Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

On June 02, 2026, we present a detailed DCF analysis for Deere & Co DE , a company that has shown a year-to-date price increase of 16.9% and a 1-year price increase of 8.6%. Despite recent fluctuations, the stock remains a topic of interest for investors.

DCF Earnings-based intrinsic value of $566.57 vs current price of $542.43 (margin of safety: 1.7%) DCF FCF-based intrinsic value of $160.30 vs current price (second opinion indicating significant overvaluation) GF Score™ of 91/100, indicating high reliability of the DCF inputs What Is DE Worth? DCF Earnings-Based Model The DCF earnings-based model for Deere & Co utilizes a two-stage approach to estimate its intrinsic value. The first stage considers a high growth phase lasting 10 years, where we expect earnings per share (EPS) to grow at a rate of 20.4% annually. The second stage reflects a terminal growth phase where growth slows to 4% for the subsequent 10 years. The discount rate applied to both stages is 11%, derived from the risk-free rate and equity risk premium.

Parameter Value Current EPS (TTM, excl. non-recurring) $17.65 10-Year Growth Rate 20.4% 10-Year Treasury Rate 4.43% Discount Rate (ceil(Treasury) + 6%) 11% Terminal Growth Rate 4% The calculation summary for the two-stage model is as follows:

Stage Description Value Growth Stage (Years 1-10) EPS growing at 20.4%, discounted at 11% $283.59 Terminal Stage (Years 11-20) 4% terminal growth, discounted at 11% $282.98 Intrinsic Value Growth + Terminal $566.57 When comparing the current price of $542.43 to the intrinsic value of $551.56, we find that Deere & Co is fairly valued with a margin of safety of 1.7%. It is important to note that GuruFocus uses EPS excluding non-recurring items, as research indicates that stock prices correlate more closely with earnings than with free cash flow.

For further details, visit the DE DCF Calculator.

What Does the Free Cash Flow DCF Say? In contrast to the earnings-based model, the free cash flow (FCF) DCF model yields an intrinsic value of $160.30. This significant disparity when compared to the earnings-based valuation suggests that the FCF model indicates that Deere & Co is significantly overvalued, with a margin of safety of -238.4%. This divergence highlights the importance of considering multiple valuation perspectives when assessing a stock's worth.

How Does GF Value™ Compare to the DCF Models? The GF Value™ for Deere & Co is calculated at $379.87, providing a third perspective on the company's valuation. GF Value™ is GuruFocus' proprietary measure, derived from historical trading multiples, past business growth, and future performance estimates. In this case, all three models present differing views on valuation, with the earnings-based model suggesting fair value, the FCF model indicating significant overvaluation, and the GF Value™ suggesting the stock is overvalued. For more information, visit the GF Value™ page.

What Does DE's GF Score™ Tell Us? The GF Score™ for Deere & Co is an impressive 91/100, indicating strong potential for long-term returns based on five key aspects: Financial Strength, Profitability, Growth, Valuation, and Momentum. Stocks with higher GF Score™ values have historically generated higher long-term returns, making this score a valuable indicator for investors.

Metric Rating GF Score™ 91/100 Financial Strength 4/10 Profitability 9/10 Growth 10/10 Valuation 5/10 Momentum 10/10 With a predictability rank of 3/5 stars, this indicates that the DCF model is reasonably reliable for Deere & Co. For more insights, visit the DE stock page.

Key Assumptions and Limitations It is crucial to recognize that DCF models are highly sensitive to growth rate and discount rate assumptions. Additionally, stocks with low predictability ratings tend to produce less reliable DCF estimates. The terminal growth rate of 4% is a simplifying assumption that may not reflect actual future conditions.

What This Means for Investors In synthesizing the findings from the DCF earnings-based model, the DCF FCF model, and the GF Value™, we conclude that Deere & Co is currently fairly valued according to the earnings-based model, significantly overvalued according to the FCF model, and overvalued based on the GF Value™. This mixed consensus suggests a cautious approach for investors considering this stock.

For the full DCF analysis, visit the DE DCF Calculator. You can also explore the GF Value™ page, or use the GuruFocus Stock Screener to find undervalued predictable companies.

Frequently Asked Questions What is DE's intrinsic value based on DCF?

earnings-based $551.56, FCF-based $160.30

Is DE overvalued or undervalued?

Based on the DCF earnings model, DE is fairly valued; however, the FCF model indicates it is significantly overvalued, and GF Value™ suggests it is overvalued as well.

How reliable is the DCF model for DE?

With a predictability rank of 3/5 stars, the DCF model is reasonably reliable for DE.

This stock alert was generated using automated technology and GuruFocus financial data to provide readers with timely and accurate market reporting. This content was reviewed by GuruFocus editorial team prior to publication. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected].

Deere (DE - Free Report) is one of the stocks most watched by Zacks.com visitors lately. So, it might be a good idea to review some of the factors that might affect the near-term performance of the stock.

Over the past month, shares of this agricultural equipment manufacturer have returned -2%, compared to the Zacks S&P 500 composite's no change. During this period, the Zacks Manufacturing - Farm Equipment industry, which Deere falls in, has remained unchanged. The key question now is: What could be the stock's future direction?

While media releases or rumors about a substantial change in a company's business prospects usually make its stock 'trending' and lead to an immediate price change, there are always some fundamental facts that eventually dominate the buy-and-hold decision-making.

Revisions to Earnings EstimatesRather than focusing on anything else, we at Zacks prioritize evaluating the change in a company's earnings projection. This is because we believe the fair value for its stock is determined by the present value of its future stream of earnings.

We essentially look at how sell-side analysts covering the stock are revising their earnings estimates to reflect the impact of the latest business trends. And if earnings estimates go up for a company, the fair value for its stock goes up. A higher fair value than the current market price drives investors' interest in buying the stock, leading to its price moving higher. This is why empirical research shows a strong correlation between trends in earnings estimate revisions and near-term stock price movements.

For the current quarter, Deere is expected to post earnings of $4.82 per share, indicating a change of +1.5% from the year-ago quarter. The Zacks Consensus Estimate has changed -6% over the last 30 days.

For the current fiscal year, the consensus earnings estimate of $18.1 points to a change of -2.2% from the prior year. Over the last 30 days, this estimate has changed +0.5%.

For the next fiscal year, the consensus earnings estimate of $22.83 indicates a change of +26.1% from what Deere is expected to report a year ago. Over the past month, the estimate has changed -0.8%.

Having a strong externally audited track record, our proprietary stock rating tool, the Zacks Rank, offers a more conclusive picture of a stock's price direction in the near term, since it effectively harnesses the power of earnings estimate revisions. Due to the size of the recent change in the consensus estimate, along with three other factors related to earnings estimates, Deere is rated Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).

The chart below shows the evolution of the company's forward 12-month consensus EPS estimate:

12 Month EPS

Revenue Growth ForecastEven though a company's earnings growth is arguably the best indicator of its financial health, nothing much happens if it cannot raise its revenues. It's almost impossible for a company to grow its earnings without growing its revenue for long periods. Therefore, knowing a company's potential revenue growth is crucial.

In the case of Deere, the consensus sales estimate of $10.78 billion for the current quarter points to a year-over-year change of +4.1%. The $41.13 billion and $44.69 billion estimates for the current and next fiscal years indicate changes of +5.7% and +8.7%, respectively.

Last Reported Results and Surprise HistoryDeere reported revenues of $11.78 billion in the last reported quarter, representing a year-over-year change of +5.4%. EPS of $6.55 for the same period compares with $6.64 a year ago.

Compared to the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $11.44 billion, the reported revenues represent a surprise of +2.98%. The EPS surprise was +12.74%.

Over the last four quarters, Deere surpassed consensus EPS estimates three times. The company topped consensus revenue estimates each time over this period.

ValuationWithout considering a stock's valuation, no investment decision can be efficient. In predicting a stock's future price performance, it's crucial to determine whether its current price correctly reflects the intrinsic value of the underlying business and the company's growth prospects.

While comparing the current values of a company's valuation multiples, such as price-to-earnings (P/E), price-to-sales (P/S), and price-to-cash flow (P/CF), with its own historical values helps determine whether its stock is fairly valued, overvalued, or undervalued, comparing the company relative to its peers on these parameters gives a good sense of the reasonability of the stock's price.

As part of the Zacks Style Scores system, the Zacks Value Style Score (which evaluates both traditional and unconventional valuation metrics) organizes stocks into five groups ranging from A to F (A is better than B; B is better than C; and so on), making it helpful in identifying whether a stock is overvalued, rightly valued, or temporarily undervalued.

Deere is graded D on this front, indicating that it is trading at a premium to its peers. Click here to see the values of some of the valuation metrics that have driven this grade.

ConclusionThe facts discussed here and much other information on Zacks.com might help determine whether or not it's worthwhile paying attention to the market buzz about Deere. However, its Zacks Rank #3 does suggest that it may perform in line with the broader market in the near term.

The market sold off Oracle Corporation's $70 billion CapEx guide for FY27 (plus $20B-$25B of prepayments), but my real concern is whether Oracle can turn that spend into revenue on time. I can live with weak free cash flow in a buildout, but I need clean signs that ORCL's prepayments, shipments, and revenue timing are holding together. I see increasing risks of broader datacenter delays in the U.S. If this risk affects Oracle (a big if), it may delay its RPO conversion targets.

"It's not the print, it's the spending that continues to concern investors," says Daniel Newman of Futurum when discussing Oracle's (ORCL) earnings. The cloud company posted an earnings beat and massive backlog totaling more than $630 billion but is doing so through raising more debt funding.

By PYMNTS  |  June 11, 2026

 | 

Oracle has discovered a vulnerability in some of its PeopleSoft software that is remotely exploitable without authentication and can result in remote code execution if exploited by hackers, the company said in a Wednesday (June 10) security alert.

The vulnerability (CVE-2026-35273) is in Oracle PeopleSoft PeopleTools and may affect Oracle PeopleSoft Enterprise Applications, according to the security alert.

“We consider implementation of the recommended mitigations to be a high-priority risk reduction measure and strongly recommend immediate action to address the identified exposure,” the security alert said. “Oracle always recommends that customers remain on actively-supported versions and apply all Critical Patch Updates, Critical Security Patch Updates and Security Alerts without delay.”

Mandiant and Google Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) addressed the exploit in a Thursday (June 11) blog post, saying they identified an active compromise and extortion campaign targeting the Oracle PeopleSoft application infrastructure.

The companies said they notified more than 100 global organizations that could be vulnerable to this exploit and found that most were in the United States and 68% were within the higher education sector.

They also said they found data leaks of stolen organization data published on a hacking group’s site on Tuesday (June 9).

Advertisement: Scroll to Continue

Mandiant and GTIG also shared in their blog post a post from the hacking group’s website in which the group claimed to have stolen billing and payment records, credit card and payment details, student finance data and other sensitive data.

TechCrunch reported Thursday that the hacking group claimed to have breached more than 100 organizations that use PeopleSoft servers.

These reports follow several other recent data breaches and other cyberattacks.

Toymaker Hasbro reported in April that it had uncovered a breach, had taken some of its systems offline, and believed it could take weeks to resolve the cyberattack.

It was reported in February that 12.4 million records of customer data were stolen from car shopping site CarGurus and posted by a hacking group.

In October 2025, it was reported that a hacking group claimed to have stolen 1 billion records from cloud databases hosted by Salesforce and was attempting to extort Salesforce and the companies to which that data belonged.

28.02K Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Shares of Oracle (NYSE:ORCL | ORCL Price Prediction) took a major hit on Thursday, with shares stumbling close to 9% after reporting reasonable sales growth. Undoubtedly, the big headlines weren’t the quarterly results themselves, but news that the firm is going to spend even more on AI infrastructure.

Undoubtedly, hefty spending has been a big weight on the firm’s shoulders. And, to the distaste of most investors, it’s about to become that much heavier, with the firm disclosing plans to raise another $40 billion from debt and equity issuance in 2027. Indeed, there’s already a lot of debt sitting on the balance sheet. Combined with the shareholder dilution worries to ponder, it certainly feels like selling now and asking questions later is the move.

Oppenheimer’s new target entails a 50% gain after Thursday’s dip Even after a tough number, Oppenheimer’s reiteration of its outperform rating, I think, has to be encouraging at a time like this. It’s been a brutal pivot, but it’s one that could ultimately pay off. At the time of this writing, Oppenheimer sports a $275.00 price target on Oracle shares.

That represents a huge 50% gain from Thursday’s closing price. And the real opportunity could lie in how much more selling there will be in the days to follow. In any case, I think Oppenheimer analyst Timothy Horan is right to stay upbeat about the company as its fundamentals continue to improve.

OCI is a serious player in AI infrastructure, and the growth (up 93% year over year) from the latest quarter was difficult to look past. In time, OCI is going to contribute a growing slice of the pie, and as AI demand stays off the charts, there’s every reason to stay the course with Oracle, even as the stakes get higher.

Apart from massive RPO numbers and evidence of improved operating efficiencies, the company seems to be generating explosive RPOs relative to the CapEx it’s spent so far. Of course, there’s a big difference between RPOs and actual sales. But given the caliber of big-name customers that look good for the money, and the unprecedented “Mad Max” turn in the AI infrastructure boom, I certainly wouldn’t discount the RPO growth as much as the market is.

Oracle’s going to be investing more in AI — and that’s a good thing In my view, the $40 billion fundraising plan really shouldn’t be anything all that surprising when you consider how invested the company is in getting a front-row seat to that AI revolution. The company has already swam to great lengths to give its new growth engine (and its future) in Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) its all.

And when you consider that some of the other hyperscalers, including the likes of Alphabet‘s (NASDAQ:GOOG) Google, are already looking to raise more capital to fund AI, I think it’s actually a positive that Oracle is committing more, even though it’s going to make some investors even more woozy. At the end of the day, Oracle has been a riskier play on the rise of next-generation AI infrastructure.

And, in my humble opinion, it shouldn’t look to pull punches, especially when you consider the soaring backlog and its position to be a heftier provider of AI compute as the market shifts gears from semiconductors and AI chips to the token providers. That encompasses more than just AI chips, including energy, which are the real chokepoints of the boom.

The bottom line With shares on the descent again, wiping out the big gains posted back in late May, I do think there’s an opportunity to get more AI aggression for a lower price of admission. It’s either you’re all aboard the AI pivot or you’re not. And after the post-earnings sell-off, I do think a lot of those who were on the fence have now made up their minds.

As shares move lower and the implied upside on Oppenheimer’s $275.00 price target swells further, I think it might be time to go against the grain with the hyper-volatile name while it’s still misunderstood. Oppnehimer’s Timothy Horan reaffirmed Oracle because its quarter was solid and the fundamentals are improving. He’s right on the money.

As for the spending to come, I’d say that’s a good thing, given the trajectory of RPOs, and that’s regardless of how most other investors are taking it.

48.37K Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

I am reiterating a “buy” rating on Oracle (ORCL) despite a 10% post-earnings selloff, as its backlog surged 363% YoY to $638B, surpassing all hyperscalers. FY27 capex is projected at $90-95B, requiring $40B in new debt and equity, diluting shareholders on top of growing leverage. But, this is necessary investment to accelerate backlog conversion. OCI revenue is accelerating, with FY27 guidance for 120% growth to $34B and total cloud revenue expected to expand 58–64% YoY in Q1, demonstrating no slowdown in sight.

Key Takeaways Oracle stock fell 8-105 after Q4 despite record $19.2B revenue and strong cloud growth.ORCL's $55.7B capex and $23.7B negative free cash flow raised investor concerns.Oracle plans $40B financing, while margins face pressure from data center ramp timing. Oracle (ORCL - Free Report) shares took a sharp hit on June 11, 2026, tumbling between 8% and 10% in a single session following the release of fourth-quarter fiscal 2026 results the previous evening. Shares of Oracle have lost 2.3% in the past six-month period.

The stock, which closed at approximately $201 before the earnings announcement, slid toward the $180-$184 range as investors reacted negatively to the company's aggressive capital spending plans and a large equity fundraise that raised dilution concerns. The pullback dragged the stock further from its 52-week high of $345.72, though it remains above its 52-week low of $134.57. The selloff, coming despite a broad-based earnings beat, underscores a market that is increasingly scrutinizing the cost of Oracle's AI ambitions rather than celebrating the revenue momentum.

ORCL’s 6-Month Performance
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

ORCL’s Q4 Results: A Beat With CaveatsOracle posted record fourth-quarter total revenues of $19.2 billion, up 21% in USD, driven by record cloud revenues of $9.9 billion, up 47%. Within the cloud, infrastructure revenues surged 93% to $5.8 billion, while cloud applications grew 10% to $4.1 billion. GAAP EPS rose 21% to $1.45, and non-GAAP EPS climbed 24% to $2.11. For the full fiscal year, total revenues reached a record $67.4 billion, up 17%, with cloud revenues rising 39% to $34.0 billion. On the AI front, Oracle disclosed that the Oracle Multicloud AI Database grew 404% in the fiscal fourth quarter, making it the company's fastest-growing business ever.

Beyond revenues, Oracle reported a significant AI engagement milestone. Remaining Performance Obligations ended the quarter at $638 billion, up 363% year over year and $85 billion sequentially from the end of the fiscal third quarter. On the product side, Oracle's June 2026 OCI AI update highlighted new capabilities, including the addition of Cohere Rerank 4 and expanded multimodal support, as well as expanded OCI Enterprise AI availability in the UAE Central (Abu Dhabi) region, signaling continued geographic buildout of its cloud infrastructure.

Capex Overshoot and Negative Free Cash Flow Are Real HeadwindsThe headline numbers, however, were overshadowed by a financial structure that alarmed investors. Oracle reported $23.7 billion in negative free cash flow for fiscal 2026, with capital expenditures jumping 162% to $55.7 billion — exceeding the company's own $50 billion projection for the year. In the fiscal fourth quarter alone, the company spent $15.9 billion on capital expenditures. Adding to investor unease, Oracle announced plans to raise approximately $40 billion through a combination of debt and equity financing in fiscal 2027, including a previously announced $20 billion at-the-market equity issuance. The prospect of meaningful share dilution, layered on top of already deeply negative free cash flow, is a near-term overhang that investors cannot easily dismiss.

Compounding the concern, management flagged during the earnings call that gross margins will step down due to the timing for the ramp-up of data center projects into their full revenue contribution. This signals that profitability pressure will linger into fiscal 2027 before the contracted backlog begins converting meaningfully into earnings.

Forward Guidance: Growth Intact Amid Execution RiskOracle's guidance for the first quarter of fiscal 2027 calls for total revenue growth of 27-29% and total cloud revenue growth of 57-63% in constant currency, with non-GAAP EPS of $1.72-$1.76. For the full fiscal year, Oracle confirmed prior revenue guidance of $90 billion and raised non-GAAP EPS guidance to $8.05, representing 18% growth. The $90 billion revenue target implies a significant step-up from the $67.4 billion reported in fiscal 2026 and meeting it will require flawless execution across data center ramp-ups, GPU procurement and customer delivery timelines. Oracle also confirmed plans to bring almost one gigawatt of computing power online in the current quarter — roughly equivalent to the total for all of fiscal 2026.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for ORCL's fiscal 2027 earnings is pegged at $8 per share, marking an upward revision of 0.1% over the past 30 days. The earnings figure suggests 0.83% decline over the figure reported in fiscal 2026.

The $638 billion RPO is a genuine long-term catalyst. However, a significant portion of it involves large-scale AI contracts where customers prepaid for GPU purchases or supplied their own GPUs to Oracle, which alters the traditional economics of how that backlog translates into free cash flow and earnings per share. Investors eyeing a near-term re-rating will need to wait for evidence that the backlog converts cleanly.

Valuation and Competitive LandscapeFrom a valuation standpoint, ORCL stock is currently trading at a premium with a trailing 12-month Price/Earnings ratio of 31.05x, which is higher than the Zacks Computer - Software industry average of 24.37x. Oracle carries a Value Score of D.

ORCL’s Premium Valuation Raises Concern
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Against this backdrop, Oracle faces intensifying competition from three hyperscalers who are simultaneously its cloud rivals and, in some cases, its infrastructure partners. Amazon (AMZN - Free Report) is aggressively pursuing AI vertical integration through AWS, while Microsoft (MSFT - Free Report) reported strong Azure momentum and confirmed capital expenditures of approximately $190 billion for 2026. Alphabet (GOOGL - Free Report) -owned Google Cloud is pushing a full-stack AI approach built on custom TPUs, with Gemini Enterprise recording 40% quarter-over-quarter growth in paid monthly active users and processing more than 16 billion tokens per minute via direct API use. Amazon has expanded Bedrock with Titan Ultra 2, featuring a two-million-token context window, while Microsoft launched Azure Confidential AI with hardware-backed enclaves, reinforcing its position in regulated industries like finance and healthcare. Google Cloud's growing TPU-as-a-service offering, Amazon's recent $50 billion OpenAI commitment that expands AW' AI model access through Bedrock, and Microsoft Azure's deeply embedded Copilot ecosystem collectively represent formidable competition that could challenge Oracle's ability to win new workloads beyond its existing customer base.

ConclusionOracle's record fourth-quarter results confirm that the AI infrastructure opportunity is real and the demand is substantial. However, with deeply negative free cash flow, rising equity dilution, compressing near-term margins and an expensive valuation relative to peers, ORCL warrants a Hold stance for now. Investors should monitor how efficiently Oracle converts its record $638 billion backlog into sustainable earnings before adding exposure. ORCL stock currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Every year in late June, the largest U.S. banks get the results of their stress tests, which are designed by the Federal Reserve to determine the capital strength of a bank in the event of a recession or some other economic shock or stress.

The tests were put in place via the Dodd-Frank bill following the 2007-2009 financial crisis to make sure that banks could navigate a similar economic meltdown.

The results of the tests determine how much of a capital buffer that banks should build into their finances -- called the stress capital buffer.

Image source: Getty Images.

To summarize, Dodd-Frank established a minimum amount of capital that large banks must have through the Common Equity Tier 1, or CET1, ratio. If the bank loses a lot of capital during the annual hypothetical stress tests, then the Fed imposes a higher stress capital buffer on top of the minimum requirements so that it can better handle such a scenario. If the bank performed well and handled the stress test, it would get a lower stress capital buffer add-on.

Investors should know that this is a key time for bank stocks, as the stress tests could provide a boost for the stock, or detract from it. This year is particularly interesting for a few reasons.

Bank stocks surged last year on strong stress test results Last year the major banks passed the stress test with flying colors, with the stress capital buffers of the largest banks decreasing significantly from 2024. It may have had something to do with a stress test that was considered easier and less rigorous than those in the past.

Of the biggest banks, Bank of America (BAC +1.46%), JPMorgan Chase (JPM +2.28%), and Wells Fargo (WFC +1.61%) all saw their buffers drop to the bare minimum of 2.5%. Wells Fargo saw the biggest drop, from 3.70%, while JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America fell from 3.30% and 3.20%, respectively. Morgan Stanley (MS +0.65%), Goldman Sachs (GS +2.62%), and Citigroup (C +1.27%) also saw declines, but not to the bare minimum.

This brought down the CET1 ratios for the banks, which had immediate benefits. One, it shows that the bank is healthy; two, it means that less needs to be locked up as an equity cushion so that money could be allocated elsewhere; and three, it allows banks to return more capital to shareholders via dividend increases or buybacks.

Today's Change

(

2.28

%) $

7.16

Current Price

$

320.65

Last year, all of the banks boosted their dividends in the third quarter of 2025, except JPMorgan Chase, which did it in Q4. Also, several large banks did share buybacks following the stress tests. These are favorable events for investors.

The banks generally saw their stock prices jump following the stress tests, and they finished the year strong. The six largest banks posted stock price returns of more than 25% in 2025, with Citigroup leading the way at 66%.

What to expect this year This year, the test is considered tougher than last year's, meaning the Fed concocted a more adverse scenario in which unemployment spikes to 10%.

However, the Fed voted back in February to freeze the buffers for 2026, so the numbers won't change, no matter how badly a bank fails or how fantastically it succeeds. The reason? The Fed is taking public feedback on new calculations models for the tests. Among the potential changes is a rolling two-year average to smooth out the potential for volatility. The freeze is in place until 2027 as these changes to the model are finalized.

So, in a way, this is good because the reduced buffers from last year remain in place, meaning the banks won't have to raise their capital cushions. That, in turn, frees up funding to reward shareholders with dividend increases. Since 2020, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley have boosted their dividends in the third quarter, while Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase have done so since 2022. 

However, if the stress test results aren't great for a bank, those results will be known when the Fed releases them by June 30. And even if the buffers don't change, investors will know that the bank is at a higher risk than it was the previous year. That could potentially put a damper on dividends and buybacks.

Last year, the results were released on Friday, June 27. This year, look for them around June 25 or 26.

One difference is that most large bank stocks are down year to date this year and trading at lower valuations compared to last year. If stress test results are strong, the lower valuations could be an additional catalyst for these stocks.

For many Americans, buying a home is the largest financial commitment they will ever make. But with the annual homebuying season kicking into full gear, a new Wells Fargo quiz reveals a troubling knowledge gap: most would-be buyers don’t understand some basic facts about purchasing a home.

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260603271682/en/

Developed by Wells Fargo and conducted nationwide by Ipsos, the Ipsos survey tested more than 2,000 aspiring first-time homebuyers on fundamental mortgage topics including budgeting, interest rates, and the homebuying process. The findings reveal a stark disconnect: almost seven in 10 participants said they felt knowledgeable about buying a home—but out of the twelve questions asked on the quiz, 75% of respondents answered only four questions, or fewer, correctly.

In fact, of the 2,012 respondents who identified as prospective homeowners, only one person answered all the questions correctly. This knowledge gap could have real-life financial consequences as small misunderstandings can lead to higher monthly payments, delayed purchases, or missed opportunities.

“Homebuying isn’t just a milestone—it’s a long‑term financial commitment with implications that can last decades,” said Serhat Oztop, head of Home Lending, Wells Fargo. “When buyers overestimate what they know, they’re more likely to make decisions that cost them time, money, or both. This quiz highlights just how important clear, trusted guidance is before moving forward with this financial decision.”

Key Knowledge Gaps With Real‑World Impact

The quiz revealed critical gaps in basic homebuying knowledge:

Just 25% of respondents knew when to apply for a mortgage.

Nearly 90% of respondents didn’t understand what’s involved in closing costs (the largest blind spot in the quiz).

88% of respondents were not clear on the first steps to take when beginning the homebuying process.

80% of respondents would make a critical mistake when submitting a competitive offer on a home, such as sharing a pre-approval letter for the maximum approval amount with a seller.

Where Buyers Are Getting Information and What That Means

When asked where they turn for homebuying guidance, most participants said they rely primarily on friends and family, real estate websites, online listings, and search engines, while only a third of respondents chose lenders or financial professionals.

Younger prospective buyers were especially likely to cite social media, influencers, and AI tools, while older participants leaned more on banks, lenders, and financial advisors. The findings raise questions about the quality, consistency, and completeness of the information many potential buyers are using to guide critical homebuying decisions.

A Wake‑Up Call, Not a Deterrent

Despite the knowledge gaps, the quiz experience itself appeared to resonate. Nearly two‑thirds of participants said it left them feeling motivated, encouraged, or more aware of what they still need to learn.

For many, the results served as a reality check—underscoring both the complexity of the homebuying process and the value of accessible, easy‑to‑understand education before making one of life’s biggest financial decisions.

“This quiz wasn’t about passing or failing,” added Oztop. “It was about helping people see where they might be vulnerable—and giving them the confidence that comes from being truly prepared.”

About the 2026 Wells Fargo Home Lending Quiz

The Wells Fargo Home Lending Quiz was conducted online by Ipsos from March 5–13, 2026, among 2,012 U.S. adults ages 18–65 who have never owned a home, are considering buying within the next five years, and report some level of financial readiness. Final data was not weighted.

About Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) is a leading financial services company that has approximately $2.2 trillion in assets. We provide a diversified set of banking, investment and mortgage products and services, as well as consumer and commercial finance, through our four reportable operating segments: Consumer Banking and Lending, Commercial Banking, Corporate and Investment Banking, and Wealth & Investment Management. Wells Fargo ranked No. 33 on Fortune’s 2025 rankings of America’s largest corporations. News, insights, and perspectives from Wells Fargo are also available at Wells Fargo Stories.

Additional information may be found at [url="]www.wellsfargo.com [/url]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/wellsfargo

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260603271682/en/

Wells Fargo & Co (NYSE:WFC, XETRA:NWT)'s recent share price underperformance may have created an attractive entry point for investors, according to Bank of America, which argued that the bank's valuation has fallen more sharply than its underlying fundamentals would suggest.

The firm noted that Wells Fargo shares are down about 15% year-to-date, compared with a roughly 4% gain for its peer group. Shares traded at about $79 on Wednesday afternoon.

Bank of America wrote that the stock's de-rating appears to reflect increasing investor skepticism over management's ability to achieve its long-term profitability targets.

According to the firm, Wells Fargo is currently trading at approximately 10.1 times estimated 2027 earnings and 1.7 times projected 2027 tangible book value, below the roughly 2.2 times tangible book value multiple the bank reached last December, when investors were more fully pricing in management's goal of generating a 17% to 18% return on tangible common equity (ROTCE).

Bank of America maintained that a path to an 18% ROTCE, potentially by 2028, remains achievable through a combination of operational and financial initiatives rather than reliance on a single catalyst.

The analysts outlined several factors that could support higher profitability, including capital optimization, expansion across investment banking, credit cards and wealth management, redeployment of expenses toward revenue-generating activities, balance sheet repricing, and improved branch productivity.

They also argued that Wells Fargo compares favorably with larger regional and money-center peers, noting that banks such as JPMorgan Chase, PNC Financial Services and US Bancorp currently operate at higher profitability levels. Bank of America wrote that it sees no structural reason why Wells Fargo should continue to lag those institutions, citing the bank's scale advantages and manageable capital requirements.

The bank’s analysts further suggested that recent investor concerns surrounding credit quality and potential merger and acquisition activity may be overstated. Bank of America characterized recent credit issues as largely idiosyncratic rather than systemic and wrote that the likelihood of a large, dilutive acquisition remains low.

Looking ahead, the firm indicated that Wells Fargo's second-quarter results could help rebuild investor confidence, assigning the stock a $95 price objective, which it estimated represents roughly 20% upside from current levels.

Today's Change

(

1.46

%) $

0.81

Current Price

$

55.97

Bank of America (BAC +1.46%), a major provider of banking and financial services, closed Thursday at $54.17, up 3.38%. The stock moved higher during Thursday’s regular session as investors responded to plans to launch cross-border real-time payments next quarter and are watching how this initiative supports growth in transaction banking.

How the markets moved todayS&P 500 (^GSPC +0.50%) added 0.41% to finish Thursday at 7,584.31, while the Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC +0.31%) slipped 0.09% to 26,830.96. Among diversified banks, industry peers JPMorgan Chase (JPM +2.28%) closed at $310.89 (up 3.34%) and Wells Fargo (WFC +1.61%) finished at $81.62 (up 3.74%), reflecting broad strength in large financials.

What this means for investorsBank of America shares increased alongside other major banks, supported by the company’s announcement of a cross-border real-time payments service launching next quarter. This service will accelerate international payments through BofA’s Swift and CashPro channels, offering corporate and financial institution clients an additional option for cross-border transactions.

The rollout may enhance Bank of America’s competitiveness in global transaction banking, though overall earnings remain driven by net interest income and market activity. In the first quarter, the bank reported $8.6 billion in net income and $1.11 in diluted earnings per share. CEO Brian Moynihan expects second-quarter trading revenue to increase by about 15% year over year. Investors will be watching whether the payments service achieves corporate client adoption as core banking trends continue to support earnings.

Bank of America is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Wells Fargo is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Eric Trie has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends JPMorgan Chase. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

As volatility again rattles large swathes of the cryptocurrency market, the largest financial institutions in the United States are moving ahead with plans for a shared tokenized deposit network.

The network will be operated by The Clearing House and is backed by JPMorganChase, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo and other major banks. It’s targeted for launch in the first half of 2027.

The timing is notable because for many years, stablecoins dominated conversations about a digital dollar. Policymakers debated regulatory frameworks. Payment providers and FinTechs rushed to establish positions.

Yet as PYMNTS CEO Karen Webster wrote in January, the long-term winner may not be stablecoins at all, but tokenized deposits that preserve the regulatory structure and economics of commercial banking while delivering the programmability and around-the-clock settlement capabilities associated with blockchain-based money.

The recent developments surrounding TCH and the participating banks envision a platform capable of supporting programmable treasury operations, liquidity management and cross-border payments using tokenized deposits that remain inside the regulated banking system. Unlike stablecoins, tokenized deposits remain bank liabilities and continue to reside on bank balance sheets. They would be a central determinant of why banks are investing.

Webster wrote that tokenized deposits are not an alternative form of money but rather a modernization of money already held within commercial banks. They maintain existing ownership, compliance and supervisory frameworks while allowing institutions to move money across blockchain infrastructure.

Advertisement: Scroll to Continue

JPMorganChase has already expanded its Kinexys tokenized deposit capabilities, while Citi has advanced tokenized treasury initiatives and HSBC has introduced tokenized deposit services for corporate clients.

A Familiar Divide Emerges As tokenized deposits gain traction, we may tread some familiar ground, reminiscent of the structural divide that characterized the rollout of real-time payments.

When TCH launched the RTP® network in 2017, adoption initially centered on large financial institutions. The Federal Reserve’s subsequent launch of the FedNow® Service in 2023 broadened access across the banking ecosystem and gave small institutions another route into instant payments.

As for the echoes of the past, as far as tokenized deposits are concerned, TCH and its bank-owned tokenized deposit initiative seemingly have an initial target market of large institutions, multinational corporations and complex treasury operations.

In addition, there is FIS and its newly launched Lyriq platform.

FIS described Lyriq as infrastructure that enables regulated financial institutions to issue, manage and settle digital money while keeping deposits on their own balance sheets. The platform supports tokenized deposits and integrates with existing banking systems while providing continuous settlement capabilities.

In a conversation with Webster published Monday (June 1), FIS Co-President of Banking Solutions Jim Johnson said banks increasingly need payment infrastructure that operates in real time and supports new forms of programmable money. He specifically cited stablecoins and tokenized deposits as examples of instruments that traditional payment systems are not designed to accommodate.

That framing could be extended to some of the key concerns that dominated the early years of real-time payments.

The difference is that this time, the conversation centers on digital money itself rather than simply payment speed.

Who Serves the Rest of the Market? The crucial question is whether tokenized deposits become concentrated among the largest institutions or spread broadly across regional banks, community banks and FinTech platforms.

The RTP-FedNow experience suggests the answer will ultimately be both.

Large-bank networks are often first to market because they can aggregate transaction volume and justify infrastructure investment. Broader adoption typically requires platforms capable of serving institutions with different operating models, technology stacks and customer bases.

Johnson told Webster that banks increasingly risk losing visibility into payment flows if they fail to modernize issuer and processing infrastructure. Payment rails are becoming strategic assets rather than back-office utilities.

Tokenized deposits may follow the same path as real-time payments. The largest institutions will establish the initial network effects, while technology providers extend access across the rest of the banking ecosystem.

The industry’s debate would shift away from whether banks should embrace stablecoins and toward how quickly banks can redesign deposits for a world in which settlement, liquidity management and treasury operations increasingly operate around the clock.

That is why the most important developments in digital money may not be happening in crypto markets at all. They may be unfolding inside the banking system.

For all PYMNTS digital transformation coverage, subscribe to the daily Digital Transformation Newsletter.

Wells Fargo (WFC - Free Report) closed the most recent trading day at $80.96, moving -1.2% from the previous trading session. This change lagged the S&P 500's daily gain of 0.3%. At the same time, the Dow lost 0.16%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq gained 0.86%.

The biggest U.S. mortgage lender's stock has climbed by 8.33% in the past month, exceeding the Finance sector's gain of 1.34% and the S&P 500's gain of 1.92%.

The investment community will be closely monitoring the performance of Wells Fargo in its forthcoming earnings report. The company is scheduled to release its earnings on July 14, 2026. The company is forecasted to report an EPS of $1.71, showcasing a 11.04% upward movement from the corresponding quarter of the prior year. At the same time, our most recent consensus estimate is projecting a revenue of $21.65 billion, reflecting a 3.98% rise from the equivalent quarter last year.

For the full year, the Zacks Consensus Estimates are projecting earnings of $6.84 per share and revenue of $87.56 billion, which would represent changes of +8.92% and +4.62%, respectively, from the prior year.

Investors should also take note of any recent adjustments to analyst estimates for Wells Fargo. Recent revisions tend to reflect the latest near-term business trends. As such, positive estimate revisions reflect analyst optimism about the business and profitability.

Our research suggests that these changes in estimates have a direct relationship with upcoming stock price performance. To utilize this, we have created the Zacks Rank, a proprietary model that integrates these estimate changes and provides a functional rating system.

Ranging from #1 (Strong Buy) to #5 (Strong Sell), the Zacks Rank system has a proven, outside-audited track record of outperformance, with #1 stocks returning an average of +25% annually since 1988. Over the past month, the Zacks Consensus EPS estimate has moved 0.26% higher. Wells Fargo is currently a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).

Investors should also note Wells Fargo's current valuation metrics, including its Forward P/E ratio of 11.97. For comparison, its industry has an average Forward P/E of 13.39, which means Wells Fargo is trading at a discount to the group.

We can additionally observe that WFC currently boasts a PEG ratio of 0.96. This popular metric is similar to the widely-known P/E ratio, with the difference being that the PEG ratio also takes into account the company's expected earnings growth rate. The Financial - Investment Bank industry had an average PEG ratio of 0.96 as trading concluded yesterday.

The Financial - Investment Bank industry is part of the Finance sector. This group has a Zacks Industry Rank of 104, putting it in the top 43% of all 250+ industries.

The Zacks Industry Rank gauges the strength of our individual industry groups by measuring the average Zacks Rank of the individual stocks within the groups. Our research shows that the top 50% rated industries outperform the bottom half by a factor of 2 to 1.

Make sure to utilize Zacks.com to follow all of these stock-moving metrics, and more, in the coming trading sessions.

Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) Presents at Morgan Stanley US Financials Conference 2026 Transcript

Key Takeaways WFC shares gained nearly 1.3% after the CFO highlighted a stronger Q2'26 NII outlook.WFC expects a "step up" in Q2 and reaffirmed a $50B full-year NII target.WFC sees loan growth and stable deposits supporting its interest income trajectory. Shares of Wells Fargo & Company (WFC - Free Report) rose nearly 1.3% after its chief financial officer (CFO), Mike Santomassimo, expressed confidence in the company’s net interest income (NII) outlook at the Morgan Stanley U.S. Financials Conference on Tuesday.

Providing an update on the company’s NII outlook, Santomassimo stated that NII will see a “step up” in the second quarter of 2026 and reiterated Wells Fargo’s expectation of generating approximately $50 billion of NII for the full year. Management also noted that the full-year outlook remains largely unchanged despite shifts in the interest-rate environment since the beginning of the year.

The company highlighted that loan growth continues to perform well and could be modestly better than previously anticipated through the remainder of the year. Management also noted favorable deposit trends, driven by growth in interest-bearing deposits and stable noninterest-bearing deposit balances.

The outlook reflects continued momentum from the first quarter of 2026, when NII increased 5.2% year over year to $12.09 billion. As such, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for second-quarter NII is pegged at $12.36 billion, suggesting a 5.6% increase from the prior-year quarter.

How Are Other Firms' Likely to Fare in Terms of NII?Two of the other financial firms with visible NII momentum are PNC Financial Services (PNC - Free Report) and Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB - Free Report) .

PNC Financial expects continued benefits from fixed-rate asset repricing and loan growth to support spread income in 2026. Stabilizing funding costs, along with strong loan growth, are likely to further support NII in the upcoming period. Management anticipates NII to rise nearly 3% sequentially in the second quarter of 2026. For 2026, PNC Financial expects NII to increase nearly 14.5% year over year, reflecting steady underlying momentum.

Fifth Third Bancorp expects NII to be in the range of $2.20–$2.25 billion in the second quarter of 2026 compared with $1.94 billion in the first quarter of 2026, supported by higher earning assets, lower funding costs and disciplined balance sheet management. The upside also reflects benefits from the Comerica acquisition and an expanding earning asset base. For 2026, adjusted NII is projected to be in the range of $8.7–$8.8 billion compared with $6 billion reported in 2025.

WFC’s Price Performance & Zacks RankShares of Wells Fargo have gained 9.5% in the past year compared with the industry’s growth of 26.9%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Wells Fargo currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Whether it's through stocks, bonds, ETFs, or other types of securities, all investors love seeing their portfolios score big returns. But for income investors, generating consistent cash flow from each of your liquid investments is your primary focus.

Cash flow can come from bond interest, interest from other types of investments, and, of course, dividends. A dividend is the distribution of a company's earnings paid out to shareholders; it's often viewed by its dividend yield, a metric that measures a dividend as a percent of the current stock price. Many academic studies show that dividends account for significant portions of long-term returns, with dividend contributions exceeding one-third of total returns in many cases.

Based in San Francisco, Wells Fargo (WFC - Free Report) is in the Finance sector, and so far this year, shares have seen a price change of -12.05%. Currently paying a dividend of $0.45 per share, the company has a dividend yield of 2.2%. In comparison, the Financial - Investment Bank industry's yield is 1.24%, while the S&P 500's yield is 1.46%.

Looking at dividend growth, the company's current annualized dividend of $1.80 is up 5.9% from last year. Over the last 5 years, Wells Fargo has increased its dividend 4 times on a year-over-year basis for an average annual increase of 36.70%. Looking ahead, future dividend growth will be dependent on earnings growth and payout ratio, which is the proportion of a company's annual earnings per share that it pays out as a dividend. Wells Fargo's current payout ratio is 27%, meaning it paid out 27% of its trailing 12-month EPS as dividend.

WFC is expecting earnings to expand this fiscal year as well. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2026 is $6.84 per share, which represents a year-over-year growth rate of 8.92%.

From greatly improving stock investing profits and reducing overall portfolio risk to providing tax advantages, investors like dividends for a variety of different reasons. But, not every company offers a quarterly payout.

For instance, it's a rare occurrence when a tech start-up or big growth business offers its shareholders a dividend. It's more common to see larger companies with more established profits give out dividends. Income investors have to be mindful of the fact that high-yielding stocks tend to struggle during periods of rising interest rates. With that in mind, WFC is a compelling investment opportunity. Not only is it a strong dividend play, but the stock currently sits at a Zacks Rank of #3 (Hold).

MarketBeat Instant News Alerts

2 hours ago

Insider Selling: MarketAxess (NASDAQ:MKTX) General Counsel Sells 100 Shares of StockMarketBeat

MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:MKTX - Get Free Report) General Counsel Scott Pintoff sold 100 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Wednesday, June 10th. The stock was sold at an average price of $116.03, for a total transaction of $11,603.00. Following the transaction, the general counsel owned 11,786 shares in the company, valued at approximately $1,367,529.58. The trade was a 0.84% decrease in their ownership of the stock. The sale was disclosed in a document filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at this hyperlink.

NASDAQ:MKTX

Read Insider Selling: MarketAxess (NASDAQ:MKTX) General Counsel Sells 100 Shares of Stock

Trending News All MarketBeat Instant News Alerts Sort By

Time Frame

Alert Type

Keywords

Page 1 of 327

Get 30 Days of MarketBeat All Access for Free

Sign up for MarketBeat All Access to gain access to MarketBeat's full suite of research tools.

Start Your 30-Day Trial

Sign in to your free account to enjoy these benefits

In-depth profiles and analysis for 20,000 public companies. Real-time analyst ratings, insider transactions, earnings data, and more. Our daily ratings and market update email newsletter. Sign in to your free account to enjoy all that MarketBeat has to offer.

Quarterly financial reports play a vital role on Wall Street, as they help investors see how a company has performed and what might be coming down the road in the near-term. And out of all of the metrics and results to consider, earnings is one of the most important.

The earnings figure itself is key, of course, but a beat or miss on the bottom line can sometimes be just as, if not more, important. Therefore, investors should consider paying close attention to these earnings surprises, as a big beat can help a stock climb and vice versa.

Hunting for 'earnings whispers' or companies poised to beat their quarterly earnings estimates is a somewhat common practice. But that doesn't make it easy. One way that has been proven to work is by using the Zacks Earnings ESP tool.

The Zacks Earnings ESP, ExplainedThe Zacks Expected Surprise Prediction, or ESP, works by locking in on the most up-to-date analyst earnings revisions because they can be more accurate than estimates from weeks or even months before the actual release date. The thinking is pretty straightforward: analysts who provide earnings estimates closer to the report are likely to have more information.

Now that we understand the basic idea, let's look at how the Expected Surprise Prediction works. The ESP is calculated by comparing the Most Accurate Estimate to the Zacks Consensus Estimate, with the percentage difference between the two giving us the Zacks ESP figure.

When we join a positive earnings ESP with a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) or stronger, stocks posted a positive bottom-line surprise 70% of the time. Plus, this system saw investors produce roughly 28% annual returns on average, according to our 10 year backtest.

Stocks with a #3 (Hold) ranking, which is most stocks covered at 60%, are expected to perform in-line with the broader market. But stocks that fall into the #2 (Buy) and #1 (Strong Buy) ranking, or the top 15% and top 5% of stocks, respectively, should outperform the market. Strong Buy stocks should outperform more than any other rank.

Should You Consider Bank of Montreal?The last thing we will do today, now that we have a grasp on the ESP and how powerful of a tool it can be, is to quickly look at a qualifying stock. Bank of Montreal (BMO - Free Report) holds a #3 (Hold) at the moment and its Most Accurate Estimate comes in at $2.47 a share 13 days away from its upcoming earnings release on May 27, 2026.

Bank of Montreal's Earnings ESP sits at +1.51%, which, as explained above, is calculated by taking the percentage difference between the $2.47 Most Accurate Estimate and the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $2.43. BMO is also part of a large group of stocks that boast a positive ESP. Make sure to utilize our Earnings ESP Filter to uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they've reported.

BMO is part of a big group of Finance stocks that boast a positive ESP, and investors may want to take a look at MetLife (MET - Free Report) as well.

Slated to report earnings on August 5, 2026, MetLife holds a #3 (Hold) ranking on the Zacks Rank, and its Most Accurate Estimate is $2.46 a share 83 days from its next quarterly update.

For MetLife, the percentage difference between its Most Accurate Estimate and its Zacks Consensus Estimate of $2.45 is +0.11%.

Because both stocks hold a positive Earnings ESP, BMO and MET could potentially post earnings beats in their next reports.

Find Stocks to Buy or Sell Before They're ReportedUse the Zacks Earnings ESP Filter to turn up stocks with the highest probability of positively, or negatively, surprising to buy or sell before they're reported for profitable earnings season trading. Check it out here >>

MetLife delivers robust adjusted income, supporting a bullish stance on common shares and fixed-rate preferreds. MET's preferred dividend payout ratio remains low, with $24.5B in common equity providing strong downside protection for preferred holders. Series A floating-rate preferreds yield 5.45%-5.5%, attractive if short-term rates rise, but fixed-rate Series F offers a higher current yield.

RYBREVANT® (amivantamab-vmjw) plus LAZCLUZE® (lazertinib) demonstrates prolonged clinical benefit as a first-line treatment for atypical EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer RYBREVANT® (amivantamab-vmjw) plus LAZCLUZE® (lazertinib) demonstrates prolonged clinical benefit as a first-line treatment for atypical EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancerPR Newswire

CHICAGO, May 29, 2026

Median overall survival, a secondary endpoint, reached nearly 3.5 years with Johnson & Johnson's RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE® in atypical EGFR-mutated diseaseConsistent responses observed across atypical EGFR mutation subgroups, including those historically associated with poorer outcomesASCO 2026 results reinforce the significance of RYBREVANT®-based regimens for patients across EGFR mutations, /PRNewswire/ -- Johnson & Johnson NYSE:JNJ today announced updated results from the Phase 1/1b CHRYSALIS-2 study evaluating intravenous RYBREVANT® (amivantamab-vmjw) in combination with LAZCLUZE® (lazertinib) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with atypical epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. The analysis showed encouraging long-term outcomes with RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE® in this difficult-to-treat population. Median overall survival, a secondary endpoint, was nearly 3.5 years.1 The primary endpoint of objective response rate was previously reported.2 These results add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the potential of RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE® to deliver durable survival outcomes across both common and atypical EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting. Data were presented in an oral session at the 2026 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting (Abstract #8501).1

Significant unmet need in patients with atypical EGFR-mutated NSCLCPatients with atypical EGFR-mutated NSCLC tend to have poorer outcomes than those with common EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletions and L858R substitutions), and effective first-line treatment options remain limited.3,4 These mutations represent approximately 10-20 percent of all EGFR-mutated cases.5 Median overall survival with current standard of care single-agent therapies remains under two years, highlighting a significant unmet need for treatments that can deliver more durable benefit in this setting.6,7 RYBREVANT® is designed to dual target EGFR and mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET), while engaging the immune system.8,9,10,11 These complementary mechanisms play a central role in tumor growth and treatment resistance and may help address the underlying drivers of disease.Expert and company perspectives supporting the strength of RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE®"For patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring atypical EGFR-mutations, first-line treatment decisions are often clouded by uncertainty regarding the efficacy of currently available EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors," said Joel Neal,* M.D., Ph.D., principal investigator of the Phase 1/1b CHRYSALIS-2 study. "The responses we've seen in this trial suggest the potential for more durable disease control, and the overall survival data reinforce that picture. These long-term outcomes begin to change how we think about treatment options in managing this subtype of lung cancer." Neal is also a Professor of Medicine in the Division of Oncology at Stanford Medicine."Disease progression and molecular resistance remain critical barriers in EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer," said Yusri Elsayed, M.D., M.H.Sc., Ph.D., Global Therapeutic Area Head, Oncology, Johnson & Johnson. "RYBREVANT-based combinations demonstrate the power of changing the biology by addressing multiple disease drivers from the start rather than relying on single-pathway strategies. With strong outcomes across all known EGFR mutations, this approach is raising the bar for what first-line treatment can achieve."Detailed CHRYSALIS-2 study resultsIn Cohort C of the CHRYSALIS-2 study, RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE® was evaluated as a first-line treatment in patients with atypical EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, excluding EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations (n=49). The most common atypical EGFR mutations included G719X (55 percent), S768X (27 percent) and L861X (24 percent), with 35 percent of patients harboring multiple atypical mutations. The study previously reported an objective response rate of 57 percent (primary endpoint).1,2Median overall survival with RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE® reached nearly 3.5 years (41.0 months; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 27.7-not estimable) at a median follow-up of 31.3 months. Overall survival rates were 55 percent at three years and 46 percent at four years.1Consistent clinical activity was observed across atypical EGFR mutation subgroups, as well as across patient and disease characteristics such as central nervous system metastases and TP53 status. Patients were also able to remain on treatment long-term across mutation groups and baseline characteristics. Notably, 41 percent of patients remained on RYBREVANT® for two years or longer, further supporting the durable survival observed with this combination.1The safety profile of RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE® was consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals observed with longer follow-up. Most adverse events were Grade 1 or 2. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in more than 30 percent of patients included paronychia (78 percent), rash (65 percent), hypoalbuminemia (61 percent) and infusion-related reactions (61 percent).1RYBREVANT®-based regimens are approved for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC across common (exon 19 deletions and exon 21 L858R substitution mutations) and exon 20 insertion mutations, including in the first-line setting.12 These results further define long-term outcomes with first-line RYBREVANT® plus LAZCLUZE® for patients with atypical EGFR mutations. Additional data being presented at ASCO 2026 in lung, head and neck, and colorectal cancers underscore the broader potential of RYBREVANT® across tumor types.About the CHRYSALIS-2 StudyCHRYSALIS-2 (NCT04077463) is an open-label Phase 1/1b study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of LAZCLUZE®, a third-generation EGFR-TKI, as monotherapy or in combinations with RYBREVANT®, a human bispecific EGFR and cMet antibody in participants with advanced NSCLC. The study enrolled 460 patients with advanced NSCLC.13Cohort C of the ongoing CHRYSALIS-2 study evaluates patients with atypical EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, excluding exon 20 insertion and classical EGFR mutations, who are treatment-naïve or have received up to two prior lines of therapy. Patients received intravenous RYBREVANT® in combination with LAZCLUZE® administered orally once daily.13About Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Worldwide, lung cancer is one of the most common cancers, with NSCLC making up 80 to 85 percent of all lung cancer cases.14,15 The main subtypes of NSCLC are adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large cell carcinoma.16 Among the most common driver mutations in NSCLC are alterations in EGFR, which is a receptor tyrosine kinase controlling cell growth and division.17 EGFR mutations are present in 10 to 15 percent of Western patients with NSCLC with adenocarcinoma histology and occur in 40 to 50 percent of Asian patients.14,15,18,19,20,21 EGFR ex19del or EGFR L858R mutations are the most common EGFR mutations.22 The five-year survival rate for all people with advanced NSCLC and EGFR mutations treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is less than 20 percent.23,24 EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations are the third-most prevalent activating EGFR mutation.25 Patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations have a real-world five-year overall survival (OS) of eight percent in the frontline setting, which is worse than patients with EGFR ex19del or L858R mutations, who have a real-world five-year OS of 19 percent.26About RYBREVANT®RYBREVANT FASPRO™ (amivantamab and hyaluronidase-lpuj) received U.S. FDA approval in December 2025 and is approved in multiple markets worldwide for the treatment of adults with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including those with exon 19 deletions, exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, and exon 20 insertion mutations. It is the only subcutaneous therapy approved in these populations and can be used as monotherapy or in combination with LAZCLUZE® (lazertinib) or chemotherapy in the front- and second-line settings, offering convenient monthly† or bi-weekly dosing. RYBREVANT FASPRO™ is co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20), Halozyme's ENHANZE® drug delivery technology.RYBREVANT® (amivantamab-vmjw), administered intravenously, received U.S. FDA approval in March 2024 and is approved for the same indications as RYBREVANT FASPRO™ across multiple markets. RYBERVANT® is a first-in-class, fully human bispecific antibody targeting EGFR and MET, designed to inhibit tumor growth while engaging the immune system.The effectiveness of RYBREVANT FASPRO™ is supported by the established clinical profile of RYBREVANT®, including data from multiple Phase 3 studies such as MARIPOSA, which demonstrated improvements in progression-free and overall survival when used in combination with LAZCLUZE® in first-line advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC.The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®)‡ 27 include amivantamab-vmjw (RYBREVANT®) across its FDA-approved treatment settings, including as a Category 1 preferred option in combination with lazertinib (LAZCLUZE®) for first-line treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R mutations. Subcutaneous amivantamab and hyaluronidase-lpuj (RYBREVANT FASPRO™) may be substituted for IV amivantamab-vmjw (RYBREVANT®) where appropriate. See the latest NCCN Guidelines® for NSCLC for complete information.§ ||The NCCN Guidelines for Central Nervous System Cancers also include amivantamab (RYBREVANT®)-based regimens, including in combination with lazertinib (LAZCLUZE®), as the only NCCN-preferred combination options for patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC and brain metastases.§ ||Beyond NSCLC, RYBREVANT-based therapies are being investigated across other solid tumors, including head and neck and colorectal cancers.The legal manufacturer for RYBREVANT® is Janssen Biotech, Inc. For more information, visit www.rybrevanthcp.com.About LAZCLUZE®In 2018, Janssen Biotech, Inc., entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Yuhan Corporation for the development of LAZCLUZE® (marketed as LECLAZA in South Korea). LAZCLUZE® is an oral, third-generation, brain-penetrant EGFR TKI that targets both the T790M mutation and activating EGFR mutations while sparing wild-type EGFR. An analysis of the efficacy and safety of LAZCLUZE® from the Phase 3 LASER301 study was published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2023.28The legal manufacturer for LAZCLUZE® is Janssen Biotech, Inc. and Yuhan Corporation.INDICATIONSRYBREVANT® (amivantamab-vmjw) is indicated:

in combination with LAZCLUZE® (lazertinib) for the first-line treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 19 deletions or exon 21 L858R substitution mutations, whose disease has progressed on or after treatment with an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor.in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed for the first-line treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test.as a single agent for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA approved test, whose disease has progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy.IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR RYBREVANT FASPRO™ AND RYBREVANT® 12,29CONTRAINDICATIONSRYBREVANT FASPRO™ is contraindicated in patients with known hypersensitivity to hyaluronidase or to any of its excipients.WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS Hypersensitivity and Administration-Related Reactions with RYBREVANT FASPRO™ RYBREVANT FASPRO™ can cause hypersensitivity and administration-related reactions (ARR); signs and symptoms of ARR include dyspnea, flushing, fever, chills, chest discomfort, hypotension, and vomiting. The median time to ARR onset is approximately 2 hours.

RYBREVANT FASPRO™ with LAZCLUZE®

In PALOMA-3 (n=206), all Grade ARR occurred in 13% of patients, including 0.5% Grade 3. Of the patients who experienced ARR, 89% occurred with the initial dose (Week 1, Day 1).

Premedicate with antihistamines, antipyretics, and glucocorticoids and administer RYBREVANT FASPRO™ as recommended. Monitor patients for any signs and symptoms of administration-related reactions during injection in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available. Interrupt RYBREVANT FASPRO™ injection if ARR is suspected. Resume treatment upon resolution of symptoms or permanently discontinue RYBREVANT FASPRO™ based on severity.Infusion-Related Reactions with RYBREVANT®RYBREVANT® can cause infusion-related reactions (IRR) including anaphylaxis; signs and symptoms of IRR include dyspnea, flushing, fever, chills, nausea, chest discomfort, hypotension, and vomiting. The median time to IRR onset is approximately 1 hour.

RYBREVANT® with LAZCLUZE®

In MARIPOSA (n=421), IRRs occurred in 63% of patients, including Grade 3 in 5% and Grade 4 in 1% of patients. IRR-related infusion modifications occurred in 54%, dose reduction in 0.7%, and permanent discontinuation of RYBREVANT® in 4.5% of patients.

RYBREVANT® with Carboplatin and Pemetrexed

Based on the pooled safety population (n=281), IRRs occurred in 50% of patients including Grade 3 (3.2%) adverse reactions. IRR-related infusion modifications occurred in 46%, and permanent discontinuation of RYBREVANT® in 2.8% of patients.

RYBREVANT® as a Single Agent

In CHRYSALIS (n=302), IRRs occurred in 66% of patients. IRRs occurred in 65% of patients on Week 1 Day 1, 3.4% on Day 2 infusion, 0.4% with Week 2 infusion, and were cumulatively 1.1% with subsequent infusions. 97% were Grade 1-2, 2.2% were Grade 3, and 0.4% were Grade 4. The median time to onset was 1 hour (range: 0.1 to 18 hours) after start of infusion. IRR-related infusion modifications occurred in 62%, and permanent discontinuation of RYBREVANT® in 1.3% of patients.Premedicate with antihistamines, antipyretics, and glucocorticoids and infuse RYBREVANT® as recommended. Administer RYBREVANT® via a peripheral line on Week 1 and Week 2 to reduce the risk of IRRs. Monitor patients for signs and symptoms of IRRs in a setting where cardiopulmonary resuscitation medication and equipment are available. Interrupt infusion if IRR is suspected. Reduce the infusion rate or permanently discontinue RYBREVANT® based on severity. If an anaphylactic reaction occurs, permanently discontinue RYBREVANT®.Interstitial Lung Disease/Pneumonitis RYBREVANT FASPRO™ and RYBREVANT® can cause severe and fatal interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis.

RYBREVANT FASPRO™ with LAZCLUZE®

In PALOMA-3, ILD/pneumonitis occurred in 6% of patients, including Grade 3 in 1%, Grade 4 in 1.5%, and fatal cases in 1.9% of patients. 5% of patients permanently discontinued RYBREVANT FASPRO™ and LAZCLUZE® due to ILD/pneumonitis.

RYBREVANT® with LAZCLUZE®

In MARIPOSA, ILD/pneumonitis occurred in 3.1% of patients, including Grade 3 in 1.0% and Grade 4 in 0.2% of patients. There was one fatal case of ILD/pneumonitis and 2.9% of patients permanently discontinued RYBREVANT® and LAZCLUZE® due to ILD/pneumonitis.

RYBREVANT® with Carboplatin and Pemetrexed

Based on the pooled safety population, ILD/pneumonitis occurred in 2.1% of patients with 1.8% of patients experiencing Grade 3 ILD/pneumonitis. 2.1% discontinued RYBREVANT® due to ILD/pneumonitis.

RYBREVANT® as a Single Agent

In CHRYSALIS, ILD/pneumonitis occurred in 3.3% of patients, with 0.7% of patients experiencing Grade 3 ILD/pneumonitis. Three patients (1%) permanently discontinued RYBREVANT® due to ILD/pneumonitis.Monitor patients for new or worsening symptoms indicative of ILD/pneumonitis (e.g., dyspnea, cough, fever). Immediately withhold RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT® and LAZCLUZE® (when applicable) in patients with suspected ILD/pneumonitis and permanently discontinue if ILD/pneumonitis is confirmed.Venous Thromboembolic (VTE) Events with Concomitant Use with LAZCLUZE®RYBREVANT FASPRO™ and RYBREVANT® in combination with LAZCLUZE® can cause serious and fatal venous thromboembolic (VTE) events, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Without prophylactic anticoagulation, the majority of these events occurred during the first four months of treatment.

RYBREVANT FASPRO™ with LAZCLUZE®

In PALOMA-3 (n=206), all Grade VTE occurred in 11% of patients and 1.5% were Grade 3. 80% (n=164) of patients received prophylactic anticoagulation at study entry, with an all Grade VTE incidence of 7%. In patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation (n=42), all Grade VTE occurred in 17% of patients. In total, 0.5% of patients had VTE leading to dose reductions of RYBREVANT FASPRO™ and no patients required permanent discontinuation. The median time to onset of VTEs was 95 days (range: 17 to 390).

RYBREVANT® with LAZCLUZE®

In MARIPOSA (n=421), VTEs occurred in 36% of patients including Grade 3 in 10% and Grade 4 in 0.5% of patients. On-study VTEs occurred in 1.2% of patients (n=5) while receiving anticoagulation therapy. There were two fatal cases of VTE (0.5%), 9% of patients had VTE leading to dose interruptions of RYBREVANT®, and 7% of patients had VTE leading to dose interruptions of LAZCLUZE®; 1% of patients had VTE leading to dose reductions of RYBREVANT®, and 0.5% of patients had VTE leading to dose reductions of LAZCLUZE®; 3.1% of patients had VTE leading to permanent discontinuation of RYBREVANT®, and 1.9% of patients had VTE leading to permanent discontinuation of LAZCLUZE®. The median time to onset of VTEs was 84 days (range: 6 to 777).Administer prophylactic anticoagulation for the first four months of treatment. The use of Vitamin K antagonists is not recommended.Monitor for signs and symptoms of VTE events and treat as medically appropriate. Withhold RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT® and LAZCLUZE® based on severity. Once anticoagulant treatment has been initiated, resume RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT® and LAZCLUZE® at the same dose level at the discretion of the healthcare provider. In the event of VTE recurrence despite therapeutic anticoagulation, permanently discontinue RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT®. Treatment can continue with LAZCLUZE® at the same dose level at the discretion of the healthcare provider. Refer to the LAZCLUZE® Prescribing Information for recommended LAZCLUZE® dosage modification.Dermatologic Adverse ReactionsRYBREVANT FASPRO™ and RYBREVANT® can cause severe rash including toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), dermatitis acneiform, pruritus and dry skin.

RYBREVANT FASPRO™ with LAZCLUZE®

In PALOMA-3, rash occurred in 80% of patients, including Grade 3 in 17% and Grade 4 in 0.5% of patients. Rash leading to dose reduction occurred in 11% of patients, and RYBREVANT FASPRO™ was permanently discontinued due to rash in 1.5% of patients.

RYBREVANT® with LAZCLUZE®

In MARIPOSA, rash occurred in 86% of patients, including Grade 3 in 26% of patients. The median time to onset of rash was 14 days (range: 1 to 556 days). Rash leading to dose interruptions occurred in 37% of patients for RYBREVANT® and 30% for LAZCLUZE®, rash leading to dose reductions occurred in 23% of patients for RYBREVANT® and 19% for LAZCLUZE®, and rash leading to permanent discontinuation occurred in 5% of patients for RYBREVANT® and 1.7% for LAZCLUZE®.

RYBREVANT® with Carboplatin and Pemetrexed

Based on the pooled safety population, rash occurred in 82% of patients, including Grade 3 (15%) adverse reactions. Rash leading to dose reductions occurred in 14% of patients, and 2.5% permanently discontinued RYBREVANT® and 3.1% discontinued pemetrexed.

RYBREVANT® as a Single Agent

In CHRYSALIS, rash occurred in 74% of patients, including Grade 3 in 3.3% of patients. The median time to onset of rash was 14 days (range: 1 to 276 days). Rash leading to dose reduction occurred in 5% and permanent discontinuation due to rash occurred in 0.7% of patients. Toxic epidermal necrolysis occurred in one patient (0.3%).When initiating treatment with RYBREVANT FASPRO or RYBREVANT and LAZCLUZE, prophylactic and concomitant medications are recommended to reduce the risk and severity of dermatologic adverse reactions. Instruct patients to limit sun exposure during and for 2 months after treatment. Advise patients to wear protective clothing and use broad spectrum UVA/UVB sunscreen.If skin reactions develop, administer supportive care including topical corticosteroids and topical and/or oral antibiotics. For Grade 3 reactions, add oral steroids and consider dermatologic consultation. Promptly refer patients presenting with severe rash, atypical appearance or distribution, or lack of improvement within 2 weeks to a dermatologist. For patients receiving RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT® in combination with LAZCLUZE®, withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue both drugs based on severity. For patients receiving RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT® as a single agent or in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed, withhold, dose reduce or permanently discontinue RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT® based on severityHepatotoxicityLAZCLUZE® in combination with amivantamab can cause severe hepatotoxicity (including increased ALT and AST).

RYBREVANT® with LAZCLUZE®

In MARIPOSA, based on adverse reaction data, hepatotoxicity occurred in 49% of patients treated with LAZCLUZE®, including Grade 3 in 9.3% of patients and Grade 4 in 0.5%. LAZCLUZE® was interrupted for an adverse reaction of hepatotoxicity in 8% of patients, the dose was reduced in 1.4% and permanently discontinued in 0.2%.Perform liver function tests (including ALT, AST, and total bilirubin) before initiation of LAZCLUZE® and during treatment, as clinically indicated. Withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue LAZCLUZE® and amivantamab based on severity.Ocular ToxicityRYBREVANT FASPRO™ and RYBREVANT® can cause ocular toxicity including keratitis, blepharitis, dry eye symptoms, conjunctival redness, blurred vision, visual impairment, ocular itching, eye pruritus and uveitis.

RYBREVANT FASPRO™ with LAZCLUZE®

In PALOMA-3, all Grade ocular toxicity occurred in 13% of patients, including 0.5% Grade 3.

RYBREVANT® with LAZCLUZE®

In MARIPOSA, ocular toxicity occurred in 16%, including Grade 3 or 4 ocular toxicity in 0.7% of patients.

RYBREVANT® with Carboplatin and Pemetrexed

Based on the pooled safety population, ocular toxicity occurred in 16% of patients. All events were Grade 1 or 2.

RYBREVANT® as a Single Agent

In CHRYSALIS, keratitis occurred in 0.7% and uveitis occurred in 0.3% of patients. All events were Grade 1-2.Promptly refer patients presenting with new or worsening eye symptoms to an ophthalmologist. Withhold, dose reduce or permanently discontinue RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT® and continue LAZCLUZE® based on severity.Embryo-Fetal ToxicityBased on animal models, RYBREVANT FASPRO™, RYBREVANT® and LAZCLUZE® can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Verify pregnancy status of females of reproductive potential prior to initiating RYBREVANT FASPRO™ and RYBREVANT®. Advise pregnant women and females of reproductive potential of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment and for 3 months after the last dose of RYBREVANT FASPRO™ or RYBREVANT®, and for 3 weeks after the last dose of LAZCLUZE®.ADVERSE REACTIONSRYBREVANT FASPRO™ with LAZCLUZE®In PALOMA-3 (n=206), the most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were rash (80%), nail toxicity (58%), musculoskeletal pain (50%), fatigue (37%), stomatitis (36%), edema (34%), nausea (30%), diarrhea (22%), vomiting (22%), constipation (22%), decreased appetite (22%), and headache (21%). The most common Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥2%) were decreased lymphocyte count (6%), decreased sodium (5%), decreased potassium (5%), decreased albumin (4.9%), increased alanine aminotransferase (3.4%), decreased platelet count (2.4%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (2%), increased gammaglutamyl transferase (2%), and decreased hemoglobin (2%).Serious adverse reactions occurred in 33% of patients, with those occurring in ≥2% of patients including ILD/pneumonitis (6%); and pneumonia, VTE and fatigue (2.4% each). Death due to adverse reactions occurred in 5% of patients treated with RYBREVANT FASPRO™, including ILD/pneumonitis (1.9%), pneumonia (1.5%), and respiratory failure and sudden death (1% each).RYBREVANT® with LAZCLUZE®In MARIPOSA (n=421), the most common adverse reactions (ARs) (≥20%) were rash (86%), nail toxicity (71%), infusion-related reactions (IRRs) (RYBREVANT®) (63%), musculoskeletal pain (47%), stomatitis (43%), edema (43%), VTE (36%), paresthesia (35%), fatigue (32%), diarrhea (31%), constipation (29%), COVID-19 (26%), hemorrhage (25%), dry skin (25%), decreased appetite (24%), pruritus (24%), and nausea (21%). The most common Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥2%) were decreased albumin (8%), decreased sodium (7%), increased ALT (7%), decreased potassium (5%), decreased hemoglobin (3.8%), increased AST (3.8%), increased GGT (2.6%), and increased magnesium (2.6%).Serious ARs occurred in 49% of patients, with those occurring in ≥2% of patients including VTE (11%), pneumonia (4%), ILD/pneumonitis and rash (2.9% each), COVID-19 (2.4%), and pleural effusion and IRRs (RYBREVANT®) (2.1% each). Fatal ARs occurred in 7% of patients due to death not otherwise specified (1.2%); sepsis and respiratory failure (1% each); pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and sudden death (0.7% each); cerebral infarction, pulmonary embolism (PE), and COVID-19 infection (0.5% each); and ILD/pneumonitis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and cardiopulmonary arrest (0.2% each).RYBREVANT® with Carboplatin and PemetrexedIn MARIPOSA-2 (n=130), the most common ARs (≥20%) were rash (72%), IRRs (59%), fatigue (51%), nail toxicity (45%), nausea (45%), constipation (39%), edema (36%), stomatitis (35%), decreased appetite (31%), musculoskeletal pain (30%), vomiting (25%), and COVID-19 (21%). The most common Grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥2%) were decreased neutrophils (49%), decreased white blood cells (42%), decreased lymphocytes (28%), decreased platelets (17%), decreased hemoglobin (12%), decreased potassium (11%), decreased sodium (11%), increased alanine aminotransferase (3.9%), decreased albumin (3.8%), and increased gamma-glutamyl transferase (3.1%).In MARIPOSA-2, serious ARs occurred in 32% of patients, with those occurring in >2% of patients including dyspnea (3.1%), thrombocytopenia (3.1%), sepsis (2.3%), and PE (2.3%). Fatal ARs occurred in 2.3% of patients; these included respiratory failure, sepsis, and ventricular fibrillation (0.8% each).In PAPILLON (n=151), the most common ARs (≥20%) were rash (90%), nail toxicity (62%), stomatitis (43%), IRRs (42%), fatigue (42%), edema (40%), constipation (40%), decreased appetite (36%), nausea (36%), COVID-19 (24%), diarrhea (21%), and vomiting (21%). The most common Grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥2%) were decreased albumin (7%), increased alanine aminotransferase (4%), increased gamma-glutamyl transferase (4%), decreased sodium (7%), decreased potassium (11%), decreased magnesium (2%), and decreases in white blood cells (17%), hemoglobin (11%), neutrophils (36%), platelets (10%), and lymphocytes (11%).In PAPILLON, serious ARs occurred in 37% of patients, with those occurring in ≥2% of patients including rash, pneumonia, ILD, PE, vomiting, and COVID-19. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 7 patients (4.6%) due to pneumonia, cerebrovascular accident, cardio-respiratory arrest, COVID-19, sepsis, and death not otherwise specified.RYBREVANT® as a Single AgentIn CHRYSALIS (n=129), the most common ARs (≥20%) were rash (84%), IRR (64%), paronychia (50%), musculoskeletal pain (47%), dyspnea (37%), nausea (36%), fatigue (33%), edema (27%), stomatitis (26%), cough (25%), constipation (23%), and vomiting (22%). The most common Grade 3 to 4 laboratory abnormalities (≥2%) were decreased lymphocytes (8%), decreased albumin (8%), decreased phosphate (8%), decreased potassium (6%), increased alkaline phosphatase (4.8%), increased glucose (4%), increased gamma-glutamyl transferase (4%), and decreased sodium (4%).Serious ARs occurred in 30% of patients, with those occurring in ≥2% of patients including PE, pneumonitis/ILD, dyspnea, musculoskeletal pain, pneumonia, and muscular weakness. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 2 patients (1.5%) due to pneumonia and 1 patient (0.8%) due to sudden death.LAZCLUZE® DRUG INTERACTIONSAvoid concomitant use of LAZCLUZE® with strong and moderate CYP3A4 inducers. Consider an alternate concomitant medication with no potential to induce CYP3A4.Monitor for adverse reactions associated with a CYP3A4 or BCRP substrate where minimal concentration changes may lead to serious adverse reactions, as recommended in the approved product labeling for the CYP3A4 or BCRP substrate.Please see full Prescribing Information for RYBREVANT FASPRO™, RYBREVANT® and LAZCLUZE®.cp-491009v2About Johnson & Johnson At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. Our strength in healthcare innovation empowers us to build a world where complex diseases are prevented, treated, and cured, where treatments are smarter and less invasive, and solutions are personal. Through our expertise in Innovative Medicine and MedTech, we are uniquely positioned to innovate across the full spectrum of healthcare solutions today to deliver the breakthroughs of tomorrow and profoundly impact health for humanity. Learn more at https://www.jnj.com/ or at www.innovativemedicine.jnj.com. Follow us at @JNJInnovMed.Cautions Concerning Forward-Looking StatementsThis press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding product development and the potential benefits and treatment impact of RYBREVANT®-based regimens. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations of future events. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results could vary materially from the expectations and projections of Johnson & Johnson. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: challenges and uncertainties inherent in product research and development, including the uncertainty of clinical success and of obtaining regulatory approvals; uncertainty of commercial success; manufacturing difficulties and delays; competition, including technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges to patents; product efficacy or safety concerns resulting in product recalls or regulatory action; changes in behavior and spending patterns of purchasers of health care products and services; changes to applicable laws and regulations, including global health care reforms; and trends toward health care cost containment. A further list and descriptions of these risks, uncertainties and other factors can be found in Johnson & Johnson's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, including in the sections captioned "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" and "Item 1A. Risk Factors," and in Johnson & Johnson's subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Copies of these filings are available online at www.sec.gov, www.jnj.com, www.investor.jnj.com, or on request from Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information or future events or developments.

###* Joel W. Neal, M.D., Ph.D., has served as a consultant to Johnson & Johnson; he has not been paid for any media work.† Once monthly after weekly injections from weeks 1-4.‡ The NCCN content does not constitute medical advice and should not be used in place of seeking professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment by licensed practitioners. NCCN makes no warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding their content, use or application and disclaims any responsibility for their application or use in any way.§ See the NCCN Guidelines for detailed recommendations, including other treatment options.|| The NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC provide recommendations for certain individual biomarkers that should be tested and recommend testing techniques but do not endorse any specific commercially available biomarker assays or commercial laboratories.Source: Johnson & Johnson1 Neal JW, et al. Overall survival of first-line amivantamab plus lazertinib in atypical EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC: Updated results from the CHRYSALIS-2 study. Presented at: 2026 ASCO Annual Meeting; 2026; Chicago, IL.
2 Tomasini P, Wang Y, Li Y, et al. Amivantamab Plus Lazertinib in Atypical EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From CHRYSALIS-2. J Clin Oncol. 2026;44(1):54-65. doi:10.1200/JCO-24-02835
3 Kim EY, Cho EN, Park HS, et al. Compound EGFR mutation is frequently detected with co-mutations of actionable genes and associated with poor clinical outcome in lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Biol Ther. 2016;17(3):237-245. doi:10.1080/15384047.2016.1139235
4 Patil T, Mushtaq R, Marsh S, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment outcomes, and acquired resistance patterns of atypical EGFR mutations and HER2 alterations in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2020;21(3):e191-e204. doi:10.1016/j.cllc.2019.11.008
5 Fabrizio FP, Attili I, de Marinis F. Uncommon and Rare EGFR Mutations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with a Focus on Exon 20 Insertions and the Phase 3 PAPILLON Trial: The State of the Art. Cancers. 2024; 16(7):1331. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16071331
6 Yang JC, Sequist LV, Geater SL, et al. Clinical activity of afatinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring uncommon EGFR mutations: a combined post-hoc analysis of LUX-Lung 2, LUX-Lung 3, and LUX-Lung 6. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):830-838. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00026-1
7 GILOTRIF® (afatinib tablets), for oral use [package insert]. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2022.
8 Moores SL, Chiu ML, Bushey BS, et al. A Novel Bispecific Antibody Targeting EGFR and cMet Is Effective against EGFR Inhibitor-Resistant Lung Tumors. Cancer Res. 2016;76(13):3942-3953. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2833
9 Vijayaraghavan S, Lipfert L, Chevalier K, et al. Amivantamab (JNJ-61186372), an Fc Enhanced EGFR/cMet Bispecific Antibody, Induces Receptor Downmodulation and Antitumor Activity by Monocyte/Macrophage Trogocytosis. Mol Cancer Ther. 2020;19(10):2044-2056. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0071
10 Yun J, Lee SH, Kim SY, et al. Antitumor Activity of Amivantamab (JNJ-61186372), an EGFR-MET Bispecific Antibody, in Diverse Models of EGFR Exon 20 Insertion-Driven NSCLC. Cancer Discov. 2020;10(8):1194-1209. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0116
11 Asia-Pacific practical consensus in the management of adverse events related to amivantamab-based therapies in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. Published online May 22, 2026. doi:10.1016/S0169-5002(26)00466-6.
12 RYBREVANT® Prescribing Information. Horsham, PA: Janssen Biotech, Inc.
13 ClinicalTrials.gov. A Study of Lazertinib as Monotherapy or in Combination With Amivantamab in Participants With Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (CHRYSALIS-2). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04077463. Accessed May 2026.
14 The World Health Organization. Cancer. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer. Accessed May 2026.
15 American Cancer Society. What is Lung Cancer? https://www.cancer.org/content/cancer/en/cancer/lung-cancer/about/what-is.html. Accessed May 2026.
16 Oxnard JR, et al. Natural history and molecular characteristics of lung cancers harboring EGFR exon 20 insertions. J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Feb;8(2):179-84. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182779d18.
17 Bauml JM, et al. Underdiagnosis of EGFR Exon 20 Insertion Mutation Variants: Estimates from NGS-based Real World Datasets. Abstract presented at: World Conference on Lung Cancer Annual Meeting; January 29, 2021; Singapore.
18 Pennell NA, et al. A phase II trial of adjuvant erlotinib in patients with resected epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 37:97-104.
19 Burnett H, et al. Epidemiological and clinical burden of EGFR exon 20 insertion in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic literature review. Abstract presented at: World Conference on Lung Cancer Annual Meeting; January 29, 2021; Singapore.
20 Zhang YL, et al. The prevalence of EGFR mutation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7(48):78985-78993.
21 Midha A, et al. EGFR mutation incidence in non-small-cell lung cancer of adenocarcinoma histology: a systematic review and global map by ethnicity. Am J Cancer Res. 2015;5(9):2892-2911.
22 American Lung Association. EGFR and Lung Cancer. https://www.lung.org/lung-health-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lung-cancer/symptoms-diagnosis/biomarker-testing/egfr. Accessed May 2026.
23 Howlader N, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2016, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2016/, based on November 2018 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site.
24 Lin JJ, et al. Five-Year Survival in EGFR-Mutant Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma Treated with EGFR-TKIs. J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Apr;11(4):556-65.
25 Arcila, M. et al. EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in lung adenocarcinomas: prevalence, molecular heterogeneity, and clinicopathologic characteristics. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013 Feb; 12(2):220-9.
26 Girard N, et al. Comparative clinical outcomes for patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations and common EGFR mutations. Abstract presented at: World Conference on Lung Cancer Annual Meeting; January 29, 2021; Singapore.
27 Referenced with permission from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer V.3.2026 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. To view the most recent and complete version of the guideline, go online to NCCN.org. Accessed May 2026.
28 Cho BC, et al. Lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results From LASER301. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41(26):4208-4217.
29 LAZCLUZE® Prescribing Information. Horsham, PA: Janssen Biotech, Inc.

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rybrevant-amivantamab-vmjw-plus-lazcluze-lazertinib-demonstrates-prolonged-clinical-benefit-as-a-first-line-treatment-for-atypical-egfr-mutated-non-small-cell-lung-cancer-302785924.htmlSOURCE Johnson & Johnson

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) today announced that John McCallion, executive vice president and CFO, and head of MetLife Investment Management, will participate in a fireside chat at the Morgan Stanley US Financials Conference on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, at 1:00 pm ET.

The live webcast can be listened to by clicking here. Please visit the link at least 15 minutes in advance to allow time to register or sign in.

If you miss the remarks, you can access a replay at the above link, which will be available until June 17, 2026 at 11:59 pm ET.

About MetLife

MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET), through its subsidiaries and affiliates (“MetLife”), is one of the world’s leading financial services companies, providing insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management to help individual and institutional customers build a more confident future. Founded in 1868, MetLife has operations in more than 40 markets globally and holds leading positions in the United States, Asia, Latin America, Europe and the Middle East. For more information, visit www.metlife.com.

More News From MetLife, Inc.

MetLife delivers strong Q1 2026 results with adjusted EPS up 23% to $2.42 and ROE at 17%, highlighting robust core performance. I find MET's fixed-income preferreds, especially Series F, compelling with yields near 6.5% and payout ratios under 4%, offering rare quality and safety. Common shares trade at a fair 8.5x forward P/E with limited near-term upside; total equity returns approximate 8% annually via buybacks and dividends.