P 500, and therein lies the weakest link in pricing. That premium can be justified by pointing to higher growth and margins at the Mag Seven stocks, but that is followed by a great deal of hand waving, since how much of a premium is up for grabs. Concocting growth-adjusted pricing multiples like PEG ratios is one solution, but the PEG ratio is an absolutely abysmal measuring of pricing, making assumptions about PE and growth that are untenable. The pricing game becomes even more unstable, when analysts replace current with forward earnings, with bias entering at every step.

    I know that some of you don’t buy into intrinsic valuation and note quite correctly that there are lots of assumptions that you have to make about growth, profitability and risk to arrive at a value and that no matter how hard you try, you will be wrong. I agree, but I remain a believer that intrinsic valuation is the only tool that I have for assessing whether the market is incorporating what I see in a company (awful to awesome). I have valued every company in the Mag Seven multiple times over the last decade, and based my judgments on investing in these companies on a comparison of my value estimates and price. With the operating numbers (revenues, earnings) coming in for the 2023 calendar year, I have updated my valuations, and here are my summary estimates:

Input Alphabet Amazon Apple Microsoft Meta Nvidia Tesla
Expected CAGR Revenue (next 5 years) 8.00% 12.00% 7.50% 15.00% 12.00% 32.20% 31.10%
Target Operating Margin 30.00% 14.00% 36.00% 45.00% 40.00% 40.00% 13.07%
Cost of Capital 8.84% 8.60% 8.64% 9.23% 8.83% 8.84% 9.17%
Value per share $138.14 $155.72 $176.79 $355.88 $445.10 $436.34 $183.75
Price per share $145.00 $169.15 $188.00 $405.49 $456.08 $680.00 $185.07
% Under or Over Valued 4.97% 8.62% 6.34% 13.94% 2.47% 55.84% 0.72%
Internal Rate of Return 8.41% 7.85% 7.89% 8.06% 8.53% 7.18% 9.16%
Full Valuation (Excel) Link Link Link Link Link Link Link

* NVidia and Tesla were valued as the sum of the valuations of their different businesses. The growth and margins reported are for the consolidated company.

First, while all of the companies in the Mag Seven have values that exceed their prices, Tesla and Meta look close to fairly valued, at current prices, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon are within striking distance of value, and Microsoft and Nvidia look over valued, with the latter especially so. It may be coincidence, but these are the two companies that have benefited most directly from the AI buzz, and my findings of over valuation may just reflect my lack of imagination on how big AI can get as a business. Just to be clear, though, I have built in substantial value from AI in my valuation of Nvidia, and given Microsoft significantly higher growth because of it, but it is plausible that I have not done enough.  If intrinsic value is not your cup of tea, you can look at the internal rates of return that you would earn on these companies, at current market prices, and with my expected cash flows. For perspective, the median cost of capital for a US company at the start of 2024 was 8.60%, and while only Tesla delivers an expected return higher than that number, the test, with the exception of Nvidia, are close.

    I own all seven of these companies, which may strike you as contradictory, but with the exception of Tesla that I bought just last week, my acquisitions of the other seven companies occurred well in the past, and reflected my judgments that they were undervalued (at the time). To the question of whether I should be selling, which would be consistent with my current assessment that these stocks are overvalued, I hesitate for three reasons: The first is that my assessments of value come with error, and for at least five of the companies, the price is well within my range of value.  The second is that I will have to pay a capital gains tax that will amount to close to 30%, with state taxes included. The third is psychological, since selling everything or nothing would leave me with regrets either way. Last summer, when I valued Nvidia in this post, I found it over valued at a price of $450, and sold half my holdings, choosing to hold the other half. Now that the price has hit $680, I plan to repeat that process, and sell half of my remaining holdings.

Conclusion

    As I noted at the start of this post, the benefit of hindsight allows us to pick the biggest winners in the market, bundle them together in a group and then argue that the market would be lost without them. That is true, but it is neither original nor unique to this market. The Mag Seven stocks have had a great run, but their pricing now reflects, in my view, the fact that they are great companies, with business models that deliver growth, at scale, with profitability. If you have never owned any of these companies, your portfolio will reflect that choice, and jumping on to the bandwagon now will not bring back lost gains. You should bide your time, since in my experience, even the very best companies deliver disappointments, and that markets over react to these disappointments, simply because expectations have been set so high. It is at those times that you will find that the price is right!

YouTube Video

Intrinsic Valuations

European Fintech 2024: Profits Rise, Unicorns Fade

0
European Fintech 2024: Profits Rise, Unicorns Fade

Fintech Report | Oct 16, 2024

European Fintech 2024: Profits Rise, Unicorns Fade

European Fintech 2024: Profits Rise, Unicorns Fade Image: State of European Fintech 2024 (Finch Capital)

Finch Capital’s 2024 report reveals a shift in Euopean fintech towards profitability, sustainable growth, and strategic M&A

European fintech in 2024 is about consistent financial gains over rapid expansion. Fintech Capital released the 9th edition of the “State of European Fintech 2024” (37 page PDF) lifting the veil on recent market developments and adjustments to investment thesis’ that are influencing this sector, such as the dominance of the UK, the role of AI and digital currencies, and the resurgence of digital banks.  This post looks to highlight the key trends and insights that matter to fintechs and investors.

1. Current State of Fintech in Europe (2024)

  • European fintech funding fell 25% in 2024 compared to last year.
  • Despite challenges there are signs of recovery especially in mid-sized mergers and acquisitions (M&A).
  • Companies are focusing more on more consistent profits instead of fast growth.
  • Sustainable business models are preferred now instead of chasing high valuations.
  • The UK leads the market, receiving 65% of the total fintech funding.
  • Other regions like the Nordics and the Netherlands are maintaining stability despite the overall downturn.

2. Funding and Market Insights

  • In the first half of 2024, total fintech investments reached €2.9 billion across 443 deals, down from €3.8 billion and 548 deals in the same period of 2023.
  • Investors are being more selective, prioritizing companies with clear paths to profitability.
  • Large late-stage investments have decreased while smaller more sustainable rounds are rising.
  • Higher interest rates have boosted challenger bank profits, and fintechs with deposits.
  • There’s early stage interest for crypto and digital assets (especially stablecoins) as they challenge traditional banking models although the market continues to be volatile.

See:  DLA Piper’s Tech Index 2024 – Highlights for Fintechs

  • Insurers have embraced AI to streamline operations, with over 80% utilizing AI in underwriting and risk assessment. This insurtech trend points to increased efficiency and reduced operational costs.
  • Deals in the mid-sized segment (under €500 million) have increased, making up 32% of the global market for such deals. This is similar to the U.S. in terms of volume but smaller for larger transactions.
  • Companies with higher profit margins (EBITDA) are valued more with some seeing valuations over 10 times their earnings.
  • The payments sector is seeing more mergers aimed at boosting efficiency. Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) is making a comeback, thanks to better risk management powered by AI.

3. Geographic Insights

  • The UK is attracting 65% of Europe’s fintech investment and has a strong M&A market driven by a focus on profitability.
  • Nordics and Netherlands remain steady despite economic challenges, with consistent funding and a focus on profitable, mature companies.

See:  How Fintechs Are Unlocking Value in Private Markets 2024

  • Government support in Ireland and Germany is nurturing tech startups, so possible growth rebound in 2025.
  • Poland has a vibrant early-stage investment scene but lacks the follow-up funding needed for companies to scale up in later stages (Series A and B).

Key Takeaways

  • The mid-sized M&A market in Europe offers stable returns, so an interesting time for Canadian venture funds to explore deals in the UK and Nordics?
  • Increasing use of AI in insurance and banking creates opportunities for Canadian fintechs with AI expertise to enter the European market.
  • The focus on sustainable business models and B2B solutions aligns well with a longer term investment approach. Germany and the Netherlands have strong government support, which may be attractive for Canadian investors.

European Fintech Outlook in 2024

European fintech in 2024 is all about stability and consistent growth. Finch Capital’s latest report shows that the focus has shifted from grow at all costs expansion to more sustainable models and profits.  For more perspective, check out Chris Skinner’s post here.

See:  Global Fintech Funding Sees a Boost in Q2 2024

Although the UK remains the leader (65% of investments), government support in the Nordics and Germany may create a good time to explore AI and mid market M&A in Europe for Canadian investors.


NCFA Jan 2018 resize - European Fintech 2024: Profits Rise, Unicorns FadeNCFA Jan 2018 resize - European Fintech 2024: Profits Rise, Unicorns FadeThe National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada’s Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

 

Can Using Robinhood Affect Your Credit Score?

0
Can Using Robinhood Affect Your Credit Score?

Credit report on a tableCan Using Robinhood Affect Your Credit Score?

Over the years, Robinhood has grown to provide much more than just buying and selling stocks or exchange-traded funds in the stock market or trading cryptocurrencies. They now offer retirement accounts, savings accounts, a Robinhood Cash Card, Robinhood Gold, etc. Rightfully so, you might be asking if using Robinhood can affect your credit score?

The simple answer is no! Using Robinhood and its services does not affect your credit score. There is only one exception: Using a margin account and failing to make margin payments.

Over 70% of Robinhood users have a credit score of 650 or lower in 2024 (source: zipdo.co). That number shows that Robinhood appeals to a wide range of users who traditionally have not participated in the market. It is up from 43% in 2021.
And that is a wonderful thing in and of itself! It is a first step to spark an interest in financial literacy for those who need it the most. It is financial literacy and learning how to manage and grow your hard-earned money that can make a real difference.

Can Your Investment In Robinhood Affect Your Credit Score?

Investments are generally not part of your credit report at all. Thus, Robinhood does not transfer any trading or investment activity to the credit bureau when you use the Robinhood app.

Your credit score will thus not be impacted by any trades you do on the Robinhood platform. This also applies to trading with cryptocurrencies in your Robinhood account.

The same is true for any retirement account like IRA.


How To Find Your Next Investment Opportunity?

Since you are an investor and since I have you here, are you interested in learning how to find your next investment opportunity? I got you covered with my detailed guide 20 Questions You Should Ask Before Investing In Stock.


Why Does Robinhood Need My Social Security Number?

Social Security Card and application form on a table.Social Security Card and application form on a table.

If Robinhood does not report to the credit bureaus, you might wonder why you must give away your SSN when creating a new account?

Robinhood needs your SSN for identity verification as well as when reporting to the IRS.

While it is true that your credit score isn’t affected by using Robinhood at all, they are required to report to the IRS for tax purposes. When you trade on Robinhood, you are generating a capital gain or a capital loss. Each year, Robinhood tracks all your activity and provides you with an IRS Form 1099. You then use that when tax season comes around to pay your taxes on your gains or claim your loss. There are many different Form 1099’s:

  • Form 1099-DIV – This form contains all your dividend payments.
  • Form 1099-INT – If you received interest payments, they are contained in this form.
  • Form 1099-R – If you have a retirement account with Robinhood, this form contains the information on that account.
  • Form 1099-B – Any sold stocks or other securities are contained in this form, regardless of whether the sale created capital losses or a gain.

Does The Robinhood Cash Card Affect Your Credit Score?

Robinhood offers you a Robinhood Cash Card, essentially a debit card. You can use that debit card to spend your available cash. You don’t necessarily need a Robinhood brokerage account to use this service. But if you do, you qualify for the Robinhood Round-Up program. Your transactions are rounded up to the next dollar, and the difference is transferred to that brokerage account.

The Robinhood Cash Card does not affect your personal credit score in any way. Robinhood does not send your data to the credit bureau.

Does A Margin Account Affect Your Credit?

Trader wondering if margin trading on Robinhood can affect his credit score. Trader wondering if margin trading on Robinhood can affect his credit score.

When you are using a margin account for margin trading, this generally shouldn’t affect your credit score directly. If your margin account balance falls below the value covered by the available cash and the stocks you own, you will need to cover the rest. That can happen for many reasons, including a reversal of a deposit from your bank account. If you fail to make the necessary payments, Robinhood could report the account as a delinquent account. In that case, your credit score can definitely be negatively impacted.

Robinhood will issue what’s called a Margin Call. This call is your opportunity to prevent such a situation, because that call essentially is a warning from Robinhood that it will sell your stocks to cover a negative balance. If that isn’t enough to bring your account to $0, Robinhood can report your account.

I do not recommend beginner investors using margin accounts on Robinhood. It is far less risky to use a cash account instead. And since you are learning, that should be all you need. Margin accounts allow you to trade with money that you don’t have. If you want to learn how you can disable your margin account on Robinhood, it is a good idea to read my article about that topic.

What Does Affect Your Credit Score?

Let’s take a look at what really affects your credit score, such as your FICO Score. The FICO score is where lenders look when they are reviewing mortgage applications.

It helps you to understand how that score is calculated if you want to build a good credit score. For the FICO Score, these are the areas that determine your score:

  • 35% Payment history – Have you paid your credit cards and auto loan payments on time? Your monthly payments history shows a lender how much risk he takes lending you money. It is the most important factor for your credit score.
  • 30% Amounts owed – How much of your total available credit line are you actively using? This category is why you should not max out your entire credit but instead stick to a 30-50% maximum credit utilization. If you are carrying credit card debt, this is the category that falls into.
  • 15% Length of credit history – Having a longer credit history simply provides more data to judge with. This category is the reason why you shouldn’t close out old accounts.
  • 10% New credit – Tracks when and how many new accounts you have opened. Opening many accounts in a short period of time can negatively impact your score.
  • 10% Credit mix – Do you have a mix of credit cards, installment loans, retail accounts, etc.?

Does Robinhood Pull Your Credit Score?

Robinhood generally isn’t interested in your credit score and will not perform a credit check. The only case when Robinhood might request a credit report is during the application process for a margin account.

Note that this might be different for other brokerage firms or financial institutions. Do your research before you sign up with any brokerage firm.

Final Thoughts – Can Using Robinhood Affect Your Credit Score?

As a Robinhood user, you can rest assured that your credit score is not impacted by the actions you take on the platform. None of the services offered have any impact on your score.

That said, it is important to know and understand how your credit score is calculated. It shows you what the things are that have the most impact on your score. Having a clean payment history and making sure to pay your credit month-to-month is the best way you can build a great credit score over time.

Robinhood will never make a hard inquiry of your credit report for anything on the platform. Hard inquiries can hurt your score, too. So it’s good to know that you are on the safe side.

Disclaimer: The information in this blog post should not be considered tax advice or a replacement thereof. They are solely provided for informational purposes and as educational resources. Please consult with a tax professional for any specific questions on your taxes.

The Market’s Compass Crypto Sweet Sixteen Study

0
The Market’s Compass Crypto Sweet Sixteen Study

The Market’s Compass Crypto Sweet Sixteen Study

Welcome to this week’s publication of the Market’s Compass Crypto Sweet Sixteen Study #155. The Study tracks the technical condition of sixteen of the larger market cap cryptocurrencies. Every week the Studies will highlight the technical changes of the 16 cryptocurrencies that I track as well as highlights on noteworthy moves in individual Cryptocurren…

Macy's is selling a top-rated 'lighter than air' $130 down-alternative comforter for just $20

0
Macy's is selling a top-rated 'lighter than air' 0 down-alternative comforter for just

TheStreet aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

As temperatures cool, it’s important to have a warm bedspread for those long winter nights. If you’re looking for aa high-quality comforter but don’t want to break the bank, we may have found the perfect blanket for you. It’s this gorgeous down-alternative comforter that’s on sale at Macy’s, but only for a limited time.

The Royal Luxe Down-Alternative Comforter is just $20 right now, discounted from the original price of $130. This is the perfect bedcover for those with allergies or anyone not fond of picking up loose goosefeathers that made their way out of a down comforter.

Royal Luxe Down-Alternative Comforter, $20 (was $130) at Macy’s

Macy's is selling a top-rated 'lighter than air' $130 down-alternative comforter for just $20

Courtesy of Macy's

Get it.

You won’t find a better bedspread for this price anywhere. The high-quality hypoallergenic fiberfill is soft and fluffy, and allows the comforter to keep its shape. Smooth microfiber fabric covers the surface of the blanket, making it both lightweight and highly breathable. You can machine wash or dry clean the comforter without worry, as it’s built to last. It’s available in three sizes and a dizzying 13 colorways, so you’re at no loss for options.

Related: Macy’s is selling an ‘awesome’ $140 travel backpack for just $34, and shoppers call it ‘hands down the best’

Macy’s shoppers were shocked by the value proposition of this “lighter than air” comforter, promising “You won’t be disappointed.” While over 1,800 customers gave this product a perfect rating, maybe the most impactful review stated “I have bought three, and I’m about to purchase my fourth comforter. This comforter is so soft and lightweight. It’s perfect for those cold winter nights as well as warm summer nights. It is my favorite comforter. I would recommend it to anyone looking for the perfect comforter.”

If perfection in a down-alternative comforter interests you, then get the Royal Luxe Down-Alternative Comforter while it’s on a limited time sale at Macy’s. But don’t wait too long, because the price probably won’t go down lower than this.