Software company Jamf made a stellar debut on the Nasdaq on Wednesday, with the stock soaring over 70% on its first day. Jamf CEO Dean Hager joins Yahoo Finance’s Zack Guzman to discuss.

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/30EMKGm

Brown Advisory recently released its Q2 2020 Investor Letter, a copy of which you can download here. The Large-Cap Growth Fund posted a return of 27.86% for the quarter, outperforming its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index which returned 27.84% in the same quarter. You should check out Brown Advisory’s top 5 stock picks for […]

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/3hkSJH4

(Bloomberg Opinion) — The U.S. just took a step beyond funding Covid-vaccine research toward actively securing shots. On Wednesday, the government signed an agreement with Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech securing 100 million doses of their vaccine candidate for $1.95 billion, payable if the inoculation succeeds in clinical trials and gets approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Vaccine pricing is always contentious, and even more so now in the midst of a global pandemic. Setting terms in advance is the right idea even though the government doesn't know and won't know for some time if the shot works. The alternative — waiting until a candidate proves effective and relying on weak U.S. pricing mechanisms to keep it affordable —  isn’t appealing.The value of a vaccine that protects against Covid would be enormous, from the health benefits it would accrue to individuals to the broader advantages of helping protect the community at large and allowing broader swaths of the economy to stay open safely.Advance pricing provides security to both the drugmaker and the government. Pfizer knows it has a market, and the government doesn't have to worry about fighting over price in a variety of possible futures where it has even less leverage. The government would be in a tough position absent this contract, for example, if Pfizer's vaccine proved to be the only successful option among the many now under development. The country could wind up bidding against others for limited supply with limited recourse for ensuring affordability. A fragmented health system and curbs on federal power make it hard for the U.S. to restrain prices.The contract also sets something of a price ceiling; Pfizer didn’t take pre-approval government funding, unlike several competitors. It will be hard for others to charge a higher price absent a major efficacy gap if some of their government-funded research risk has been paid off.  Because each person requires two shots, 100 million doses is enough vaccine for 50 million people. While that makes the deal look a bit less appealing, it still would only come out to a price of about $39 per person, within the range of what Medicare pays for flu vaccines and below what drugmakers charge for some new inoculations. As an added bonus, the shots will be offered for free to Americans. The contract allows for the U.S. to acquire up to 500 million additional doses. If the same price is available, which is admittedly uncertain at this time, getting enough vaccine to inoculate 60% of the U.S. population could cost something like an additional $6 billion. That's certainly not a pittance, but it's a rounding error set against the trillions of economic losses and stimulus packages forced by the pandemic. If the price jumps significantly after the delivery and many more doses are needed, it could be grounds for reassessing both the wisdom of the deal and Pfizer’s corporate citizen card. Pfizer vaccine's protectiveness is impossible to predict before a large-scale trial finishes. However, if it clears the FDA's published efficacy standards and gets authorized, it will dampen the threat of Covid-19 — no small feat. If it offers durable immunity and can cut transmission, it could have a substantial effect with fewer doses.  Should other vaccines work better or price differently — AstraZeneca PLC has pledged to provide 300 million doses "at cost" after the U.S. government gave it up to $1.2 billion in funding — Wednesday's deal could look like an overpay. Nevertheless, the contract is worth the gamble. Given the unknowns of “warp-speed” vaccine development, multiple attempts are crucial. There's a clear benefit to minimizing failure risk and maximizing supply with these types of contracts.There's also a potential long-term benefit to the strategy. Vaccine development, especially for novel infectious diseases, is an expensive and rarely profitable endeavor. Advance commitments help ensure the development of platforms and expertise that the world is likely to need again.The government’s execution hasn’t been perfect; an earlier bidding process could have resulted in better pricing than an ad-hoc model. But even belated preparation beats last-minute improvisation. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Max Nisen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, pharma and health care. He previously wrote about management and corporate strategy for Quartz and Business Insider.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/2CCsP2U

Galileo Russell, Hyperchange Founder & CEO joins the On the Move panel to discuss Tesla stock and how it’s moving in the markets.

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/32Jdkkk

United Airlines Holdings, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:UAL) price-to-earnings (or "P/E") ratio of 8.3x might make it look like a…

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/2ONDEl7

Yahoo Finance’s Adam Shapiro breaks down the stocks to watch Wednesday.

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/2OKyzKf

Yahoo Finance’s Alexis Christoforous , Brian Sozzi and Ines Ferre break down what investors should keep a lookout for in Tesla’s second quarter earnings report.

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/32JPPru

(Bloomberg Opinion) — Add the lackluster performance of defense stocks to the long list of puzzling inequities in the pandemic stock market. A custom basket of top U.S. defense contractors within the S&P 500 Index is down about 20% for the year, even as the broader benchmark pushed into the green this week. Even excluding Boeing Co., whose commercial aerospace travails are more of a focus for investors, the group is still down about 16%. That’s significantly worse than the performance for S&P 500 railroads, restaurants, foot-wear makers and soft-drink companies, all of which are more immediately exposed to the volatility of economic reopenings and behavioral shifts than makers of missiles, fighter jets and radar systems that rely on government contracts sealed years earlier. Lockheed Martin Corp., which reported second-quarter earnings on Tuesday, displayed the sector's resilience amid the pandemic upheaval. Earnings, sales and cash flow were all higher than the year-earlier period, with cash balances helped in part by accelerated progress payments from the Department of Defense that were then passed on to suppliers. At a time when most companies are hesitant to make any concrete predictions about the immediate future, Lockheed touted a record $150.3 billion backlog and actually raised its guidance on all fronts. And yet even after a respectable 2.6% gain on Tuesday's earnings report, Lockheed still trades at roughly 14 times its estimated earnings in 2021. The valuation discount to the broader S&P 500 is just shy of the widest spread in at least five years.Fellow defense contractors Raytheon Technologies Corp., General Dynamics Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. are scheduled to report results next week, as is Boeing.The reason for the defense sector’s underperformance appears multi-fold. For one, defense contractors don’t really fit with the technology-focused bent of the recent upswing in stocks and because their business didn’t crash and burn as much as many others did, there’s less room for that mythical, V-shaped recovery many still hope will occur.  Second, as Congress debates injecting at least $1 trillion more in stimulus funds into the pandemic-stricken economy, the deficit is set to explode and the government will likely have to make up some of that spending elsewhere. The worry is that the U.S.’s gargantuan defense budget will be a prime target, particularly if former Vice President Joe Biden succeeds in unseating President Donald Trump in this year's presidential election.Any hit to defense spending isn’t likely to be as bad as what’s suggested by current valuations, though. While the deficit may put a cap on defense spending growth, the volatile geopolitical situation likely creates a floor. Historically, there's a weak correlation between deficit-related economic variables — whether that’s business cycles or changes in tax policy — and defense spending, Melius Research analyst Carter Copeland noted on a call earlier this month. Material shifts in budgets tend to be more a reflection of changes in national-security posture, he said, such as President Barack Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq or President Ronald Reagan’s more aggressive stance toward Russia during the early part of his administration. And there’s not much room for that kind of rethink right now, regardless of who gets elected. Tensions are still running hot with the likes of Iran and North Korea, while Russia and China have taken increasingly aggressive postures. Copeland pointed to a Gallup poll published in March that found half of Americans view the current level of defense spending as “about right,” the highest percentage in more than 50 years. Asked on Lockheed’s earnings call Tuesday if the defense budget would decline, new CEO Jim Taiclet declined to “speculate on the behavior of people that are going to make independent decisions that we can’t predict,” but said the company’s divisions are planning for a wide range of scenarios to be prepared for any outcome. He made a point of citing a downturn as a potential opportunity for Lockheed to take advantage of depressed asset prices through strategic M&A. At the end of the day, “sentiment is fickle, while fundamentals are facts,” Vertical Research Partners analyst Rob Stallard wrote in a report last month. “While we think defense companies can’t do much about the slowing Department of Defense budget outlook, they are still growing and have good visibility, good cash flow and good valuations.” What more do you want? This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Brooke Sutherland is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering deals and industrial companies. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo Finance https://ift.tt/2OKmFA3