Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Tokenized stock adoption nearly doubled over the past month as Robinhood attracted hundreds of thousands of retail holders, although Ondo continued to lead the sector by asset value.

Summary

Tokenized equity holders increased 92% in 30 days, reaching 752,000 across five major platforms. Robinhood captured 328,000 holders and a 44% share, but held only $44 million in assets. Ondo led with $857 million, followed by xStocks at $487 million and Securitize at $245 million. US transfer-agent groups want the SEC to prioritize issuer-backed tokenized securities over unaffiliated products. Tokenized stock holders rise 92% in one month Tokenized equity platforms reached 752,000 holders after their combined count increased 92% within 30 days, according to data shared by DWF Labs.

Robinhood led the five platforms tracked by holder count after attracting 328,000 users since launching its latest stock-token product on July 1. That gave the brokerage a 44% share of the measured market.

However, Robinhood’s tokenized stocks represented only $44 million in total value. The difference between its holder count and asset value suggests its early growth has come largely from retail users holding small positions.

DWF Labs calculated Robinhood’s average position at just $134 per holder. By comparison, Securitize had 50 holders controlling $245 million, producing an average position of $4.9 million.

Figure showed a similar institutional tilt, with 186 holders and around $191 million in assets. Its average balance reached approximately $1.03 million.

The figures refer to platform holders and may include blockchain addresses rather than verified individual investors. They should therefore not automatically be treated as a count of unique people.

Robinhood attracts retail users but trails in value Robinhood launched its public Layer 2 network and new stock tokens on July 1. The company made the products available through Robinhood Wallet in more than 120 countries, although access varies by jurisdiction.

Eligible users can trade the tokens around the clock and deploy them within decentralized finance applications, including lending pools and collateral markets.

Robinhood’s figures show how fractional access and wallet-based distribution can attract a broad retail audience. Its average position remains far below those recorded by the other four platforms in the DWF Labs comparison.

Activity on Robinhood Chain has also increased since the launch. Tokenized real-world assets on the network recently reached about $70 million, while total value locked rose to roughly $312 million.

That $70 million estimate covers a broader group of real-world assets and comes from a different measurement period, making it unsuitable for direct comparison with DWF Labs’ $44 million tokenized-stock figure.

Ondo and xStocks control more asset value Ondo led the comparison with $857 million in tokenized equities and an average balance of about $5,900 per holder. Its platform offers more than 440 tokenized stocks and ETFs across Ethereum, BNB Chain and Solana.

Ondo’s international products provide economic exposure to underlying securities, including dividends after applicable withholding. However, its documentation states that the tokens are not themselves stocks or ETFs and do not give investors the right to receive the underlying assets.

xStocks ranked second by value with $487 million and an average position of $1,900. The platform currently supports 626 stocks and ETFs and reports more than $35 billion in total transaction volume.

Kraken parent Payward recently partnered with fintech infrastructure provider GTN to expand xStocks beyond US-listed securities. The companies plan to begin with Hong Kong equities before targeting the UK, Europe, South Korea and other markets, subject to local approvals.

GTN will provide execution, custody, ledgering and record-keeping infrastructure across more than 90 markets, while Payward will continue operating the tokenization layer.

US regulators face ownership-rights question Access and ownership rights remain central issues for US investors. Ondo’s international stock tokens prohibit US persons from subscribing, acquiring or redeeming the products despite tracking securities listed in the United States.

The SEC has also warned that tokens created by third parties may carry different rights from conventional shares. Depending on their structure, holders may lack direct ownership, voting privileges, or the protections available to registered shareholders.

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company and the Securities Transfer Association recently urged the SEC to favor issuer-backed tokenized stocks and ETFs. The groups want tighter treatment of products issued by unaffiliated platforms without the underlying company’s approval.

Their proposal would create a clearer distinction between blockchain-based shares recognized by an issuer and tokens that provide only contractual or economic exposure. How the SEC handles that distinction could determine whether the rapid growth in tokenized-stock holders extends into the regulated US market.

, /PRNewswire/ -- Talos Energy Inc. ("Talos" or the "Company") (NYSE: TALO) today announced the execution of a definitive agreement to farm into the Block 29 development offshore Mexico, operated by Repsol, S.A. ("Repsol"). Talos will acquire a 50% working interest for a contingent $30 million payment at final investment decision ("FID"), a cash carry of up to $20 million on the next exploration well, and reimbursement of certain pre-closing costs (the "Transaction").

Strategic Rationale:

Expands Resource Base with Material Greenfield Development: Adds a 50% working interest in a pre-FID development containing the Polok and Chinwol oil discoveries, which are estimated to contain more than 200 million barrels of oil equivalent ("MMBoe") of gross recoverable resource. Strategic Infrastructure: Features a floating production, storage and offloading ("FPSO") based development concept anchored by existing oil discoveries that is well-positioned to serve as a hub for future developments and nearby discoveries in the area. Future Exploration Upside: Establishes a platform for additional resource expansion through multiple identified exploration prospects within Block 29. Leverages Proven Deepwater Technical Expertise: The discoveries and identified prospects target amplitude-supported Miocene reservoirs analogous to fields Talos has successfully developed and produced in the Gulf of America, reinforcing our strategic focus on opportunities where our deepwater subsurface expertise provides a competitive advantage. Talos President and Chief Executive Officer Paul Goodfellow commented, "We are excited to participate in this pre-FID development opportunity and look forward to working alongside Repsol as we advance Block 29. The farm-in adds a high quality, large-scale development opportunity and meaningful exploration upside in a proven deepwater basin, further advancing Pillar Three of our strategy and strengthening our long-term growth portfolio. Together with the recently announced Gulf of America bolt-on acquisition, these transactions are expected to extend our resource life and further support long-term value creation as we continue to advance our strategy to build a long-lived, scaled portfolio and become the leading pure-play offshore E&P."

OFFSHORE MEXICO FARM-IN TRANSACTION

The acquired assets include a 50% working interest in Block 29, located in the Salinas-Sureste Basin in the southern Gulf of Mexico, an area that has seen more than a dozen deepwater discoveries. Operated by Repsol, terms include a contingent $30 million payment if Talos elects to take a FID, a cash carry of up to $20 million on the next exploration well, and reimbursement of certain pre-closing costs, subject to customary terms, conditions (including Mexican regulatory approvals), and closing adjustments. Upon closing, Talos will hold a 50% working interest and, together with Repsol, will be the sole participants in the block. Block 29 contains the Polok and Chinwol oil discoveries, which together are estimated to contain more than 200 MMBoe of gross recoverable resource, along with multiple additional exploration prospects. The partners expect to progress the project toward FID in 2027.

The transaction is subject to approval by Mexico's Secretaría de Energía ("SENER") and the National Anti-trust Commission of Mexico.

ABOUT TALOS ENERGY

Talos Energy (NYSE: TALO) is a technically driven, innovative, independent energy company focused on safely maximizing long-term value through its Exploration & Production business in the United States Gulf of America and offshore Mexico. We leverage decades of technical and offshore operational expertise to acquire, explore, and produce assets in key geological trends while maintaining a focus on safe and efficient operations, environmental responsibility, and community impact. For more information, visit www.talosenergy.com.

INVESTOR RELATIONS CONTACT

Kyle Sahni
[email protected]

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This communication may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. When used in this communication, the words "will," "could," "believe," "anticipate," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "project," "forecast," "may," "objective," "plan" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such identifying words. All statements, other than statements of historical fact included in this communication, are forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding our plans and expectations regarding the Transaction, including the anticipated financing terms and availability; the timing and benefits of the Transaction, the anticipated impact of the Transaction on our financial position, growth opportunities and competitive position, the anticipated gross recoverable resources related to the Transaction, and the projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives related to the Transaction. These forward-looking statements including estimates of gross recoverable resources, exploration opportunities and potential, timing of final investment decision, anticipated development costs and expected production commencement are based on management's current expectations and assumptions about future events and are based on currently available information as to the outcome and timing of future events.

We caution you that these forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. These risks include, but are not limited to, our ability to consummate the Transaction on the terms currently contemplated, including the risk that we or other parties to the transaction may be unable to obtain regulatory approval or satisfy the conditions to closing the Transaction; our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the Transaction; whether the parties elect to proceed with a FID and our ability to reach FID and/or production on the timeline currently contemplated or at all; risks associated with reliance on a third-party operator; changes in market conditions affecting the oil and gas industry or long-term oil and gas price levels; political or regulatory developments, including risks relating to operations in Mexico due to changes in applicable laws, regulations and policies affecting offshore energy projects; reservoir performance; the outcome of future exploration efforts; timely completion of projects; technical or operating factors; the uncertainty inherent in projecting resource potential, ultimate recoverable resources and future rates of production and cash flows and access to capital and project financing; the timing of and amount of exploration and development expenditures; potential adverse reactions or competitive responses to our acquisitions and other transactions, including the proposed Transaction; risks and uncertainties related to economic, market or business conditions; and the other risks and uncertainties discussed in our most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and other Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Estimates of gross recoverable resources and exploration potential are by their nature uncertain and are based on numerous assumptions. Actual recovered volumes may differ materially from such estimates. Resource estimates should not be construed as reserves and do not constitute a guarantee that resources will be commercially recoverable.

Should one or more of the risks or uncertainties described herein occur, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results and plans could differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements, expressed or implied, included in this communication are expressly qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. This cautionary statement should also be considered in connection with any subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements that we or persons acting on our behalf may issue. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, we disclaim any duty to update any forward-looking statements, all of which are expressly qualified by the statements in this section, to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this communication.

SOURCE Talos Energy

Consolidated Results of Operations, As Reported and As Adjusted  – Three-month periods ended June 30, 2026 and 2025:

, /PRNewswire/ -- Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE: UHS) announced today that its reported net income attributable to UHS was $358.4 million, or $5.98 per diluted share, during the second quarter of 2026, as compared to $353.2 million, or $5.43 per diluted share, during the second quarter of 2025.  Net revenues increased by 8.3% to $4.638 billion during the second quarter of 2026, as compared to $4.284 billion during the second quarter of 2025.

Included in our operating results during the second quarter of 2026, was a favorable net pre-tax impact of approximately $72 million recorded in connection with the following: (i) a favorable net pre-tax impact of $100 million (net of related provider taxes) recorded in connection with the Florida Medicaid managed care directed payment program applicable to the period of October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025 (pursuant to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ("CMS") preprint approval granted in April, 2026 which increased the size of the program and changed the related provider tax structure), and; (ii) an unfavorable pre-tax impact of $28 million resulting from an increase to our reserve for self-insured professional and general liability claims. The impact of these items was not included in our original 2026 operating results forecast, as previously disclosed on February 25, 2026. 

Included in our operating results during the second quarter of 2025, were aggregate net pre-tax incremental reimbursements (net of related provider taxes) of approximately $101 million recorded in connection with the following: (i) approximately $58 million, applicable to the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025, resulting from the Tennessee Medicaid directed payment program, and; (ii) approximately $43 million of other combined additional net reimbursements recorded in connection with supplemental Medicaid programs in various states (approximately $21 million of which consisted of prior year retroactive reimbursements). Also included in our results of operations during the second quarter of 2025, was a pre-tax loss of approximately $25 million incurred in connection with a newly constructed, 142-bed acute care hospital located in Washington, D.C., that was completed and opened in April, 2025.

As reflected on the Schedule of Non-GAAP Supplemental Information ("Supplemental Schedule"), there were no adjustments applicable to our operating results during the second quarter of 2026. As reflected on the Supplemental Schedule, included in our reported results during the second quarter of 2025 were: (i) an unrealized after-tax gain of $4.5 million, or $.07 per diluted share ($5.9 million pre-tax), resulting from an increase in the market value of certain equity securities that were sold during the fourth quarter of 2025 (included in "Other (income) expense, net"), and; (ii) a favorable net after-tax impact of $0.8 million, or $.01 per diluted share, resulting from the net tax benefit recorded in connection with "ASU 2016-09", Compensation – Stock Compensation: Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting, net of the impact of executive compensation limitations pursuant to IRC section 162(m). After giving effect to these items, our adjusted net income during the second quarter of 2025 was $347.9 million, or $5.35 per diluted share.   

As calculated on the attached Supplemental Schedule, our earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization ("EBITDA net of NCI", NCI is net income attributable to noncontrolling interests), was $680.2 million during the second quarter of 2026, as compared to $651.4 million during the second quarter of 2025. Our adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization ("Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI"), which excludes the impact of other (income) expense, net, was $677.9 million during the second quarter of 2026, as compared to $642.9 million during the second quarter of 2025.

Consolidated Results of Operations, As Reported and As Adjusted  – Six-month periods ended June 30, 2026 and 2025:

Reported net income attributable to UHS was $707.1 million, or $11.63 per diluted share, during the first six months of 2026, as compared to $669.9 million, or $10.23 per diluted share, during the comparable period of 2025.  Net revenues increased by 8.9% to $9.133 billion during the first six months of 2026, as compared to $8.384 billion during the comparable period of 2025.

As reflected on the Supplemental Schedule, our adjusted net income during the first six months of 2026 was $705.0 million, or $11.60 per diluted share, as compared to $667.4 million, or $10.19 per diluted share, during the comparable period of 2025. 

As reflected on the Supplemental Schedule, included in our reported results during the first six months of 2026 was a favorable net after-tax impact of $2.2 million, or $.03 per diluted share, resulting from the net tax benefit recorded in connection with ASU 2016-09. Included in our reported results during the first six months of 2025 were: (i) an unrealized after-tax gain of $1.2 million, or $.02 per diluted share ($1.6 million pre-tax), resulting from an increase in the market value of certain equity securities that were sold during the fourth quarter of 2025, and; (ii) a favorable net after-tax impact of $1.3 million, or $.02 per diluted share, resulting from the net tax benefit recorded in connection with ASU 2016-09.    

As calculated on the attached Supplemental Schedule, our EBITDA net of NCI, was $1.332 billion during the first six months of 2026, as compared to $1.255 billion during the comparable period of 2025. Our Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI", which excludes the impact of other (income) expense, net, was $1.326 billion during the first six months of 2026, as compared to $1.241 billion during the comparable period of 2025.

Acute Care Services – Three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2026 and 2025:

During the second quarter of 2026, at our acute care hospitals owned during both periods ("same facility basis"), adjusted admissions (adjusted for outpatient activity) increased by 2.9% and adjusted patient days increased by 3.1%, as compared to the second quarter of 2025. At these facilities, during the second quarter of 2026, net revenue per adjusted admission increased by 3.0% while net revenue per adjusted patient day increased by 2.8%, as compared to the second quarter of 2025. Net revenues generated from our acute care services, on a same facility basis, increased by 8.2% during the second quarter of 2026, as compared to the second quarter of 2025.

During the first six months of 2026, on a same facility basis, adjusted admissions increased by 1.4% and adjusted patient days increased by 1.9%, as compared to the comparable period of 2025. At these facilities, during the first six months of 2026, net revenue per adjusted admission increased by 4.6% while net revenue per adjusted patient day increased by 4.2%, as compared to the comparable period of 2025. Net revenues generated from our acute care services, on a same facility basis, increased by 8.2% during the first six months of 2026, as compared to the comparable period of 2025.

Behavioral Health Care Services – Three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2026 and 2025:

During the second quarter of 2026, at our behavioral health care facilities on a same facility basis, adjusted admissions increased by 0.5% while adjusted patient days increased by 1.4%, as compared to the second quarter of 2025. At these facilities, during the second quarter of 2026, net revenue per adjusted admission increased by 7.1% and net revenue per adjusted patient day increased by 6.1%, as compared to the second quarter of 2025. Net revenues generated from our behavioral health care services, on a same facility basis, increased by 7.4% during the second quarter of 2026, as compared to the second quarter of 2025.

During the first six months of 2026, at our behavioral health care facilities on a same facility basis, adjusted admissions increased by 0.9% while adjusted patient days increased by 1.5%, as compared to the comparable period of 2025. At these facilities, during the first six months of 2026, net revenue per adjusted admission increased by 6.6% and net revenue per adjusted patient day increased by 6.0%, as compared to the comparable period of 2025. Net revenues generated from our behavioral health care services, on a same facility basis, increased by 7.4% during the first six months of 2026, as compared to the comparable period of 2025.

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities and Credit Agreement Amendment/Capital Resources:

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities:

During the six-month period ended June 30, 2026, our net cash provided by operating activities was $845 million as compared to $909 million during the first six months of 2025. The $64 million net decrease in our net cash provided by operating activities consisted of: (i) an unfavorable change of $207 million in other working capital accounts due primarily to the timing of accounts payable disbursements; (ii) a favorable change of $86 million in accrued and deferred income taxes; (iii) a favorable change of $53 million resulting from an increase in net income plus/minus depreciation and amortization expense, stock-based compensation expense and gain on sales of assets and businesses; (iv) a favorable change of $47 million in accrued insurance expense, net of payments made in settlement of self-insured claims; (v) an unfavorable change of $45 million in accounts receivable, and; (vi) other combined net favorable changes of $2 million.  

Credit Agreement Amendment/Capital Resources:

As of June 30, 2026, pursuant to the terms of our $1.5 billion revolving credit facility, we had $1.272 billion of available borrowing capacity, net of outstanding borrowings ($225 million) and letters of credit.  Also as of June 30, 2026, as part of our credit agreement, we had $400 million of borrowing capacity pursuant to a delayed draw term loan A which is expected to be drawn upon the closing of our acquisition of Talkspace, Inc. (expected to be finalized during the third quarter of 2026). The maturity date for our $1.5 billion revolving credit facility and our $400 million delayed draw term loan A is September 26, 2029.

In July, 2026, and as previously disclosed on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2026, we amended our credit agreement to add a new $700 million delayed draw term loan A which, if we elect to utilize, would be funded on or prior to September 30, 2026, with a maturity date 364 days after the initial funding. Potential future borrowings pursuant to this facility would be used for general corporate purposes, including, should we elect, repayment at maturity of our $700 million, 1.650% Senior Secured Notes due on September 1, 2026.  

Stock Repurchase Program:

In connection with our stock repurchase program, shares of our Class B Common Stock may be repurchased, from time to time as conditions allow, on the open market or in negotiated private transactions. 

Pursuant to this program, during the second quarter of 2026, we have repurchased 1.890 million shares at an aggregate cost of approximately $320.3 million (average price of approximately $169 per share). During the first six months of 2026, we have repurchased 2.565 million shares at an aggregate cost of approximately $447.5 million (average price of approximately $174 per share).

As of June 30, 2026, we had an aggregate available repurchase authorization of approximately $977.6 million pursuant to our stock repurchase program.

Revised 2026 Operating Results Forecast:

Based upon the operating trends, changes in reimbursements related to certain Medicaid supplemental payment programs and financial results experienced during the first six months of 2026, as indicated on the Revised Forecast table below, we are revising our operating results forecast range for consolidated net revenues; adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization, and the impacts of other income/expense and net income attributable to noncontrolling interests ("Adjusted EBITDA, net of NCI"), and adjusted net income attributable to UHS per diluted share ("Adjusted EPS-diluted") for the year ended December 31, 2026.

As discussed above, our operating results for the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2026 included a favorable net pre-tax impact of $100 million (net of related provider taxes) recorded in connection with the Florida Medicaid managed care directed payment program applicable to the period of October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025. Since CMS has not yet approved the increased size of this program for periods beyond September 30, 2025, no incremental benefit related to this program has been included in our revised 2026 operating results forecast beyond amounts included in our operating results during the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2026.  

Our revised 2026 forecasted range of adjusted net income attributable to UHS, and adjusted EPS-diluted, exclude certain items as described below because we do not believe we can forecast those items with sufficient accuracy. Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI, is a non-GAAP financial measure and should not be considered a measure of financial performance under GAAP. We believe Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI is helpful to our investors as a measure of our operating performance. Please see the Supplemental Non-GAAP Disclosures – Revised 2026 Operating Results Forecast schedule as included herein for additional information and a reconciliation of our revised 2026 forecasted range of adjusted net income attributable to UHS to our revised 2026 forecasted range of Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI. 

The tables below include our full year revised 2026 operating results forecast, as well as our original 2026 operating results forecast which was previously disclosed on February 25, 2026.

Revised Forecast

Original Forecast

For the Year Ended

For the Year Ended

December 31, 2026

December 31, 2026

Low

High

Low

High

Net revenues

$18.501 billion

$18.762 billion

$18.417 billion

$18.789 billion

Adjusted EBITDA, net of NCI

$2.610 billion

$2.717 billion

$2.641 billion

$2.789 billion

Adjusted EPS – diluted

$22.28 per share

$23.65 per share

$22.64 per share

$24.52 per share

The midpoint of our revised 2026 forecasted net revenues represents an increase of 0.2% as compared to the midpoint of our original 2026 forecasted net revenues. The midpoint of our revised 2026 forecasted Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI, represents a decrease of 1.9% as compared to the midpoint of our original 2026 forecasted Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI. The midpoint of our revised 2026 forecasted Adjusted EPS-diluted represents a decrease of 2.6% as compared to our original 2026 Adjusted EPS-diluted. As previously disclosed, during the full year of 2026, we expect to spend approximately $950 million to $1.1 billion on capital expenditures which includes expenditures for capital equipment, construction of new facilities, and renovations and expansions to our existing hospitals.    Because we do not believe we can forecast certain items with sufficient accuracy, our revised 2026 forecasted range of Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI, net income attributable to UHS, and Adjusted EPS-diluted, exclude the impact of future items, if applicable, that are nonrecurring or non-operational in nature including items such as changes in the value of certain non-marketable securities (in connection with our minority ownership in a healthcare generative artificial intelligence company), the impact of ASU 2016-09, and other potential material items that are nonrecurring or non-operational in nature including, but not limited to, impairments of goodwill, long-lived and intangible assets, reserves for various matters including settlements, legal judgments and lawsuits, costs related to extinguishment of debt, gains/losses on sales of assets and businesses, potential impacts of non-ordinary acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, other amounts that may be reflected in the current or prior year financial statements that relate to prior periods, and the impact of share repurchases that differ from our forecasted assumptions. It is also subject to certain conditions including those as set forth below in General Information, Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors and Non-GAAP Financial Measures.

Conference call information:         

We will hold a conference call for investors and analysts at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on July 28, 2026. A live webcast of the call will be available on our website at www.uhs.com. To participate via telephone, please register in advance at this link. Upon registration, all telephone participants will receive a confirmation email detailing how to join the conference call, including the dial-in number along with a unique passcode and registrant ID that can be used to access the call. Supplemental financial disclosures related to our financial results are available on our website.

General Information, Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors and Non-GAAP Financial Measures:

Headquartered in King of Prussia, PA, UHS is one of the nation's largest and most respected providers of hospital and healthcare services, with annual revenues of approximately $17.4 billion during 2025. Through its subsidiaries, UHS employs more than 102,000 employees and, as of June 30, 2026, operated 30 inpatient acute care facilities, 346 inpatient behavioral health facilities and approximately 170 outpatient and other facilities, an insurance offering, a physician network and various related services located in 40 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. Since our founding in 1979, UHS has grown steadily into a premier Fortune 500® corporation perennially recognized by multiple esteemed national rating entities.  Our strategy includes investing in talented staff, facilities, technology and innovation across broad care continuums to deliver favorable patient outcomes and contribute to the overall health and wellbeing of the patients we are privileged to serve. A wholly-owned subsidiary of UHS also acts as the advisor to Universal Health Realty Income Trust, a real estate investment trust (NYSE: UHT). For additional information, please visit www.uhs.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements based on current management expectations.  Numerous factors, including those disclosed herein, those related to healthcare industry trends and those detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (as set forth in Item 2-Forward Looking Statements and Risk Factors in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026 and in Item 1A-Risk Factors, and Item 7-Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors, in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025), may cause the results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements.  These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties and therefore actual results may differ materially.  Readers should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements which reflect management's view only as of the date hereof.  We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, or to make any other forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. 

Many of the factors that could affect our future results are beyond our control or ability to predict, including, but not limited to:

A significant portion of our revenues are derived from federal and state government programs including the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Payments from these programs are subject to statutory and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations and determinations, requirements for utilization review, and federal and state funding restrictions.  Changes to these programs could materially affect program payments which could materially impact our results of operations. In addition, we receive substantial reimbursement from multiple states in connection with various supplemental Medicaid payment programs. Failure to renew these programs beyond their scheduled termination dates, failure of the public hospitals to provide the necessary Inter-Governmental Transfers for the states' share of the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital programs, and the failure of our hospitals that currently receive supplemental Medicaid revenues to qualify for future funds under these programs could cause our actual results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2026 to differ materially from our revised 2026 operating results forecast. Legislation adopted on July 4, 2025, attaches work and community service requirements to eligibility for Medicaid benefits that will have the effect of limiting Medicaid enrollment and expenditures. That legislation also places limits on provider fees used to increase federal Medicaid funding to states and eliminated certain exchange premium tax credits beyond 2025. As these provisions become effective over the next several years, they may be expected to reduce our revenues and likely increase the level of uncompensated care provided by our facilities. The increase in interest rates during the past few years has increased our interest expense significantly thereby reducing our free cash flow. As such, although interest rates have moderated more recently, the effects of increased borrowing rates have adversely impacted our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. We cannot predict future changes to interest rates, however, significant increases in our borrowing rates could have a material unfavorable impact on our future results of operations and our ability to access the capital markets on favorable terms. Changes in laws or policies governing the terms of foreign trade, and in particular, increased trade restrictions, tariffs or taxes on imports from where our products or materials are made (either directly or through our suppliers) could have an impact on our competitive position, business operations and financial results. The outcome of known and unknown litigation, liabilities and other claims asserted against us and/or our subsidiaries, including, but not limited to, the matters related to Cumberland Hospital for Children and Adolescents, located in New Kent, Virginia, which was previously disclosed in various filings including, most recently, our Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2026. Although we can make no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these matters, or what damages will ultimately be awarded, the final resolution of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company. The ability to successfully complete, integrate and realize the benefit and synergies from our proposed acquisition of Talkspace, Inc.  We believe that adjusted net income attributable to UHS, adjusted net income attributable to UHS per diluted share, EBITDA net of NCI and Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI, which are non-GAAP financial measures ("GAAP" is Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States of America), are helpful to our investors as measures of our operating performance. In addition, we believe that, when applicable, comparing and discussing our financial results based on these measures, as calculated, is helpful to our investors since it neutralizes the effect of material items impacting our net income attributable to UHS, such as, changes in the value of certain non-marketable securities (in connection with our minority ownership in a healthcare generative artificial intelligence company), the impact of ASU 2016-09, and other potential material items that are nonrecurring or non-operational in nature including, but not limited to, impairments of goodwill, long-lived and intangible assets, reserves for various matters including settlements, legal judgments and lawsuits, costs related to extinguishment of debt, gains/losses on sales of assets and businesses, potential impacts of non-ordinary acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, and other amounts that may be reflected in the current or prior year financial statements that relate to prior periods. To obtain a complete understanding of our financial performance these measures should be examined in connection with net income attributable to UHS, as determined in accordance with GAAP, and as presented in the condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto in this report or in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including our Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026 and our Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025. Since the items included or excluded from these measures are significant components in understanding and assessing financial performance under GAAP, these measures should not be considered to be alternatives to net income as a measure of our operating performance or profitability. Since these measures, as presented, are not determined in accordance with GAAP and are thus susceptible to varying calculations, they may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures of other companies. Investors are encouraged to use GAAP measures when evaluating our financial performance.

(more)

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Income

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

Three months

Six months

ended June 30,

ended June 30,

2026

2025

2026

2025

Net revenues

$4,638,012

$4,283,816

$9,133,194

$8,383,536

Operating charges:

   Salaries, wages and benefits

2,140,309

2,014,951

4,228,538

3,966,055

   Other operating expenses

1,351,958

1,162,566

2,635,886

2,268,318

   Supplies expense

423,257

418,785

849,800

821,666

   Depreciation and amortization

167,338

152,004

322,764

300,349

   Lease and rental expense

38,475

35,240

76,671

72,053

4,121,337

3,783,546

8,113,659

7,428,441

Income from operations

516,675

500,270

1,019,535

955,095

Interest expense, net

39,912

35,364

77,045

75,420

Other (income) expense, net

(2,363)

(8,479)

(5,752)

(14,138)

Income before income taxes

479,126

473,385

948,242

893,813

Provision for income taxes

114,536

110,773

224,974

209,573

Net income

364,590

362,612

723,268

684,240

Less:  Net income (loss) attributable to

noncontrolling interests ("NCI")

6,143

9,394

16,139

14,342

Net income attributable to UHS

$358,447

$353,218

$707,129

$669,898

Basic earnings per share attributable to UHS (a)

$6.01

$5.49

$11.71

$10.36

Diluted earnings per share attributable to UHS (a)

$5.98

$5.43

$11.63

$10.23

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Footnotes to Consolidated Statements of Income

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

Three months

Six months

(a) Earnings per share calculation:

ended June 30,

ended June 30,

2026

2025

2026

2025

Basic and diluted:

Net income attributable to UHS - basic and diluted

$358,447

$353,218

$707,129

$669,898

Weighted average number of common shares - basic

59,657

64,356

60,364

64,663

Basic earnings per share attributable to UHS:

$6.01

$5.49

$11.71

$10.36

Weighted average number of common shares

59,657

64,356

60,364

64,663

Add: Other share equivalents

253

635

425

851

Weighted average number of common shares and equiv. - diluted

59,910

64,991

60,789

65,514

Diluted earnings per share attributable to UHS:

$5.98

$5.43

$11.63

$10.23

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Schedule of Non-GAAP Supplemental Information ("Supplemental Schedule")

For the Three Months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

Calculation of Earnings/Adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization
("EBITDA/Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI")

Three months ended

% Net

Three months ended

% Net

June 30, 2026

revenues

June 30, 2025

revenues

Net income attributable to UHS

$358,447

$353,218

   Depreciation and amortization

167,338

152,004

   Interest expense, net

39,912

35,364

   Provision for income taxes

114,536

110,773

EBITDA net of NCI

$680,233

14.7 %

$651,359

15.2 %

Other (income) expense, net

(2,363)

(8,479)

Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI

$677,870

14.6 %

$642,880

15.0 %

Net revenues

$4,638,012

$4,283,816

Calculation of Adjusted Net Income Attributable to UHS

Three months ended

Three months ended

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

Per

Per

Amount

Diluted Share

Amount

Diluted Share

Net income attributable to UHS

$358,447

$5.98

$353,218

$5.43

Plus/minus after-tax adjustments:

Unrealized gain on equity securities

-

-

(4,534)

(0.07)

Impact of ASU 2016-09, net

-

-

(796)

(0.01)

Subtotal adjustments

-

-

(5,330)

(0.08)

Adjusted net income

$358,447

$5.98

$347,888

$5.35

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Schedule of Non-GAAP Supplemental Information ("Supplemental Schedule")

For the Six Months ended June 30, 2026 and 2025

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

Calculation of Earnings/Adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization
("EBITDA/Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI")

Six months ended

% Net

Six months ended

% Net

June 30, 2026

revenues

June 30, 2025

revenues

Net income attributable to UHS

$707,129

$669,898

   Depreciation and amortization

322,764

300,349

   Interest expense, net

77,045

75,420

   Provision for income taxes

224,974

209,573

EBITDA net of NCI

$1,331,912

14.6 %

$1,255,240

15.0 %

Other (income) expense, net

(5,752)

(14,138)

Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI

$1,326,160

14.5 %

$1,241,102

14.8 %

Net revenues

$9,133,194

$8,383,536

Calculation of Adjusted Net Income Attributable to UHS

Six months ended

Six months ended

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

Per

Per

Amount

Diluted Share

Amount

Diluted Share

Net income attributable to UHS

$707,129

$11.63

$669,898

$10.23

Plus/minus after-tax adjustments:

Unrealized gain on equity securities

-

-

(1,249)

(0.02)

Impact of ASU 2016-09, net

(2,164)

(0.03)

(1,257)

(0.02)

Subtotal adjustments

(2,164)

(0.03)

(2,506)

(0.04)

Adjusted net income attributable to UHS

$704,965

$11.60

$667,392

$10.19

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

June 30,

December 31,

2026

2025

Assets

Current assets:

    Cash and cash equivalents

$

138,800

$

137,797

    Accounts receivable, net

2,801,108

2,602,434

    Supplies

234,094

232,110

    Other current assets

505,323

435,574

          Total current assets

3,679,325

3,407,915

Property and equipment

13,830,293

13,489,811

Less: accumulated depreciation

(6,687,668)

(6,481,714)

7,142,625

7,008,097

Other assets:

    Goodwill

3,981,713

3,990,213

    Deferred income taxes

63,719

70,517

    Right of use assets-operating leases

365,758

374,239

    Deferred charges

9,908

9,272

    Other

692,438

667,340

Total Assets

$

15,935,486

$

15,527,593

Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity

Current liabilities:

    Current maturities of long-term debt

$

771,910

$

748,158

    Accounts payable and other liabilities

2,451,182

2,416,276

    Operating lease liabilities

70,861

73,237

    Federal and state taxes

3,703

1,930

          Total current liabilities

3,297,656

3,239,601

Other noncurrent liabilities

559,955

527,827

Operating lease liabilities noncurrent

339,467

340,715

Deferred income taxes

3,233

5,649

Long-term debt

4,079,937

4,004,393

Redeemable noncontrolling interest

73,603

70,620

UHS common stockholders' equity

7,513,812

7,275,792

Noncontrolling interest

67,823

62,996

          Total equity

7,581,635

7,338,788

Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity

$

15,935,486

$

15,527,593

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

Six months

ended June 30,

2026

2025

Cash Flows from Operating Activities:

  Net income

$723,268

$684,240

  Adjustments to reconcile net income to net 

cash provided by operating activities:

Depreciation & amortization

322,764

300,349

Stock-based compensation expense

45,413

45,707

(Gain) loss on sales of assets and businesses

(5,578)

2,833

  Changes in assets & liabilities, net of effects from

acquisitions and dispositions:

   Accounts receivable

(137,907)

(92,636)

   Accrued interest

(29)

(4,532)

   Accrued and deferred income taxes 

29,759

(55,913)

   Other working capital accounts 

(182,146)

25,324

   Other assets and deferred charges

(18,466)

(22,404)

   Other, net 

10,753

16,143

   Accrued insurance expense, net of commercial premiums paid

157,435

94,696

   Payments made in settlement of self-insurance claims, net of commercial insurance reimbursements

(100,335)

(84,781)

          Net cash provided by operating activities

844,931

909,026

Cash Flows from Investing Activities:

   Property and equipment additions

(444,790)

(505,040)

   Proceeds received from sales of assets and businesses

15,732

2,980

   Acquisition of businesses and property

(4,857)

(8,314)

   Inflows (outflows) from foreign exchange contracts that hedge our net U.K. investment

12,011

(66,402)

   Costs incurred for purchase and development of enterprise resource planning application

(9,964)

0

   Decrease (increase) in capital reserves of commercial insurance subsidiary 

56

(462)

          Net cash used in investing activities

(431,812)

(577,238)

Cash Flows from Financing Activities:

   Repayments of long-term debt

(201,745)

(18,548)

   Additional borrowings

300,040

94,601

   Financing costs

(1,410)

0

   Repurchase of common shares

(484,601)

(378,542)

   Dividends paid

(24,760)

(26,434)

   Issuance of common stock

8,659

8,137

   Profit distributions to noncontrolling interests

(11,889)

(9,621)

   Purchase of ownership interests by minority members, net

4,324

11,336

          Net cash used in financing activities

(411,382)

(319,071)

   Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents

(676)

3,931

Increase in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash

1,061

16,648

Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, beginning of period

271,322

224,752

Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, end of period

$272,383

$241,400

Supplemental Disclosures of Cash Flow Information:

  Interest paid

$74,460

$77,448

  Income taxes paid, net of refunds

$197,419

$251,786

  Noncash purchases of property and equipment

$80,646

$148,887

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Supplemental Statistical Information

(unaudited)

 % Change 

 % Change 

3 Months ended

6 Months ended

Same Facility:

6/30/2026

6/30/2026

Acute Care Hospitals (1)

Revenues

8.2 %

8.2 %

Adjusted Admissions

2.9 %

1.4 %

Adjusted Patient Days

3.1 %

1.9 %

Revenue Per Adjusted Admission

3.0 %

4.6 %

Revenue Per Adjusted Patient Day

2.8 %

4.2 %

Behavioral Health Hospitals (1)

Revenues

7.4 %

7.4 %

Adjusted Admissions

0.5 %

0.9 %

Adjusted Patient Days

1.4 %

1.5 %

Revenue Per Adjusted Admission

7.1 %

6.6 %

Revenue Per Adjusted Patient Day

6.1 %

6.0 %

UHS Consolidated

Second Quarter Ended

Six Months Ended

6/30/2026

6/30/2025

6/30/2026

6/30/2025

Revenues

$4,638,012

$4,283,816

$9,133,194

$8,383,536

EBITDA net of NCI

$680,233

$651,359

$1,331,912

$1,255,240

EBITDA Margin net of NCI

14.7 %

15.2 %

14.6 %

15.0 %

Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI

$677,870

$642,880

$1,326,160

$1,241,102

Adjusted EBITDA Margin net of NCI

14.6 %

15.0 %

14.5 %

14.8 %

Cash Flow From Operations

$443,303

$548,978

$844,931

$909,026

Capital Expenditures  

$227,633

$266,014

$444,790

$505,040

Days Sales Outstanding

56

50

Debt 

$4,851,847

$4,582,897

UHS' Shareholders Equity

$7,513,812

$7,030,048

Debt / Total Capitalization

39.2 %

39.5 %

Debt / EBITDA net of NCI (2)

1.73

1.91

Debt / Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI (2)

1.81

1.92

Debt / Cash From Operations (2)

2.70

2.41

(1) Prior year amounts related to certain facilities previously included in our Behavioral Health Care Services' results have been reclassified into our Acute Care Hospital Services' results as of January 1, 2025 to conform with current year presentation.

(2) Latest 4 quarters.

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Acute Care Hospital Services

For the Three and Six Months ended

June 30, 2026 and 2025

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

Same Facility Basis - Acute Care Hospital Services

Three months ended

Three months ended

Six months ended

Six months ended

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Net revenues

$2,507,889

100.0 %

$2,318,826

100.0 %

$4,977,934

100.0 %

$4,600,657

100.0 %

Operating charges:

Salaries, wages and benefits

991,733

39.5 %

938,594

40.5 %

1,944,568

39.1 %

1,852,423

40.3 %

Other operating expenses

779,029

31.1 %

672,172

29.0 %

1,507,181

30.3 %

1,310,771

28.5 %

Supplies expense

362,131

14.4 %

361,093

15.6 %

727,628

14.6 %

709,917

15.4 %

Depreciation and amortization

103,112

4.1 %

96,458

4.2 %

198,793

4.0 %

191,359

4.2 %

Lease and rental expense

25,959

1.0 %

24,240

1.0 %

52,697

1.1 %

49,584

1.1 %

Subtotal-operating expenses

2,261,964

90.2 %

2,092,557

90.2 %

4,430,867

89.0 %

4,114,054

89.4 %

Income from operations

245,925

9.8 %

226,269

9.8 %

547,067

11.0 %

486,603

10.6 %

Interest expense, net 

1,301

0.1 %

(1,613)

(0.1) %

2,287

0.0 %

649

0.0 %

Other (income) expense, net 

(1,189)

(0.0) %

(1,011)

(0.0) %

(3,744)

(0.1) %

(9,583)

(0.2) %

Income before income taxes

$245,813

9.8 %

$228,893

9.9 %

$548,524

11.0 %

$495,537

10.8 %

All Acute Care Hospital Services

Three months ended

Three months ended

Six months ended

Six months ended

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

Amount

% of Net
Revenues

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Net revenues

$2,609,999

100.0 %

$2,403,837

100.0 %

$5,220,135

100.0 %

$4,761,651

100.0 %

Operating charges:

Salaries, wages and benefits

999,864

38.3 %

938,708

39.1 %

1,972,710

37.8 %

1,854,232

38.9 %

Other operating expenses

885,882

33.9 %

757,549

31.5 %

1,745,729

33.4 %

1,474,211

31.0 %

Supplies expense

363,494

13.9 %

361,097

15.0 %

731,432

14.0 %

709,789

14.9 %

Depreciation and amortization

106,623

4.1 %

96,459

4.0 %

202,941

3.9 %

191,362

4.0 %

Lease and rental expense

26,170

1.0 %

24,240

1.0 %

52,742

1.0 %

49,584

1.0 %

Subtotal-operating expenses

2,382,033

91.3 %

2,178,053

90.6 %

4,705,554

90.1 %

4,279,178

89.9 %

Income from operations

227,966

8.7 %

225,784

9.4 %

514,581

9.9 %

482,473

10.1 %

Interest expense, net 

1,301

0.0 %

(1,613)

(0.1) %

2,287

0.0 %

649

0.0 %

Other (income) expense, net 

(985)

(0.0) %

(916)

(0.0) %

(3,117)

(0.1) %

(9,183)

(0.2) %

Income before income taxes

$227,650

8.7 %

$228,313

9.5 %

$515,411

9.9 %

$491,007

10.3 %

We believe that providing our results on a "Same Facility" basis (which is a non-GAAP measure), which includes the operating results for facilities and businesses operated in both the current year and prior year periods, is helpful to our investors as a measure of our operating performance. Our Same Facility results also neutralize (if applicable), the effect of material items that are nonrecurring or non-operational in nature including items such as, but not limited to, reserves for various matters, settlements, legal judgments and lawsuits, cost related to extinguishment of debt, gains/losses on sales of assets and businesses, impairments of goodwill, long-lived and intangible assets and other amounts that may be reflected in the current or prior year financial statements that relate to prior periods. Our Same Facility basis results exclude from net revenues and other operating expenses, provider tax assessments incurred in each period. However, these provider tax assessments are included in net revenues and other operating expenses as reflected in the table under All Acute Care Hospital Services. The provider tax assessments had no impact on the income before income taxes as reflected on the above tables since the amounts offset between net revenues and other operating expenses. To obtain a complete understanding of our financial performance, the Same Facility results should be examined in connection with our net income as determined in accordance with GAAP and as presented herein and the condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto as contained in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025 and our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026.

Prior year amounts related to certain facilities previously included in our Behavioral Health Care Services' results have been reclassified into our Acute Care Hospital Services' results as of January 1, 2025 to conform with current year presentation.

The All Acute Care Hospital Services table summarizes the results of operations for all our acute care operations during the periods presented. These amounts include: (i) our acute care results on a same facility basis, as indicated above; (ii) the impact of provider tax assessments which increased net revenues and other operating expenses but had no impact on income before income taxes, and; (iii) certain other amounts including the results of facilities acquired or opened during the last twelve months.

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Behavioral Health Care Services

For the Three and Six Months ended

June 30, 2026 and 2025

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

Same Facility Basis - Behavioral Health Care Services

Three months ended

Three months ended

Six months ended

Six months ended

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Net revenues

$1,929,171

100.0 %

$1,796,295

100.0 %

$3,747,847

100.0 %

$3,490,455

100.0 %

Operating charges:

Salaries, wages and benefits

1,019,296

52.8 %

959,030

53.4 %

2,012,334

53.7 %

1,878,820

53.8 %

Other operating expenses

355,579

18.4 %

325,595

18.1 %

690,002

18.4 %

645,195

18.5 %

Supplies expense

57,889

3.0 %

56,957

3.2 %

116,345

3.1 %

111,952

3.2 %

Depreciation and amortization

56,764

2.9 %

51,873

2.9 %

111,920

3.0 %

102,752

2.9 %

Lease and rental expense

12,054

0.6 %

10,412

0.6 %

23,359

0.6 %

21,290

0.6 %

Subtotal-operating expenses

1,501,582

77.8 %

1,403,867

78.2 %

2,953,960

78.8 %

2,760,009

79.1 %

Income from operations

427,589

22.2 %

392,428

21.8 %

793,887

21.2 %

730,446

20.9 %

Interest expense, net 

1,168

0.1 %

1,104

0.1 %

2,360

0.1 %

2,179

0.1 %

Other (income) expense, net 

(983)

(0.1) %

(837)

(0.0) %

(1,866)

(0.0) %

(1,662)

(0.0) %

Income before income taxes

$427,404

22.2 %

$392,161

21.8 %

$793,393

21.2 %

$729,929

20.9 %

All Behavioral Health Care Services

Three months ended

Three months ended

Six months ended

Six months ended

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

June 30, 2026

June 30, 2025

Amount

% of Net
Revenues

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Amount

% of Net
Revenues

Amount

% of Net
Revenues 

Net revenues

$2,025,065

100.0 %

$1,877,273

100.0 %

$3,907,217

100.0 %

$3,616,337

100.0 %

Operating charges:

Salaries, wages and benefits

1,040,604

51.4 %

975,553

52.0 %

2,041,698

52.3 %

1,898,919

52.5 %

Other operating expenses

443,752

21.9 %

383,412

20.4 %

835,650

21.4 %

745,674

20.6 %

Supplies expense

58,475

2.9 %

58,289

3.1 %

117,262

3.0 %

113,437

3.1 %

Depreciation and amortization

58,895

2.9 %

53,170

2.8 %

115,529

3.0 %

104,322

2.9 %

Lease and rental expense

12,212

0.6 %

10,963

0.6 %

23,727

0.6 %

22,327

0.6 %

Subtotal-operating expenses

1,613,938

79.7 %

1,481,387

78.9 %

3,133,866

80.2 %

2,884,679

79.8 %

Income from operations

411,127

20.3 %

395,886

21.1 %

773,351

19.8 %

731,658

20.2 %

Interest expense, net 

1,273

0.1 %

1,104

0.1 %

2,545

0.1 %

2,179

0.1 %

Other (income) expense, net 

(983)

(0.0) %

(837)

(0.0) %

(1,866)

(0.0) %

(1,662)

(0.0) %

Income before income taxes

$410,837

20.3 %

$395,619

21.1 %

$772,672

19.8 %

$731,141

20.2 %

We believe that providing our results on a "Same Facility" basis (which is a non-GAAP measure), which includes the operating results for facilities and businesses operated in both the current year and prior year periods, is helpful to our investors as a measure of our operating performance. Our Same Facility results also neutralize (if applicable), the effect of material items that are nonrecurring or non-operational in nature including items such as, but not limited to, reserves for various matters, settlements, legal judgments and lawsuits, cost related to extinguishment of debt, gains/losses on sales of assets and businesses, impairments of goodwill, long-lived and intangible assets and other amounts that may be reflected in the current or prior year financial statements that relate to prior periods. Our Same Facility basis results exclude from net revenues and other operating expenses, provider tax assessments incurred in each period. However, these provider tax assessments are included in net revenues and other operating expenses as reflected in the table under All Behavioral Health Care Services. The provider tax assessments had no impact on the income before income taxes as reflected on the above tables since the amounts offset between net revenues and other operating expenses. To obtain a complete understanding of our financial performance, the Same Facility results should be examined in connection with our net income as determined in accordance with GAAP and as presented herein and the condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto as contained in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025 and our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026.

Prior year amounts related to certain facilities previously included in our Behavioral Health Care Services' results have been reclassified into our Acute Care Hospital Services' results as of January 1, 2025 to conform with current year presentation.

The All Behavioral Health Care Services table summarizes the results of operations for all our behavioral health care facilities during the periods presented. These amounts include: (i) our behavioral health results on a same facility basis, as indicated above; (ii) the impact of provider tax assessments which increased net revenues and other operating expenses but had no impact on income before income taxes, and; (iii) certain other amounts including the results of facilities acquired or opened during the last twelve months. 

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Selected Hospital Statistics

For the Three Months ended

June 30, 2026 and 2025

(unaudited)

AS REPORTED:

ACUTE

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

Hospitals owned and leased

30

28

7.1 %

346

338

2.4 %

Average licensed beds

7,434

7,159

3.8 %

24,587

24,254

1.4 %

Average available beds

7,262

6,987

3.9 %

24,487

24,154

1.4 %

Patient days

420,001

412,885

1.7 %

1,631,375

1,620,819

0.7 %

Average daily census

4,615.4

4,537.2

1.7 %

17,927.2

17,811.2

0.7 %

Occupancy-licensed beds

62.1 %

63.4 %

-2.0 %

72.9 %

73.4 %

-0.7 %

Occupancy-available beds

63.6 %

64.9 %

-2.1 %

73.2 %

73.7 %

-0.7 %

Admissions

88,649

87,278

1.6 %

116,857

118,519

-1.4 %

Length of stay

4.7

4.7

0.2 %

14.0

13.7

2.1 %

Inpatient revenue

$15,586,752

$13,886,867

12.2 %

$3,302,515

$2,993,234

10.3 %

Outpatient revenue

11,194,461

9,638,566

16.1 %

326,489

294,989

10.7 %

Total patient revenue

26,781,213

23,525,433

13.8 %

3,629,004

3,288,223

10.4 %

Other revenue

353,881

285,690

23.9 %

96,736

93,542

3.4 %

Gross revenue

27,135,094

23,811,123

14.0 %

3,725,740

3,381,765

10.2 %

Total deductions

24,525,095

21,407,286

14.6 %

1,700,675

1,504,492

13.0 %

Net revenue 

$2,609,999

$2,403,837

8.6 %

$2,025,065

$1,877,273

7.9 %

SAME FACILITY:

ACUTE

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

Hospitals owned and leased

29

29

0.0 %

334

334

0.0 %

Average licensed beds

7,330

7,159

2.4 %

23,703

23,652

0.2 %

Average available beds

7,158

6,987

2.4 %

23,603

23,552

0.2 %

Patient days

419,710

412,885

1.7 %

1,597,105

1,576,830

1.3 %

Average daily census

4,612.2

4,537.2

1.7 %

17,550.6

17,327.8

1.3 %

Occupancy-licensed beds

62.9 %

63.4 %

-0.7 %

74.0 %

73.3 %

1.1 %

Occupancy-available beds

64.4 %

64.9 %

-0.8 %

74.4 %

73.6 %

1.1 %

Admissions

88,562

87,278

1.5 %

114,911

114,433

0.4 %

Length of stay

4.7

4.7

0.2 %

13.9

13.8

0.9 %

Prior year amounts related to certain facilities previously included in our Behavioral Health Care Services' results have been reclassified into our Acute Care Hospital Services' results as of January 1, 2025 to conform with current year presentation.

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Selected Hospital Statistics

For the Six Months ended

June 30, 2026 and 2025

(unaudited)

AS REPORTED:

ACUTE

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

Hospitals owned and leased

30

28

7.1 %

346

338

2.4 %

Average licensed beds

7,300

7,076

3.2 %

24,579

24,170

1.7 %

Average available beds

7,128

6,904

3.2 %

24,479

24,070

1.7 %

Patient days

851,080

841,922

1.1 %

3,250,959

3,209,365

1.3 %

Average daily census

4,702.1

4,651.5

1.1 %

17,961.1

17,731.3

1.3 %

Occupancy-licensed beds

64.4 %

65.7 %

-2.0 %

73.1 %

73.4 %

-0.4 %

Occupancy-available beds

66.0 %

67.4 %

-2.1 %

73.4 %

73.7 %

-0.4 %

Admissions

176,538

175,368

0.7 %

234,348

234,869

-0.2 %

Length of stay

4.8

4.8

0.4 %

13.9

13.7

1.5 %

Inpatient revenue

$31,549,934

$28,205,158

11.9 %

$6,568,817

$5,838,122

12.5 %

Outpatient revenue

22,007,439

18,966,362

16.0 %

638,981

569,023

12.3 %

Total patient revenue

53,557,373

47,171,520

13.5 %

7,207,798

6,407,145

12.5 %

Other revenue

691,138

566,133

22.1 %

192,211

181,921

5.7 %

Gross revenue

54,248,511

47,737,653

13.6 %

7,400,009

6,589,066

12.3 %

Total deductions

49,028,376

42,976,002

14.1 %

3,492,792

2,972,729

17.5 %

Net revenue 

$5,220,135

$4,761,651

9.6 %

$3,907,217

$3,616,337

8.0 %

SAME FACILITY:

ACUTE

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

6/30/26

6/30/25

%  change

Hospitals owned and leased

29

29

0.0 %

334

334

0.0 %

Average licensed beds

7,177

7,076

1.4 %

23,860

23,754

0.4 %

Average available beds

7,005

6,904

1.5 %

23,760

23,654

0.4 %

Patient days

845,542

841,922

0.4 %

3,190,451

3,147,427

1.4 %

Average daily census

4,671.5

4,651.5

0.4 %

17,626.8

17,389.1

1.4 %

Occupancy-licensed beds

65.1 %

65.7 %

-1.0 %

73.9 %

73.2 %

0.9 %

Occupancy-available beds

66.7 %

67.4 %

-1.0 %

74.2 %

73.5 %

0.9 %

Admissions

175,342

175,368

0.0 %

231,179

229,482

0.7 %

Length of stay

4.8

4.8

0.4 %

13.8

13.7

0.6 %

Prior year amounts related to certain facilities previously included in our Behavioral Health Care Services' results have been reclassified into our Acute Care Hospital Services' results as of January 1, 2025 to conform with current year presentation.

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Supplemental Non-GAAP Disclosures

Revised 2026 Operating Results Forecast

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

Revised Forecast For The Year Ending December 31, 2026

% Net

% Net

Low

revenues

High

revenues

Net revenues

$18,501,000

$18,762,000

Adjusted net income attributable to UHS (a)

$1,322,985

$1,404,050

 Depreciation and amortization

669,318

669,318

 Interest expense

204,898

204,898

 Other (income) expense, net

(9,924)

(9,924)

 Provision for income taxes

422,378

448,259

Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI (b)

$2,609,655

14.1 %

$2,716,601

14.5 %

Adjusted net income attributable to UHS, per diluted share (a)

$22.28

$23.65

Shares used in computing diluted earnings per share

59,369

59,369

(a) Adjusted net income attributable to UHS/per diluted share exclude the following items because we do not believe we can forecast these items with sufficient accuracy. Such items include: the impact of future items, if applicable, that are nonrecurring or non-operational in nature including items such as pre-tax unrealized gains/losses resulting from changes in the value of certain non-marketable securities, the impact of ASU 2016-09, and other potential material items including, but not limited to, impairments of goodwill, long-lived and intangible assets, reserves for various matters including settlements, legal judgments and lawsuits, costs related to extinguishment of debt, gains/losses on sales of assets and businesses, potential impacts of non-ordinary acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures or other strategic transactions, other amounts that may be reflected in the current or prior year financial statements that relate to prior periods, and the impact of share repurchases that differ from our forecasted assumptions. Adjusted net income attributable to UHS/per diluted share is also subject to certain conditions including those as set forth in General Information, Forward-Looking Statements and Risk Factors and Non-GAAP Financial Measures.

(b) Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI is a non-GAAP financial measure and should not be considered a measure of financial performance under GAAP.  We believe Adjusted EBITDA net of NCI is helpful to our investors as a measure of operating performance.

SOURCE Universal Health Services, Inc.

A venue clearing more than $200 billion a month, holding roughly 70% of on-chain perpetuals volume, is secured by 27 validators. Its foundation ran every one of them at launch. Both the critics and the defenders are working from stale numbers, so here is the audit: what the set looks like now, which powers actually exist, and where the honest gap remains.

Summary

Hyperliquid’s validator set has grown from 4 at launch to 16, then 21, 24, and 27 as of June, with registration permissionless and the largest stakes forming the active set. The decisive number moved this year: foundation-run validators now hold about 49.3% of staked HYPE, with the remaining 50.7% spread across 22 other operators, down from a reported 81% concentration in early 2025. The loudest criticism, that the foundation can jail validators at will, does not match the documentation, which describes jailing as peer-triggered for latency and reliability failures, with no automatic slashing anywhere in the system. The genuine gap is scale, not malice: 27 validators against roughly 1,800 on Solana and hundreds of thousands on Ethereum, securing a venue whose monthly volume exceeds $200 billion, with node software still closed and a delegation program that applies identity checks to participants. Singapore’s regulator added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List in June, which converts the decentralization argument from a philosophical debate into a question with legal consequences. The most valuable thing about a decentralization argument is usually the data it forces into the open, and the Hyperliquid version has been running on stale data for eighteen months. In January 2025 a node operator published a letter noting that five foundation validators controlled more than 81% of staked HYPE across a set of sixteen, and that number entered the discourse and never left it. In June 2026, a prominent investor declared the network not permissionless at all, citing validators concentrated in a single building, node software that remains closed, and a foundation that can jail operators and force upgrades on them. Both interventions were treated as verdicts. Neither reflected the current state of the network, which had by then expanded to 27 validators with foundation-run nodes holding slightly less than half the stake, and neither engaged with what the protocol’s own documentation says about the powers in dispute. Meanwhile the thing being argued over kept growing: a venue processing more than $200 billion a month, holding roughly 70% of decentralized perpetuals volume, generating on the order of a billion dollars a year in fees, with an order book, a matching engine, and a liquidation system all running on those 27 machines. This piece is the audit both sides have been arguing without: the set as it stands, the powers as documented, the precedent where those powers actually fired, and the gap that survives every correction.

The set, counted Start with the trajectory, because the direction is the part the standing critique omits.

Hyperliquid launched with a handful of validators, all run by the foundation, in what amounted to a permissioned network wearing a public ticker. The set expanded to 16 in January 2025, the moment that produced the original decentralization letter and the 81% concentration figure. In April 2025 the foundation restructured registration itself: the set moved to 21 nodes, with registration open to anyone and the 21 largest by stake forming the active set, which converted validator status from an appointment into an auction. Growth continued through 24 to 27 as of June 2026, with a stake threshold to enter that has run above a million HYPE, a number that itself functions as the network’s real admission price.

The concentration figure moved with it. Following a round of redelegations from foundation validators in June, foundation-run nodes hold approximately 49.3% of staked HYPE, with about 50.7% distributed across 22 independent operators. The foundation runs five validators of the 27. That is a materially different network from the one described by the 81% figure still circulating in criticism, and any honest audit has to lead with the improvement before cataloguing what remains.

The mechanics underneath are worth stating precisely, because they define who can participate. Consensus is delegated proof of stake: validators require a minimum self-delegation of 10,000 HYPE locked for a year, delegators face a one-day lock and a seven-day unstaking queue, and rewards accrue continuously with automatic recompounding. There is no automatic slashing anywhere in the system, which is unusual and cuts both ways: no operator loses stake for a mistake, and no operator loses stake for misbehavior either, leaving the unstaking queue and social consequences as the enforcement layer. Governance runs on delegated stake weight, with validators declaring positions and outcomes determined by the tokens behind them, not by validator headcount, which means the concentration number is the governance number, not a trivium.

The three powers, examined Now the specific allegations, taken one at a time against the documentation, because two of the three survive and one does not.

Jailing. The claim that has traveled furthest is that the foundation can jail a validator for any reason and remove it from the active set. The protocol documentation describes something different: validators can be jailed through peer voting for latency and reliability failures, and a jailed validator stops producing rewards for its delegators until unjailed, with no slashing attached. Peer-triggered removal for performance is standard practice across proof-of-stake networks and is not foundation discretion. The residual concern is real but narrower than the accusation: when foundation-affiliated nodes hold close to half the stake, peer voting weighted by that stake is not fully independent of the foundation, so the mechanism is only as neutral as the distribution underneath it. That is an argument about concentration, which is the argument this piece keeps returning to, and not an argument about arbitrary power.

Forced upgrades. The claim that validators must adopt protocol upgrades is essentially accurate and largely unremarkable. Every chain running a single client implementation faces the same reality: nodes that decline an upgrade fall out of consensus, which is a coordination fact, not a governance power. What makes it sharper here is the single-binary architecture. Hyperliquid runs one implementation, which the foundation has defended by pointing out that Solana operated the same way for years. The defense is honest and incomplete: single-client networks concentrate the risk that a bug or a decision in one codebase becomes the whole network’s bug or decision, which is precisely why Ethereum’s client diversity is treated as a security property instead of an inefficiency.

Closed source. This one stands, and it is the most consequential of the three. The node software has remained closed, with the foundation’s position since early 2025 being that the code will open when it is stable, citing development speed and security. Eighteen months and considerable growth later, the promise is still outstanding, and it is the crux of the June criticism: a validator running a binary it cannot read is trusting the author in a way that no amount of stake distribution fixes. Users can verify state on-chain, but nobody outside the team can independently verify what the software does before it produces that state. For a venue clearing $200 billion a month, that is the single widest gap between what the network claims and what an outsider can check.

The precedent: when the powers fired Governance arguments stay abstract until an incident makes them concrete, and Hyperliquid’s arrived in March 2025 with a memecoin called JELLY.

A trader opened a large position and manipulated the thin spot market underneath it, engineering losses that landed on the protocol’s liquidity vault, the pool that absorbs liquidated positions on behalf of depositors. With the vault facing an eight-figure hit, validators voted to delist the market and settle it at a price favorable to the protocol, and the loss was contained. The intervention worked, users were protected, and the affair was over within hours.

JUST IN: CZ calls Hyperliquid’s invention awesome for filling a Binance gap. He highlights their no-KYC model while questioning decentralization claims pic.twitter.com/WYQdYOM2H7

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) June 18, 2026 It also answered the governance question empirically. A market that traded on a network can be closed by a stake-weighted vote when the network’s own capital is at risk, and the vote at that time ran through a validator set in which the foundation held a decisive share, which is why the episode was described in the trade press as a validator put: an implicit guarantee that the house will intervene when the house is losing. Two readings follow, and both are defensible. The generous one is that any exchange, decentralized or otherwise, must be able to halt manipulation, and a venue that let a vault be drained by an obvious attack would deserve the criticism it received instead. The unforgiving one is that decentralization is only tested at the moment intervention becomes attractive, and Hyperliquid intervened. What the incident settles is not whether the network is good or bad but what it is: a venue with a functioning emergency brake and a small number of hands on it. Traders should price that accordingly, in both directions, since the same brake that protected vault depositors in March 2025 is the brake that could close a market a trader is winning in.

The comparison that survives every correction Strip out the stale numbers and the overstated claims, and one gap remains that no redelegation fixes: the set is very small relative to what it secures.

Twenty-seven validators sits against roughly 1,800 on Solana, several hundred on Cosmos Hub, and hundreds of thousands on Ethereum. The technical counterargument is legitimate and worth stating properly: Byzantine fault tolerant consensus does not require thousands of participants for safety, it requires an honest supermajority within whatever set exists, and a small high-performance set is exactly how the network achieves the sub-second finality that makes an on-chain order book viable at all. Hyperliquid’s entire product advantage, matching and finality fast enough to compete with centralized venues, is purchased with validator-set size. That is a deliberate trade, not an oversight.

The question is whether the price is right at this scale, and the arithmetic is uncomfortable. A set of 27 secures a venue processing over $200 billion monthly, with open interest, vault deposits, and now equity-linked and other builder-deployed markets on top. The attack surface that matters is not cryptographic but social and regulatory: 27 operators are 27 phone calls, 27 jurisdictions to subpoena, 27 relationships to pressure, and the foundation’s near-half stake means a much smaller number of conversations would decide most outcomes. The delegation program that expands the set applies identity checks to participants, which improves accountability and simultaneously means the expansion is curated, not open, in practice. Each of those facts is defensible on its own terms. Together they describe a network whose decentralization is best characterized as a managed trajectory: real, measurable, improving, and still a long way from the property its marketing language implies.

The regulator arrives Which is where the argument stopped being philosophical. On June 26, Singapore’s Monetary Authority added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List, the register of entities that consumers might wrongly believe are licensed. The listing is not a ban, not an enforcement action, and not a finding of wrongdoing, and Hyperliquid’s response was accurate on every point: it has never claimed authorization from the regulator, nothing about the network changed, users retain self-custody, and settlement remains on-chain. Bybit had joined the same list nine days earlier, KuCoin in February, Binance since 2021, which places Hyperliquid in familiar company and suggests a regulator working through a list instead of singling out a protocol.

The significance is what the listing does to the vocabulary. Permissionless has been a technical description inside crypto and is becoming a legal position outside it, because a protocol claiming to be infrastructure rather than an operator is making an argument about who, if anyone, is responsible for the venue. The critique that landed the same day, that a network with closed-source software, a curated validator set, and foundation-weighted governance does not meet the description, is therefore not merely a purity argument. It is a claim that the legal position rests on facts the network has not fully proven, and regulators reading the same debate will reach their own conclusions about which entity, if any, is running the exchange. That is the real stake of the governance question in 2026, and it is why the numbers in this piece matter beyond ideology: the distance between 49.3% and something much smaller, and between closed source and open, is also the distance between a plausible infrastructure claim and a contestable one.

The listing power, and the money behind it One dimension of the governance question sits outside the validator debate entirely, and for traders it may be the more consequential one: who decides what trades here.

The network’s newer listing machinery, the builder-deployed markets that opened perpetuals creation beyond the core team and produced the equity-linked contracts this publication audited separately, is gated by stake rather than by approval. Deploying a perpetual market requires staking a large HYPE position for a minimum period, and builder deployments on the EVM side run through a periodic auction for slots. Read one way, that is the most genuinely permissionless part of the system: no committee decides which markets exist, only capital does, which is why the venue could list synthetic equity exposure faster than any regulated exchange could convene a meeting about it. Read another way, it replaces gatekeeping with a wealth qualification, and it means the venue’s expanding product surface, including markets that touch regulated asset classes, is determined by whoever can post the stake.

The economics tie the two halves of the governance question together. Trading fees flow into the token’s buyback machinery, which this publication has covered as crypto’s clearest example of a network routing real revenue to its asset, and staked HYPE is simultaneously the security bond, the governance weight, and the listing key. That triple duty is elegant design and a concentration mechanism at once: the same token that secures the chain decides its rules and controls what it lists, so any accumulation of HYPE is an accumulation of all three powers together. On a chain where roughly half the stake already sits with one affiliated group, and where an entry ticket to the validator set runs above a million tokens, the practical question is not whether the system is permissionless in principle but how much capital it takes to matter, and the answer has been rising with the token.

That is the frame worth carrying out of this audit. Hyperliquid’s governance is not a story about a foundation refusing to let go; the trajectory shows the opposite, steadily and measurably. It is a story about a design in which influence tracks capital with unusual directness, on a venue whose scale now exceeds most regulated exchanges, with the software still unreadable from outside. Whether that is acceptable is a judgment each user makes. What it is, precisely, is now on the record.

What to watch The stake distribution, not the validator count. Headcount is the easy number to grow and the least informative. Whether foundation-run stake continues falling below 49.3%, and whether any single independent operator accumulates a blocking position, is the measure that determines who actually decides outcomes.

The open-source commitment. The promise to publish node software has been outstanding since early 2025 and is the single change that would most alter the audit. Its continued absence is itself information, and the longer it runs, the weaker the stability rationale becomes.

The next intervention. JELLY showed that the network will act to protect its vault. The next comparable event, and whether the decision runs through a stake distribution that no longer has a foundation majority behind it, is the test of whether governance changed or only its arithmetic did.

Regulatory follow-through. The Singapore listing has no operational effect today. Whether other jurisdictions follow, and whether any of them treats the foundation as the operator of an unlicensed exchange, is the scenario in which every fact in this audit stops being a debating point and becomes evidence.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Validator counts, stake distributions, and protocol parameters change continuously, and figures reflect data reported at the time of writing. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, hold, or trade any asset or on any venue. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 26, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions How many validators does Hyperliquid have? Twenty-seven as of June 2026, up from four or five at launch, then 16 at the start of 2025, 21 in April 2025, and 24 later that year. Registration is open to anyone, with the largest stakes forming the active set, and entry has required a stake above roughly one million HYPE. Validators must self-delegate a minimum of 10,000 HYPE locked for one year.

Who controls the stake? Foundation-run validators hold approximately 49.3% of staked HYPE following redelegations in June, with about 50.7% spread across 22 independent operators. The foundation operates five of the 27 validators. This is a substantial change from early 2025, when a widely cited analysis put foundation-controlled stake above 81% across a set of 16.

Can the foundation remove validators at will? Not according to the documentation. Jailing is described as peer-triggered for latency and reliability failures, with a jailed validator ceasing to earn rewards until unjailed, and there is no automatic slashing in the system. The legitimate concern is indirect: because peer voting is weighted by stake and foundation-affiliated nodes hold close to half of it, the mechanism’s independence is limited by the same concentration issue that affects governance generally.

Is Hyperliquid’s code open source? The node software has remained closed, with the foundation stating since early 2025 that it will open the code once development is stable, citing security and shipping speed. That commitment is still outstanding, and it is the most substantive of the standing criticisms: validators run a binary they cannot audit, and no distribution of stake compensates for that.

What was the JELLY incident? In March 2025 a trader manipulated a thinly traded memecoin market to push losses onto the protocol’s liquidity vault. Validators voted to delist the market and settle it at a price that protected the vault, containing an eight-figure loss. The intervention worked and was also read as evidence of a validator put, meaning the network will act when its own capital is at risk, through a stake distribution the foundation then dominated.

How does the validator count compare to other chains? It is far smaller: roughly 1,800 validators on Solana, several hundred on Cosmos Hub, and hundreds of thousands on Ethereum, against 27 on Hyperliquid. Byzantine fault tolerant consensus does not require large sets for safety, and the small set is what delivers the sub-second finality an on-chain order book needs, but it concentrates social, regulatory, and coordination risk for a venue processing over $200 billion a month.

What did the Singapore listing mean? The Monetary Authority of Singapore added Hyperliquid to its Investor Alert List on June 26, a register of entities consumers may wrongly believe are licensed. It is not a ban or an enforcement action, and Bybit, KuCoin, and Binance appear on the same list. Its importance is that it moves the permissionless question from a technical debate into a legal one, since the claim to be infrastructure rather than an operator depends on the governance facts being what the protocol says they are.

What should traders take from this? That the network has a functioning emergency brake with a small number of hands on it, and that this is a property to price, not a scandal to condemn. Decentralization here is a managed trajectory: measurably improving on stake distribution, unresolved on source code, and small relative to the value at risk. Position sizing on any venue should reflect the governance reality, not the marketing vocabulary. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Pump.fun [PUMP] fell to a low of $0.001 two days ago but rebounded alongside the broader market on the 26th of July. The altcoin bounced back to reclaim the $0.0020 resistance level.

At press time, PUMP was trading around $0.00203 after rising by 13.02% on the daily charts. Over the same period, the altcoin’s trading volume surged 157% to $92 million, signaling strong market participation.

PUMP revenue flips Hyperliquid amid rising capital inflow PUMP’s market sentiment was mostly strengthened by reports that PUMP finally surpassed HYPE in revenue.

According to Pump.fun Ecosystem, the protocol’s daily revenue jumped to $7.45 million, outpacing Hyperliquid [HYPE] at $7.31 million. The rising revenue implies that the ecosystem is generating significant income from its operations. 

Source: Pump.fun ecosystem The protocol has generated $1 billion in fees with $448 million in annualized revenue. Additionally, daily capital inflow also remains steady.

Source: Defillama According to Defillama data, USD Inflows have jumped to $5.6 million as of writing, indicating that investors are actively engaged and continue to deploy capital into the protocol.

PUMP token buybacks continue  Notably, the project has spent a significant share of income generated by the network on token buybacks. In fact, the project has bought 154.57 billion tokens, worth approximately $414.27 million.

Source: Pump.fun In the latest purchase, the team acquired 216 million PUMP, according to Lbexplorer. In doing so, the team successfully removed 15.357% of the total supply. Such massive capital inflows show the team’s commitment to the project, especially during a period of extended weakness.

Recently, token buybacks have become one of the most embraced mechanisms by various protocols to reduce supply and market pressure. Often, this approach has provided short-term relief and boosted upward price momentum.

Can the upside momentum hold? With protocol activity remaining steady, PUMP’s upside momentum is slowly strengthening. In fact, the altcoin’s MACD has remained on an upward trajectory, rising to 0.000118 as of writing.

Source: TradingView This signals buyers are gaining control, and the uptrend is likely to continue. To confirm the uptrend, the altcoin’s Relative Strength Vigor Index (RVGI) needs to make a bullish crossover.

The RVGI was rising while its signal line declined, which could clear a path for an upside crossover. If it happens, the altcoin will likely target $0.0022.

However, to achieve this, the altcoin must hold above $0.0020 or risk another drop towards $0.0017.

Final Summary Pump.fun daily revenue flipped Hyperliquid, rising to $7.45 million, and bought back 216 million PUMP.  PUMP surged 13% after successfully defending $0.002, as bulls target a move towards $0.0022. 

El Salvador is heading into a presidential election with roughly 7,730 $BTC on its government tracker, worth approximately $502 million at current prices. The vote, scheduled for February 2027, will determine whether @nayibbukele's Bitcoin strategy survives its first serious political test.

An Opposition with No Bitcoin Policy Two of the country's main opposition parties have now confirmed their tickets. ARENA has fielded former lawmaker Maytee Iraheta alongside Verónica Henríquez, making it the party's first all-female presidential ticket. The FMLN has put forward physician and union leader Rafael Aguirre with Madai Santos as his running mate. Neither party has published a position on Bitcoin or the existing reserve.

The political arithmetic, however, strongly favours continuity. ARENA currently holds just two of 84 legislative seats, while the FMLN has held none since 2024. Bukele, who was nominated this month for a term running to 2033, polls above 80%. The National Bitcoin Office continues stacking roughly one $BTC per day as the country's opposition lines up challengers for the February 2027 vote.

The IMF Dispute Over the Stack Whether El Salvador's reserve is genuinely growing is a contested question. The IMF's explanation, confirmed by spokesperson Julie Kozack, is that increases in the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Fund reflect consolidation of $BTC across various government-owned wallets, notably from a BANDESAL cold-storage address, rather than net new market purchases by the public sector. The total $BTC controlled across all government wallets, the IMF says, has remained unchanged.

Under the $1.4 billion loan arrangement, the IMF imposed a continuous quantitative performance criteria prohibiting new Bitcoin acquisitions by public sector entities, maintaining what the organisation described as a "ceiling of zero" throughout the 40-month program period. Following the IMF loan agreement, the government also removed the legal requirement for businesses to accept Bitcoin, effectively restoring the US dollar as the country's sole mandatory currency for everyday transactions.

The reserve's headline number may carry more political weight than its accounting can cleanly support. But with Bukele dominant at the polls and the opposition yet to stake out any crypto position, a change in direction before 2027 looks unlikely.

Sources
CryptoNews: El Salvador Bitcoin Reserve Faces IMF Scrutiny
Decrypt: El Salvador Is Buying Bitcoin Despite IMF Compliance
EdaFace: El Salvador Bitcoin Strategy Faces 2027 Election Test

TLDR Strive purchased 79 BTC for about $5.2 million between July 20 and July 24. The latest purchase increased Strive’s total Bitcoin holdings to 20,000 BTC. The company paid an average price of $65,723 per Bitcoin, including fees. Strive’s Bitcoin treasury is now worth roughly $1.3 billion. The company can raise to $4.2 billion through its capital program. Strive has purchased 79 Bitcoin, lifting its total holdings from 19,921 BTC to 20,000 BTC. The company spent about $5.2 million between July 20 and July 24.

The average purchase price stood at $65,723 per coin, including fees. Its current Bitcoin reserve is worth about $1.3 billion based on market prices.

Strive adopted Bitcoin as a treasury asset in September 2025. Since then, the company has used capital raised through stock sales to support its buying plan.

Strive can raise to $4.2 billion under its approved capital program. It plans to direct much of that funding toward additional Bitcoin purchases as cash becomes available.

Strive completed its merger with Semler Scientific in January 2026. The all-stock deal added more than 5,000 BTC to the company’s balance sheet without using cash.

The structure left Strive with room to fund new purchases. It also gave the company access to cash raised through sales of ASST and SATA shares.

Cash Position Supports Further Purchases Strive reported cash reserves of $157.4 million in July, up from $154.1 million. However, it also posted a quarterly net loss of $393.6 million.

The company focuses on increasing Bitcoin per share rather than only raising its total coin count. Strive follows a model similar to Strategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder.

Strategy holds more than 843,000 BTC, while Twenty One Capital owns over 43,500 BTC. Metaplanet holds about 43,000 BTC but has paused purchases.

Other firms have reduced exposure. Satsuma Technology sold 579 BTC in December and approved the sale of its remaining 668 BTC this month.

Smarter Web Company and Nakamoto have also sold part of their reserves. Strategy paused purchases as Strive continued adding Bitcoin to its treasury.

Key Takeaways Ryder's second-quarter EPS rose 12.4% to $3.73 as revenues increased 5% to $3.35 billion.Ryder raised 2026 EPS guidance as fleet earnings improved and first-half free cash flow reached $684 million.Ryder's $7.46 billion debt, limited liquidity and weak momentum profile support a selective stance. Ryder System (R - Free Report) ) has given investors plenty to assess after a sharp 2026 rally and another quarter of earnings growth. Shares are up 39.9% year to date, reflecting better execution and improving used vehicle conditions.

The case is not one-sided. Ryder’s earnings momentum, valuation discount and cash returns support investor interest, but leverage, economic uncertainty and a weaker momentum profile argue for selectivity.

Ryder’s Earnings Beat Strengthens the Bull CaseRyder reported second-quarter 2026 comparable earnings per share of $3.73, up 12.4% year over year. The result exceeded the consensus estimate, with the latest EPS surprise at 0.8%.

Total revenues rose 5% year over year to $3.35 billion. Fleet Management Solutions was a key driver, with earnings before taxes increasing 20% to $150 million on better contractual business performance and improved used vehicle sales.

Management also raised full-year comparable EPS guidance to $14.40-$14.80 from the prior range of $14.05-$14.80. The higher outlook supports the view that Ryder’s contractual portfolio and strategic initiatives are translating into earnings growth.

R Trades Below Key Sales Valuation BenchmarksRyder trades at 0.68X forward 12-month price-to-sales, well below 2.33X for its Zacks sub-industry, 1.45X for the broader transportation sector and 4.97X for the S&P 500.

That discount supports the value argument, especially for investors comparing Ryder with other transportation names. XPO, Inc. (XPO - Free Report) is tied more directly to asset-based less-than-truckload freight transportation, while J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. (JBHT - Free Report) offers a broader freight and logistics model across North America.

Still, Ryder’s own history tempers the valuation case. The stock is also trading at the high end of its five-year price-to-sales range, which has run from 0.28X to 0.68X, with a median of 0.42X.

Ryder’s Cash Returns Reward ShareholdersRyder returned $406 million to shareholders through dividends and buybacks in the first half of 2026. That followed $664 million returned in 2025, $456 million in 2024 and $465 million in 2023.

Since 2021, Ryder has repurchased 26% of its outstanding shares and increased its quarterly dividend by 74%. The latest dividend increase was 11%, marking the fourth straight year of a double-digit raise.

Buybacks can strengthen per-share earnings when supported by durable cash flow. Ryder’s first-half free cash flow rose to $684 million from $461 million a year earlier, giving the company room to reward shareholders while funding fleet replacement and contractual growth.

R’s Debt Burden Limits the UpsideThe balance sheet remains the main offset. Ryder exited the second quarter with $219 million in cash and cash equivalents against $7.46 billion in total debt, including the current portion.

Its current ratio of 0.65 also reflects limited short-term liquidity flexibility. That matters for a capital-intensive leasing model that requires steady investment in vehicles and equipment.

The risk is not immediate distress, but sensitivity. If economic conditions weaken or funding costs stay restrictive, elevated leverage could narrow Ryder’s room to maneuver.

Ryder’s Price Target Leaves Moderate PotentialRyder’s $303 price target compares with the reported share price of $267.68. That implies about 13.2% appreciation potential from that level.

The upside is meaningful, but not overwhelming after the stock’s 39.9% year-to-date gain. Investors are no longer looking at a neglected setup.

Industry positioning also adds caution. Ryder’s industry sits in the bottom 32% of the Zacks Industry Rank, limiting the broader near-term backdrop even as company-specific execution has improved.

R’s Signals Favor Patience Over AggressionThe bottom line: Ryder’s earnings growth, value profile and shareholder returns keep the stock on the radar, but the rally has already priced in part of the improvement.

The stock currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold), which supports a measured stance rather than an aggressive near-term buying call. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Ryder’s Value Score of A and VGM Score of A strengthen the valuation case. Its Growth Score of B points to improving earnings prospects, while the Momentum Score of D cautions against chasing the stock after its strong advance.

Ethereum is attracting a new wave of investment, signaling renewed optimism among investors, even as some on-chain indicators reveal underlying weaknesses. Network activity remains robust and user engagement holds steady, but decentralized exchange trading volumes and stablecoin liquidity are showing clear signs of decline.

Fresh capital fuels Ethereum networkRecent data from Artemis shows that Ethereum recorded approximately $83 million in gross capital inflows within the past 24 hours, with net inflows amounting to $58.5 million after accounting for fund withdrawals. Positive net flows are typically interpreted as investors adding more funds to the network than they are removing.

While increased capital inflows can reflect rising confidence, they do not necessarily lead to immediate price gains. Sustained inflows over extended periods are generally considered a sign of market faith in the asset’s long-term prospects.

Ethereum has also maintained consistent network fee generation, indicating active usage on the blockchain—whether through asset transfers, trading, or interaction with decentralized applications.

According to DefiLlama, Ethereum continues to dominate the decentralized finance sector, with total value locked (TVL) exceeding $40 billion and a stablecoin market cap around $149 billion. These figures keep Ethereum ahead of other smart contract platforms.

Ethereum’s strong capital inflows, large DeFi presence, and steady network fees point to underlying strength, but the weaker trading and liquidity metrics highlight investor caution.

MetricCurrent ValueChangeCapital inflows (24h)$83 millionIncreaseTVL$40 billionStableStablecoin market cap$149 billionDecliningDEX volume (weekly)–Down 23%Mini dictionary: TVL (Total Value Locked), a metric representing the total value of assets deposited in decentralized finance protocols, is used as a gauge of network activity and DeFi adoption.

Network health remains strongDespite the network’s price struggles, Ethereum’s blockchain activity has been consistently high. Daily transactions have remained above 2 million for much of the year, reflecting persistent user reliance. Within the past day, Ethereum processed about 2.36 million transactions with over 560,000 active addresses, according to DefiLlama data.

Developer engagement also continues, with many leading decentralized finance protocols, real-world asset tokenization projects, and stablecoins still operating primarily on Ethereum. This activity helps solidify Ethereum’s role as the top smart contract platform.

Many long-term investors see sustained blockchain usage as a stronger indicator of network health than short-term price fluctuations, as it points to ongoing adoption and utility.

DEX activity and stablecoin liquidity declineTwo key metrics, however, paint a less optimistic picture. Trading volume across Ethereum-based decentralized exchanges (DEXs) has diminished sharply, falling more than 23% in the past week. This decline implies reduced trading demand and less speculative participation in decentralized finance markets.

Stablecoin supply on Ethereum has also decreased, with the current value holding at $149 billion. Ongoing weekly drops suggest shrinking liquidity for lending and trading within the DeFi ecosystem.

Despite robust capital inflows and steady network activity, Ethereum’s falling DEX volumes and declining stablecoin liquidity reveal that broad-based momentum has yet to materialize across the ecosystem.

Mini dictionary: DEX (Decentralized Exchange) is a platform on which users trade cryptocurrencies directly on the blockchain without a central authority, providing increased transparency but sometimes lower liquidity compared to centralized exchanges.

Mixed signals for ETH price outlookWhile capital is flowing in and transaction activity remains high, subdued DEX trading and a declining stablecoin balance indicate that many market participants are still hesitant. These dynamics help explain why the price of ETH has yet to respond fully to positive developments across some network metrics.

Current trends suggest that Ethereum is undergoing a rebuilding phase rather than entering a straightforward rally. A reversal in DEX volume and stablecoin liquidity would be needed to broaden the recovery and establish a stronger foundation for ETH price growth.

Ongoing weakness in trading and liquidity could limit Ethereum’s ability to mount a sustained recovery, even as core network activity signals underlying resilience.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

The developers of the Cardano wallet SecondFi have officially presented a step-by-step roadmap for dealing with the consequences of the June hack. The project is permanently winding down its regular operations and will not return to normal service. All of the team's resources are now focused on one task: safely withdrawing the remaining assets and distributing compensation.

To return funds to affected users, the developers have decided to set a technological precedent. Together with Input Output Group and the Cardano Foundation, they are launching the first Web3 compensation tool based on zero-knowledge proofs.

3 stages of recovery: Inside SecondFi's new ADA refund roadmapFor those who missed it, in June 2026, hackers stole 16.1 million ADA, worth about $2.5 million, from 374 SecondFi wallets by exploiting a vulnerability in the Android version of the app. The attack, which involved the Lazarus Group, allowed the hackers to cryptographically derive users' private keys. 

HOT Stories

However, the project team managed to save 129 million ADA by transferring the funds to custodial storage. 

You Might Also Like

The published roadmap is divided into three stages:

Claims submission (already available): SecondFi has added a simplified ticket system to its application. Affected users need to update the app to the latest version and submit a claim.Migration tool (mid-August): A special utility will automatically withdraw users' assets. It will unstake ADA and transfer the coins, tokens and NFTs to any other Cardano wallet selected by the user. Importantly, users should not delete their SecondFi wallet or uninstall the application at this stage, as doing so could complicate the recovery process. The tool has already been developed and is currently undergoing an external security audit.ZK refund portal (early September): This is the roadmap's main technical solution. The zero-knowledge-proof-based portal will allow affected users to prove that they owned the compromised wallets and claim compensation without revealing their seed phrases or private keys. The tool will undergo cryptographic audits and testing throughout August.Beware of phishingScammers are already taking advantage of the project's closure. They are creating fake browser extensions and contacting users through private messages while pretending to be customer support representatives.

Important Security Reminder

1. SecondFi will NEVER request private keys, recovery phrases, or wallet credentials, and we will never DM or email you first. Do not accept links from anyone, including people claiming to be SecondFi team members, support, or partners. If you receive…

— SecondFi (@secondfiapp) July 27, 2026 The team has reminded users that SecondFi never contacts them first. The only safe extension is available through the Chrome Web Store and carries a blue verification badge. All links should be checked exclusively through SecondFi's official website.

Tether holds 97,141 bitcoin, enough to rank second among corporate holders if it were listed anywhere. It is not. There is no share, so there is no multiple, no premium, no discount, and no market referee on the largest private Bitcoin position in existence, funded by a business that earns more per employee than any company on earth.

Summary

Tether holds 97,141 BTC, worth roughly $6 billion at current prices, accumulated under a 2023 policy of allocating up to 15% of realized quarterly operating profits to Bitcoin, most recently an 8,888 BTC transfer on New Year’s Day. If Tether were public, ranking services place it second among corporate holders behind Strategy’s 672,497 BTC. It is private, so every metric built to value Bitcoin treasuries, mNAV above all, simply does not compute. The funding model inverts the treasury-company template: Strategy and its imitators raise capital to buy Bitcoin, while Tether buys with retained profits from a reserve business that reported over $10 billion in net income for 2025. Bitcoin is one leg of a diversified reserve: roughly 116 metric tons of gold worth more than $17 billion, around $135 billion in US Treasuries by the issuer’s account, against approximately $185 billion of USDT in circulation. The same diversification cuts both ways: S&P downgraded USDT to its lowest stablecoin rating in December, citing disclosure gaps and a rising share of high-risk assets, meaning the accumulation that makes Tether a Bitcoin power is what a rating agency counts against it. Every large corporate Bitcoin position in the world has a price attached to it, and not the price of the coins. Strategy has an mNAV. So does every listed treasury company, tracked in real time across a hundred names by analytics platforms that publish thirty metrics apiece: enterprise value over Bitcoin net asset value, premium or discount, diluted variants, debt-adjusted variants, the entire apparatus a market builds when it needs to decide what a pile of Bitcoin inside a corporate wrapper is worth. That apparatus has one conspicuous blind spot, and it happens to contain the second-largest corporate stack on earth. Tether holds 97,141 BTC, roughly $6 billion at current prices, accumulated quarter after quarter since 2023 under a policy of committing up to 15% of realized operating profits to the asset. Ranking services note that if Tether were a public company it would sit second behind Strategy, and then they file it on a separate page for private companies, holdings listed, valuation column blank, because there is no share, no float, no enterprise value, and therefore no multiple to compute. The most-watched metric in corporate Bitcoin cannot be applied to one of corporate Bitcoin’s largest holders. This piece is about that gap: what Tether actually holds, how the accumulation is funded, why the absence of a market price is more consequential than it sounds, and what a rating agency sees when it looks at the same balance sheet.

The position, itemized Start with the stack and the pattern, because the pattern is more informative than any single figure.

The current disclosed holding is 97,141 BTC. The most recent visible additions trace a consistent rhythm: an 8,888.8 BTC transfer to the treasury wallet on January 1, worth roughly $778 million at the time and described by the chief executive as the Q4 2025 profit allocation, taking holdings above 96,000, followed by a smaller addition in April that brought the total to its present level. The policy behind the rhythm dates to May 2023: up to 15% of realized quarterly operating profits committed to Bitcoin, executed as periodic purchases and consolidated near quarter-end, a mechanical program, not a discretionary trade.

Bitcoin is one leg of a three-legged reserve strategy, and the other two are larger. Gold: roughly 116 metric tons as of the third quarter of 2025, valued above $17 billion by early this year, a position that makes Tether one of the largest private gold holders in existence. US government debt: approximately $135 billion by the chief executive’s own framing, which he described as positioning the company as the seventeenth-largest holder of US debt, with later reporting citing exposure figures around $141 billion. Against those reserves sits roughly $185 billion of USDT in circulation, and around the whole structure, per its Q3 2025 attestation, approximately $184.5 billion in stablecoin reserves against $215 billion in total assets, with roughly $23 billion in retained earnings and about $30 billion in group equity.

The scale comparison worth holding onto: Strategy’s 672,497 BTC is nearly seven times Tether’s stack, built with more than $50 billion of raised capital at an average cost around $75,000 per coin, and it constitutes that company’s entire reason for existing. Tether’s 97,141 BTC is a side position, roughly 3% of its total assets, accumulated from spare profit by a company whose actual business is something else entirely. That difference in kind, not the difference in size, is what makes the valuation problem interesting.

The machine that funds it The accumulation model is the inverse of the sector it is usually grouped with, and the inversion explains why Tether can keep buying when the treasury companies cannot.

The digital asset treasury template, which this publication has covered from Strategy’s flywheel through the newer entrants, runs on capital markets. A company issues equity or convertible debt, buys Bitcoin with the proceeds, and depends on trading above its net asset value so that each issuance is accretive rather than dilutive. When the premium compresses, as it has across the sector this year, the machine stalls: raising becomes value-destroying, purchases stop, and the equity story unwinds. It is a leveraged bet on both Bitcoin and continued market enthusiasm for the wrapper.

Tether buys with cash it already earned. The reserve business generates income by holding predominantly short-term US government debt against tokens the public holds without interest, which produced more than $10 billion in net profit for 2025 and, on the company’s own account, roughly $500 million a month from Treasury holdings alone at one point last year. Fifteen percent of realized profits into Bitcoin is an allocation decision made after the money is in the door. No premium is required, no issuance, no market permission. The purchases continue at $63,000 exactly as they continued at $100,000, because the input is profit, not sentiment, which is why Tether kept accumulating through a drawdown that stopped much of the treasury-company sector cold.

That funding structure also makes Tether the clearest single illustration of stablecoin economics that this publication’s stablechain coverage has traced from the other direction. The float pays for everything: the Bitcoin, the gold, the chain investments, the venture portfolio, and the free-transfer subsidies underwriting the purpose-built USDT networks. A business that earns on other people’s dollar balances converts monetary demand into a balance sheet, and the Bitcoin position is simply the most visible artifact of that conversion.

The metric that cannot be computed Now the gap, which is the piece’s actual subject.

For public treasury companies, mNAV is the governing number. It divides enterprise value, market capitalization plus debt and preferred equity, by the market value of the Bitcoin held. Above 1.0 means the market pays a premium for the wrapper, its strategy, its access to capital, its operating business. Below 1.0 means the market discounts even the coins. Analytics platforms track it across more than a hundred companies with real-time variants for dilution and capital structure, and the ratio has become the sector’s price-to-earnings equivalent, the number that decides whether a treasury company can raise, whether it should buy back, and whether its strategy is working.

Apply that to Tether and every input goes missing. There is no market capitalization, because there is no traded share. There is no enterprise value, because there is no market to compute it. There is no premium or discount, because nobody is bidding for a claim. The company has moved toward the edges of price discovery, a share buyback program was initiated last autumn and reporting has described interest from major investors in a private placement raising up to $20 billion, which would imply a valuation, but a negotiated private round is not a market price. It is one number agreed by a few parties under confidentiality, revealed selectively, and untested by anyone who might disagree.

The consequences are more than academic, and they run in both directions. Nobody can express a view: an investor who believes Tether’s Bitcoin is worth more than the market credits, or that the whole structure is worth less than claimed, has no instrument to trade. Nobody can be corrected: without a price, the company’s own attestations, disclosures, and framings are the primary information, and there is no continuously updated second opinion of the kind a share price provides. And nothing is disciplined: public treasury companies discovered this year that a compressing mNAV forces strategy changes, halted purchases, buybacks, defensive disclosure, because the market votes daily. Tether faces no such vote. The largest private Bitcoin position on earth is, in the most literal sense, unmarked, and the only external referees are the attestation firms and the rating agencies, which is where the story turns uncomfortable.

Tether extends Bitcoin bet with 8,888 $BTC Q4 purchase above $96k

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) January 1, 2026 What the rating agency sees S&P Global looked at the same balance sheet in December and reached a conclusion the accumulation narrative rarely mentions: it downgraded USDT to 5, the weakest grade on its five-point stablecoin stability scale, citing persistent gaps in disclosure and a rising share of high-risk assets in the reserves. The high-risk assets named include Bitcoin, gold, corporate bonds, and secured loans.

Sit with the symmetry, because it is the sharpest fact in this piece. Every headline celebrating Tether as a top-tier Bitcoin holder is describing, in the rating agency’s framework, the growth of the reserve component least suitable for backing a dollar-pegged liability. Both readings follow from the same asset. The company’s case, argued publicly by its chief executive against the downgrade, is that excess reserves and group equity absorb the volatility: roughly $7 billion in excess reserves and about $30 billion in group equity stand between a Bitcoin drawdown and the tokens, meaning the volatile assets are funded by capital rather than by the money backing USDT. That is a real argument and, on the disclosed figures, a substantially cushioned position.

The counter is equally real. The cushion is disclosed by the company and verified by attestation rather than by audit, a distinction this industry has debated for a decade; a Bitcoin drawdown of the severity Bitcoin has repeatedly produced would consume a large share of the stated excess in a single quarter; and the correlation problem is the one nobody models publicly, since the conditions that would trigger mass USDT redemption are precisely the conditions in which Bitcoin and gold would be falling and least convenient to sell. A reserve that is diversified in normal times can be concentrated in the only scenario that matters. That is not a prediction of failure. It is the reason a rating agency’s job exists, and the reason the missing market price matters: for a public company, a market would price that tail risk continuously and visibly. Here, one agency’s letter grade and the issuer’s rebuttal are the entire public debate.

What would make it pricable Three developments would convert this position from an unmarked holding into a valued one, and each is at least plausible.

A completed private placement at scale, the reported raise of up to $20 billion with institutional participation, would produce a negotiated valuation for the whole enterprise. It would not be a market price, but it would be the first external number against which the Bitcoin, gold, and Treasury legs could be measured, and it would create shareholders with an interest in eventual liquidity.

Regulatory convergence is the second. The US stablecoin framework and its implementation, covered across this publication’s regulatory reporting, is steadily raising the disclosure floor for issuers serving American users, and Tether’s domestic-market vehicle brings part of the group inside that perimeter. Disclosure requirements are how private balance sheets become legible, and legibility is the precondition for valuation.

And a listing, the possibility every private financial company of this scale eventually faces, would resolve everything at once: a share price, an enterprise value, and finally an mNAV for the second-largest corporate Bitcoin holder in the world. There is no indication one is planned. But the buyback program, the private placement discussions, and the group-equity disclosures are the standard sequence of a company assembling the furniture a valuation event requires.

Until one of those lands, the situation stands as described: 97,141 bitcoin, roughly $6 billion, inside a company earning more than $10 billion a year, sitting on a spreadsheet somewhere with no multiple attached, in a sector that has built an entire analytical apparatus for exactly this question and cannot point it at the biggest private target in the field.

What to watch The quarterly transfer. The 15% allocation makes each quarter’s profit-driven purchase a schedule, and the size of each transfer is a live read on the reserve business’s profitability, one of the few genuinely informative numbers a private issuer emits.

The next attestation. Excess reserves and group equity are the cushion the entire high-risk-asset debate turns on. Watch whether both grow with the Bitcoin position or lag it, since the ratio between them is the honest version of the risk question.

Any rating movement. S&P’s grade is the closest thing to an external referee. An upgrade on improved disclosure, or a further downgrade, moves the only public scorecard that exists.

The raise. Confirmation, size, and valuation of the reported private placement would supply the first external number for the enterprise, and with it the first opportunity to ask what the market thinks all that Bitcoin is worth inside this particular wrapper.

One final calibration, because Tether is not quite alone in this category and the comparison sharpens the point. Ranking services list at least one private entity with a larger claimed Bitcoin position, a technology company whose holdings, unlike Tether’s, cannot be verified on-chain at all, which produces a three-tier structure of corporate Bitcoin knowledge worth naming. Public companies disclose in filings and are priced continuously by markets. Tether discloses in attestations and is verifiable on-chain but priced by nobody. And a third tier claims holdings that are neither audited nor observable, existing purely as assertion. The industry’s data infrastructure, the trackers, the leaderboards, the dashboards with thirty metrics per company, handles the first tier well and quietly degrades across the other two, which means every statement about how much Bitcoin corporations own carries an error bar that grows as you move away from the listed names. That is worth remembering the next time a leaderboard is cited as though all its rows were equivalent evidence. Tether’s row is unusually good by the standards of private disclosure, on-chain verifiable, regularly attested, publicly discussed by its chief executive, and it still lacks the single thing that makes a corporate holding legible to markets: someone, somewhere, willing to state a price and be wrong about it in public.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Holdings, reserve figures, and profit numbers reflect company statements, attestations, and third-party reporting that cannot be independently verified against audited financials, and asset values change continuously. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 26, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions How much Bitcoin does Tether hold? 97,141 BTC, worth roughly $6 billion at current prices. The position was built under a policy adopted in May 2023 of allocating up to 15% of realized quarterly operating profits to Bitcoin, with recent additions including 8,888.8 BTC transferred on January 1 as the Q4 2025 allocation and a smaller purchase in April.

Where does that rank among corporate holders? Second, if it counted. Ranking services note Tether would sit behind only Strategy’s 672,497 BTC if it were a public company, but list it separately because it is private. Strategy’s position is nearly seven times larger and constitutes that company’s entire business model, while Tether’s is roughly 3% of total assets.

How is Tether’s accumulation different from a treasury company’s? Funding. Treasury companies raise equity or convertible debt to buy Bitcoin and depend on trading above net asset value for issuance to be accretive, so purchases stall when the premium compresses. Tether buys with retained profits from its reserve business, which reported more than $10 billion in net income for 2025, so its purchases continue regardless of market sentiment toward any wrapper.

What is mNAV and why can it not be applied to Tether? mNAV divides a company’s enterprise value by the market value of its Bitcoin, showing whether investors pay a premium or discount for the wrapper. It requires a traded share price, which Tether does not have. With no market capitalization, no enterprise value, and no float, every input is missing, so the sector’s governing metric simply does not compute for one of its largest holders.

Why does the absence of a market price matter? Because a price is a continuous external opinion. Without one, no investor can express a view on whether Tether is over- or undervalued, no daily second opinion checks the company’s own disclosures, and no market discipline forces strategy changes the way a compressing mNAV has forced them across the public treasury sector this year. Attestations and rating agencies are the only external referees.

What else is in Tether’s reserves? Predominantly US government debt, around $135 billion by the company’s own account, described by its chief executive as making Tether the seventeenth-largest holder of US debt, plus roughly 116 metric tons of gold valued above $17 billion, against approximately $185 billion of USDT in circulation. Bitcoin is the smallest of the three headline legs.

Why did S&P downgrade USDT if the reserves are diversified? S&P cut USDT to 5, the weakest grade on its stablecoin scale, in December, citing persistent disclosure gaps and a rising share of high-risk assets including Bitcoin, gold, corporate bonds, and secured loans. The agency’s framework treats volatile assets backing a dollar-pegged liability as a risk, so the same accumulation celebrated as treasury strength counts against the stability rating. Tether’s response points to roughly $7 billion in excess reserves and about $30 billion in group equity as the buffer.

Could Tether ever be valued publicly? Possibly, through three routes: the reported private placement of up to $20 billion, which would produce a negotiated enterprise valuation; regulatory convergence raising disclosure requirements as US stablecoin rules are implemented; or an eventual listing, which would supply a share price and, finally, an mNAV. None is confirmed, though a share buyback program and private-placement discussions are the customary preliminaries. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Key Takeaways MPWR is benefiting from rising AI server, GPU and networking demand ahead of Q2 earnings.MPWR is expanding manufacturing capacity and diversifying its supply chain to support demand.MPWR is gaining momentum across Enterprise Data, Communications and Automotive markets. Monolithic Power (MPWR - Free Report) is scheduled to report second-quarter 2026 earnings on July 30, 2026. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for sales and earnings is pegged at $903.7 million and $5.88 per share, respectively. Earnings estimates for MPWR have increased 0.54% to $24.18 for 2026, and increased 1.88% to $29.85 for 2027 over the past 60 days.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Earnings Surprise HistoryThe leading developer of advanced power solutions has a solid trailing four-quarter earnings surprise history, having exceeded expectations on all occasions. It delivered a four-quarter earnings surprise of 2.53%, on average. In the last reported quarter, the company delivered an earnings surprise of 4.29%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Earnings WhispersOur proven model predicts a likely earnings beat for MPWR for the second quarter. The combination of a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) increases the chances of an earnings beat. That is the case here. You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they’re reported with our Earnings ESP Filter.

Monolithic currently has an ESP of +1.00% with a Zacks Rank #2. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

Factors Shaping Upcoming ResultsMonolithic is benefiting from growing demand for power management ICs used in AI servers, GPUs and accelerator platforms. This is expected to drive growth in the Enterprise Data segment. Beyond the increase in AI server shipments, Monolithic is also expanding the amount of semiconductor content it supplies within each system. Its Communications segment is expected to gain from strong demand for optical modules. AI networking switches and growing power density requirements are expected to drive growth in the Communications segment.

Demand for storage-related products continues to benefit from the ongoing expansion of AI data centers. Higher deployments of solid-state drives, hard disk drives and advanced memory technologies are creating favorable conditions for Mesolithic’s storage-related power management portfolio. This factor is expected to compensate for weakness in the notebook demand to some extent. Monolithic has been securing additional design wins across vehicle electrification, advanced driver assistance systems, infotainment and connectivity applications. Positive trends across such diverse markets will likely have a favorable impact on Mesolithic’s second quarter earnings.

The consensus estimate for revenues from the Enterprise Data vertical is pegged at $323.04 million, implying solid growth from $144 million in the year-ago quarter. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for net sales in the Communication segment is pegged at $127.14 million, suggesting growth from $73.8 million in the year-ago quarter.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for net sales from the Industrial vertical is pegged at $51.15 million, suggesting an improvement from the $46.7 million reported in the prior-year quarter.

Revenues from the storage and computing vertical are expected to be $186.31 million, indicating a decline from the prior-year quarter’s tally of $195.3 million. Net sales from the automotive vertical are pegged at $155.46 million, indicating an increase from $145.1 million reported in the year-ago quarter.

Price PerformanceOver the past year, Monolithic’s shares have skyrocketed 80.6% in the past year compared with the industry’s growth of 51.2%. The company has outperformed its peers like Analog Devices (ADI - Free Report) and Texas Instruments (TXN - Free Report) . Shares of Analog Devices have jumped 61.1%, and shares of Texas have risen 47.7%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Key Valuation MetricFrom a valuation standpoint, Monolithic appears to be trading at a premium relative to the industry but lower than its mean. Going by the price/earnings ratio, the company shares currently trade at 48.67 forward earnings, higher than 27.58 for the industry and lower than the stock’s mean of 61.42.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Investment ConsiderationMPWR is benefiting significantly from the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure spending, driven by strong demand for power management solutions used in AI servers, optical networking equipment and high-performance computing applications. Its strength in AI infrastructure is supported by its robust capability in high-power-density solutions, monolithic integration and advanced module designs.

While peers such as Texas Instruments and Analog Devices also compete in the analog and power management semiconductor market, MPWR differentiates itself by offering single-piece silicon-based power solutions, unlike competitors that rely on multiple silicon components. This enables superior efficiency, compact designs and improved thermal performance, which are increasingly critical in next-generation AI servers and GPUs that are moving toward higher power requirements.

Monolithic is also expanding its opportunities in memory-related applications through the introduction of high-speed DDR5 interface products. Emerging applications such as robotics and physical AI represent attractive long-term growth opportunities for Monolithic.
The company also expanded manufacturing goals beyond its prior $4 billion capacity target and now aims to reach $6 billion of capacity in the near future. Its geographically diversified supply-chain strategy should support customer demand while improving supply flexibility amid changing trade conditions.

End NoteMonolithic continues to broaden its addressable market through portfolio expansion and strong focus on innovation. Solid momentum in the Communications, Enterprise Data, Automotive and end markets will likely drive the top line. Higher adoption of power solutions for AI servers, optical modules and networking equipment is the primary growth catalyst. Investment in manufacturing capacity expansion and growing emphasis on supply chain diversification are positives. Owing to these factors, Monolithic is a good investment option at present.

Key Takeaways MaxLinear's infrastructure revenues jumped 145% as hyperscalers ramped optical data center deployments.Keystone is entering volume production for 400G and 800G transceivers with lower power use.MXL raised its 2026 optical data center revenue outlook to $210-$230 million amid strong orders. MaxLinear’s (MXL - Free Report) infrastructure business has emerged as the company’s primary growth engine, driven by accelerating demand for AI networking and optical interconnect solutions. In the second quarter of 2026, infrastructure became MaxLinear’s largest revenue category, surging 145% year over year as hyperscale customers ramped deployments of its optical data center platforms. Revenues surged 55% year over year, reflecting the rapid adoption of AI-focused infrastructure products. Management believes the company has entered a multi-year growth phase supported by improving visibility, stronger customer orders and a favorable shift toward higher-margin infrastructure products.

A major contributor to this momentum is MaxLinear’s Keystone 5-nanometer PAM4 DSP and SerDes platform, which is ramping into volume production for 400G and 800G optical transceivers at leading hyperscale customers across the United States and Asia. MXL highlighted Keystone’s significantly lower power consumption compared with competing solutions, making it attractive as AI clusters scale. The success of Keystone is also creating a pathway for future generations of optical connectivity, including 1.6T and 3.2T architectures built on 200G and 400G per-lane technologies, extending MaxLinear’s opportunities beyond the current upgrade cycle.

The company is also expanding its infrastructure portfolio beyond Keystone with products such as the Rushmore PAM4 DSP platform, reinforcing its position across AI scale-up and scale-out networking. Supported by robust customer orders and increasing production visibility, MaxLinear raised its 2026 optical data center revenue outlook to $210-$230 million and expects continued expansion into 2027 as hyperscale deployments accelerate. The company also expects the richer infrastructure mix to support higher gross margins and improved profitability, highlighting the operating leverage of its AI-focused portfolio.

Investments in high-speed SerDes technology, advanced optical interconnects and successive PAM4 platforms position MaxLinear for the next generation of AI networking. The company believes MXL’s broad infrastructure portfolio, decades of mixed-signal expertise and expanding engagements with hyperscale customers provide a foundation for sustained participation in the transition toward 1.6T, 3.2T and future optical networking architectures.

MXL Faces Tough CompetitionMaxLinear faces competition from Marvell Technology (MRVL - Free Report) and Broadcom (AVGO - Free Report) in the AI infrastructure space, particularly in AI networking and optical connectivity.

Marvell is strengthening its competitive position across optical interconnect, PAM DSPs, silicon photonics, switching and custom AI silicon. MRVL expects its interconnect business to grow more than 70% in fiscal 2027, supported by rapid adoption of 1.6T products, while maintaining leadership across successive PAM4 generations. Marvell is also investing aggressively in scale-up and scale-across networking, coherent optics and silicon photonics, supported by expanding partnerships with NVIDIA and hyperscale customers.

Broadcom continues to expand its AI semiconductor leadership through custom AI accelerators and networking silicon, with AI semiconductor revenue reaching $10.8 billion in fiscal second-quarter 2026 and expected to climb to $56 billion for fiscal 2026. Broadcom also reported bookings well above shipments and expects AI networking demand to remain exceptionally strong, underscoring its scale and customer reach.

MXL’s Share Price Performance, Valuation & EstimatesMaxLinear’s shares have returned 310.7% year to date (YTD), outperforming the broader Zacks Computer and Technology sector’s return of 9.6%.

MXL Stock’s Price Performance
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

MXL stock is trading at a premium, with a forward 12-month price/sales of 8.48X compared with the broader sector’s 6.18X. MaxLinear has a Value Score of F.

MXL Stock’s Valuation
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2026 earnings is pegged at $1.30 per share, down 2.3% over the past 30 days. MXL reported earnings of 31 cents per share in 2025.
 

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

MoonPay has quietly expanded its stablecoin roster, announcing a partnership with Tempo, a payments-focused blockchain incubated by Paradigm and Stripe, to support USDC.E and PATHUSD across its on-ramp, off-ramp, and virtual account services.

What the partnership actually does MoonPay handles the messy middle layer between traditional banking rails and the crypto economy. It lets users convert dollars, euros, and other fiat currencies into digital assets without touching a centralized exchange.

Adding USDC.E and PATHUSD to that pipeline means users can now move directly from fiat into Tempo’s native asset environment, no bridge required, no manual swap needed.

USDC.E is an Ethereum-linked variant of Circle’s USDC, designed to operate within specific blockchain environments while maintaining dollar parity. PATHUSD is Tempo’s own native stablecoin, introduced as a core settlement asset on the Tempo network.

Advertisement

Tempo itself is built for high-throughput payment use cases. The network supports stablecoin-native gas fees, meaning users pay transaction costs in stablecoins rather than a volatile native token. It also includes built-in decentralized exchange functionality, which handles asset conversions natively without routing through external protocols.

Tempo recently launched its public testnet, placing this MoonPay partnership in an early but strategically timed window.

Why Tempo’s backers matter here Paradigm is one of the most influential crypto-native venture firms in the space. Stripe’s re-entry into crypto infrastructure, after stepping back from Bitcoin payments years ago, has been methodical and pointed.

Stripe’s involvement signals that Tempo is not purely a crypto-native experiment. It is designed with real-world payment use cases at its core, including merchant settlements, payroll, and cross-border transfers.

MoonPay has run this playbook before. The company previously integrated stablecoin support through partnerships with Hyperliquid and Deel, each focused on reducing friction for a specific user segment. Hyperliquid served the active trading community. Deel served the global payroll and contractor payments market. Tempo appears aimed at the merchant and institutional settlement layer.

What this means for stablecoin infrastructure By integrating PATHUSD into MoonPay’s virtual account infrastructure, Tempo gains access to a fiat gateway that already serves a large existing user base. New users arriving on Tempo do not need to figure out how to acquire PATHUSD through secondary markets. They can simply buy it directly through MoonPay using a debit card or bank transfer.

Tempo’s architecture, where gas is paid in stablecoins and the native DEX handles conversions internally, reflects a design philosophy that treats stablecoins as the baseline rather than an add-on.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.

Key Takeaways SkyWest posted Q2 EPS of $2.54 and revenues of $1.103 billion, missing consensus estimates.Flying agreement revenues rose 7.8% to $1.06 billion, while passenger load factor fell to 80.6%.SKYW plans 11 new E175s for American and raised its share repurchase program by $250 million. SkyWest, Inc (SKYW - Free Report) reported a narrower-than-expected result in the second-quarter of 2026, wherein both earnings and revenues missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate.

However, the result had a positive impact on the market. The stock has gained 7.7% since its earnings release on July 23.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Quarterly earnings per share (EPS) of $2.54 missed the consensus mark of $2.70 and declined 12.7% year over year. Revenues of $1.103 billion missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.106 billion and improved 6.5% year over year.

Revenues from flying agreements (contributing 96.5% to the top line) rose 7.8% year over year to $1.06 billion. The airline carried 1.3% fewer passengers in the reported quarter on a year-over-year basis. Departures increased 2.3% on a year-over-year basis. The passenger load factor (percentage of seats filled by passengers) fell 2.2 points to 80.6%.

Concurrent with its second-quarter 2026 results, SkyWest intends to purchase and operate 11 new E175 aircraft under a multiyear flying contract for American Airlines (AAL - Free Report) . The 11 new E175 aircraft are expected to replace 11 CRJ700s. SkyWest is currently flying under contract with American.

During the first half of 2026, the company took delivery of two E175 aircraft, one each for Alaska Airlines (ALK) and United Airlines (UAL - Free Report) .

By the end of 2027, SKYW anticipates having 300 E175 aircraft in its fleet. As previously announced, SkyWest entered into a purchase agreement with Embraer, which secures delivery positions for 33 additional E175s from 2028 through 2032 for potential future flying opportunities. The company’s purchase agreement with Embraer also includes purchase rights for 50 additional E175s, as previously announced.

Operating expenses were $947 million, up 9% year over year, owing to an expected rise in incremental direct operating costs associated with increased production in the reported quarter and higher pilot training costs.

At the end of the second quarter, the company had cash and marketable securities of $6 million compared with $707 million at the December-quarter end of 2025. Long-term debt (net of current maturities) was $1.64 billion compared with $1.85 billion reported at the end of the fourth quarter of 2025.

Capital expenditures during the reported quarter were $139 million, including the purchase of one new E175 aircraft, spare engines and other fixed assets.

SkyWest repurchased 783,000 shares for $75 million during the first quarter of 2026. As of March 31, 2026, SkyWest had $138 million available under its current share repurchase program.

SkyWest repurchased 833,000 shares of its common stock for approximately $75 million during the second quarter of 2026 at an average price of $89.55 per share. During the first half of 2026, SkyWest repurchased 1.6 million shares of its common stock for $150 million. As of June 30, 2026, SkyWest had approximately $63 million of remaining availability under its existing stock repurchase program. As announced today, SkyWest’s board of directors approved a $250 million increase to the existing stock repurchase program.

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

Q2 Performances of Other Transportation CompaniesWestinghouse Air Brake Technologies (WAB - Free Report) , operating as Wabtec Corporation, reported encouraging second-quarter 2026 results, wherein both earnings and revenues surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate and increased year over year.

Quarterly adjusted earnings of $2.76 per share beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $2.63 by 4.9% and increased 21.6% year over year, owing to higher sales and operating margin expansion.

Revenues climbed 17.5% to $3.18 billion and surpassed the consensus mark of $3.08 billion by 3.2%.

United Airlines Holdings, Inc. (UAL - Free Report)  reported second-quarter 2026 adjusted earnings of $1.99 per share, down 48.6% year over year but above the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.92 by 3.7%.

Operating revenues rose 16% to $17.67 billion and were essentially in line with the $17.68 billion consensus mark. A 12.1% increase in total revenues per available seat mile or TRASM, and broad-based gains across premium, loyalty and cargo revenues, supported the top line despite sharply higher fuel costs.

Key Takeaways KKR's Q2 EPS is estimated to be $1.42, suggesting a marginal year-over-year increase.Revenues are projected to rise 18.5% y/y, supported by higher AUM and management fees.Higher employee compensation, commission and fundraising-related expenses may weigh on results. KKR & Co. Inc. (KKR - Free Report) is slated to report second-quarter 2026 results on July 30, 2026, before the opening bell. Its earnings and revenues in the to-be-reported quarter are expected to have increased year over year.

In the last reported quarter, the company's earnings surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate. Its results benefited from higher assets under management (AUM) and transaction fees in the capital markets business. However, higher expenses acted as a headwind.

The company boasts an impressive earnings surprise history. Its earnings surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate in three of the trailing four quarters and missed once, with the average beat being 3.82%.

Earnings & Sales Estimates for KKRThe Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings for the second quarter of 2026 is pegged at $1.42 per share, which has been revised upward over the past week. The figure indicates marginal growth from the year-ago quarter's reported figure.

The consensus estimate for sales for the second quarter of 2026 is pegged at $1.52 billion, reflecting a 18.5% year-over-year increase.

KKR & Co.'s Recent DevelopmentsIn May 2026, KKR completed its previously announced acquisition of Arctos Partners, expanding its presence in sports franchise investing and enhancing its GP solutions and secondaries capabilities. The transaction aligns with KKR's long-term strategy to scale its asset management platform and achieve at least $1 trillion in AUM by 2030.

The acquisition strengthens KKR's sourcing capabilities across private markets and expands its relationships with sports industry participants. It is also expected to enhance its wealth and institutional distribution capabilities, with perpetual and long-dated capital projected to account for nearly 53% of its $759 billion AUM.

Now, let us discuss the factors that are likely to have influenced KKR's second-quarter performance.

Key Factors & Estimates for KKR in Q2KKR has been witnessing growth in fee-earning AUM and total AUM, supported by its diversified product and revenue mix, strong position in the alternative investments space and steady net inflows. With client activity remaining robust during the second quarter, the company is expected to have recorded further growth in AUM, driven by stronger inflows.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for AUM is pegged at $782.4 billion, suggesting a rise of 14.1% from the prior-year quarter. Likewise, the consensus estimate for fee-paying AUM is pegged at $636.4 billion, indicating a 14.4% year-over-year increase.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for management fees (segment revenues) for the to-be-reported quarter is pegged at $1.17 billion, suggesting growth of 17.6% from the prior-year quarter. The consensus estimate for fee-related performance revenues (segment revenues) of $98.17 million implies an increase of 82.7% on a year-over-year basis.

Additionally, KKR is expected to have generated profits from deal exits during the to-be-reported quarter. Based on the company's preliminary estimate for the period between March 31 and June 24, 2026, total realized performance income and net realized investment income are expected to exceed $900 million, up from $475 million in the prior-year quarter.

Talking about expenses, KKR is likely to have reported elevated expenses in the to-be-reported quarter, due to higher employee compensation, commission and reinsurance expenses. The company anticipates expenses to remain elevated as placement fees increase with continued fundraising activity.

What Our Model Predicts for KKROur proven model does not conclusively predict an earnings beat for KKR this time. The combination of a positive Earnings ESP and Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy), or 3 (Hold) increases the odds of an earnings beat. That is not the case here, as you can see below.

You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they're reported with our Earnings ESP Filter.

Earnings ESP: The Earnings ESP for KKR is -2.53%.

Zacks Rank: The company currently carries a Zacks Rank #3. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

Performance of KKR's PeersBlackRock’s (BLK - Free Report) second-quarter 2026 adjusted earnings of $13.91 per share handily surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $12.72. The figure reflects a 15% rise from the year-ago quarter.

BLK’s results benefited from a rise in revenues. The AUM balance witnessed robust year-over-year growth, driven by net inflows, to record levels. However, higher expenses created a headwind.

Blackstone’s (BX - Free Report) second-quarter 2026 distributable earnings of $1.52 per share outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.33. The figure soared 26% from the prior-year quarter.

BX’s results benefited from a rise in AUM and higher revenues. An increase in GAAP expenses was the undermining factor.

Key Takeaways Rigetti's Q2 results may show remaining Novera revenues and early traction for the 108-qubit Cepheus-1.Investors will watch cloud usage, contracts and progress toward 99.5% two-qubit gate fidelity.RGTI targets a 150-qubit system and a 1,000-qubit quantum advantage platform within roughly three years. Rigetti Computing’s (RGTI - Free Report) second-quarter 2026 results, scheduled to report on Aug. 6, after market close, are likely to underscore continued commercial traction rather than a dramatic financial inflection. Investors are likely to primarily focus on whether the company recognized the remaining revenues from previously announced Novera quantum processing unit orders. Management had guided that the amount would largely be booked in the second quarter after partial recognition in the first quarter.

Another key area of interest is likely to be the customer adoption of the newly launched 108-qubit Cepheus-1 system across Rigetti Quantum Cloud Services, Amazon Braket, Microsoft Azure Quantum and qBraid. On its first-quarter earnings call, management commented that early customer interest and system usage had been encouraging. Investors will also watch for updates on cloud utilization trends, additional government or research contracts and the pace of commercial engagement as enterprises continue evaluating hybrid quantum-classical computing applications.

Beyond quarterly numbers, investors will be looking for progress on Rigetti's technology roadmap. The focus will particularly be on efforts to improve Cepheus-1's two-qubit gate fidelity toward the company's 99.5% target later this year. Investors will also monitor progress on Rigetti's roadmap to launch a 150-qubit system and ultimately achieve a 1,000-qubit quantum advantage platform within roughly three years. Since the first-quarter report, Rigetti has further strengthened its commercial positioning through continued momentum in government-backed quantum initiatives, including execution of its C-DAC program in India and expansion of its global footprint.

Investors will also watch for additional Novera system wins, progress on the company's planned U.K. investment and advances in error mitigation through partnerships such as Riverlane and NVIDIA. Updates on the timing of the higher-fidelity 108-qubit system and the next-generation 150-qubit platform could also serve as key drivers of investor sentiment.

While operating losses are expected to remain elevated as Rigetti continues to prioritize R&D investments, investors will closely monitor the company's progress toward key technology milestones and customer adoption. The company's strong cash position and debt-free balance sheet should provide the financial flexibility needed to execute its long-term quantum computing roadmap.

Peers UpdatesIonQ's (IONQ - Free Report) second-quarter 2026 results, scheduled for Aug. 5, are expected to highlight continued commercial execution as the company expands its quantum networking and computing footprint. Investors are likely to focus on bookings growth, customer additions and progress integrating recent acquisitions, alongside updates on government and enterprise contracts. Commentary around the company's roadmap toward fault-tolerant quantum systems and the pace of quantum networking deployments could also be key catalysts.

D-Wave Quantum (QBTS - Free Report) second-quarter 2026 earnings, scheduled to be reported on Aug. 6, are expected to reflect continued demand for its annealing quantum computing platform and expanding commercial adoption. Investors will watch for growth in quantum optimization revenues, customer wins and increased usage of its Leap quantum cloud service. Updates on the commercialization of its next-generation Advantage2 system, along with customer traction across logistics, manufacturing and government markets, will likely be closely monitored.

Rigetti’s Price Performance, Valuation and EstimatesShares of RGTI have lost 36.2% in the year-to-date period compared with the industry’s decline of 11.9%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

From a valuation standpoint, Rigetti trades at a price-to-book ratio of 8.06, above the industry average. RGTI carries a Value Score of F.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Rigetti’s 2026 earnings implies a significant 71.9% improvement from the year-ago period.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The company currently has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).

You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Key Takeaways SIMO to report Q2 2026 earnings on July 29 with consensus sales of $403.6 million and EPS of $2.13.SIMO expanded enterprise SSD shipments and saw steady demand from AI infrastructure investments.Silicon Motion gained from broader controller adoption and PCIe Gen5 SSD demand across key markets. Silicon Motion Technology Corporation (SIMO - Free Report) is scheduled to report second-quarter 2026 earnings after the closing bell on July 29. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for sales and earnings is pegged at $403.6 million and $2.13 per share, respectively. Earnings estimates for SIMO for 2026 have increased 7.1% to $8.96 over the past 60 days, and those for 2027 have increased 14.6% to $11.98.

SIMO Estimate Trend
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Earnings Surprise HistoryThe leading NAND flash controller designer has a modest trailing four-quarter earnings surprise history, having exceeded expectations on three occasions. It delivered a four-quarter earnings surprise of 18.61%, on average. In the last reported quarter, the company delivered an earnings surprise of 20.61%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Earnings WhispersOur proven model predicts a likely earnings beat for SIMO for the second quarter. The combination of a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) increases the chances of an earnings beat. That is exactly the case here. You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they’re reported with our Earnings ESP Filter.

Silicon Motion currently has an ESP of +7.68% and sports a Zacks Rank #1. You can see the the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

Factors Shaping Upcoming ResultsDuring the quarter, Silicon Motion has strengthened its enterprise storage business through the production ramp of its MonTitan enterprise SSD controller, which supported commercial shipments to customers. The company also benefited from steady demand for enterprise boot drive solutions as cloud service providers continued investing in artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and next-generation data centers. Healthy customer demand, an improving product mix and strong business visibility are expected to have supported revenue growth in the second quarter of 2026.

Silicon Motion's embedded storage business continued to gain market share through broader adoption of its eMMC and UFS controllers, driven by new customer wins and expanding product adoption. Healthy demand for PCIe Gen5 SSD controllers is likely to have supported shipments across client and enterprise markets as customers upgraded to higher-performance storage platforms. These trends are likely to have a positive impact on the June-quarter revenues.

During the quarter under review, Silicon Motion benefited from expanding customer programs across cloud, enterprise and industrial markets, supporting broader adoption of its storage controller solutions. Ongoing production ramps and commercial shipments across multiple applications, along with the company's broad customer base and diversified storage portfolio, are expected to have strengthened revenue contributions during the second quarter.

Price PerformanceOver the past year, SIMO has surged 244.6% compared with the industry’’s growth of 195.6%. It has outperformed peers like Marvell Technology, Inc. (MRVL - Free Report) , but underperformed Western Digital Corporation (WDC - Free Report) over this period. While Marvell has gained 157.4%, WDC jumped 646.2%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Key Valuation MetricFrom a valuation standpoint, Silicon Motion appears to be trading at a premium relative to the industry and above its mean. Going by the price/earnings ratio, the company shares currently trade at 25.36 forward earnings, higher than 12.38 for the industry and the stock’s mean of 19.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Investment ConsiderationsSilicon Motion is well-positioned to benefit from long-term growth in the global storage industry as increasing data generation, AI adoption and digital transformation continue to drive demand for faster and more efficient storage solutions. The company's strong technology expertise and focus on innovation provide a solid foundation for sustainable revenue and earnings growth.

The company’s disciplined execution, long-standing customer relationships and continued investment in advanced controller technologies reinforce its competitive position. These strengths should enable the company to capitalize on evolving storage requirements and support sustainable long-term shareholder value.

End NoteSilicon Motion's long-term growth prospects remain encouraging, supported by favorable trends in the storage semiconductor industry. Its consistent execution, expanding presence in higher-value storage markets and ability to address evolving customer requirements reinforce its growth outlook. As demand for advanced storage solutions continues to rise across multiple end markets, the company is well-positioned to deliver sustainable financial performance. With favorable industry trends, a strong technology portfolio and a Zacks Rank #1, SIMO remains an attractive investment choice for long-term investors.

Key Takeaways FLG reported Q2 EPS of 5 cents, missing estimates, while shares plunged 5.9%.FLG's NII rose 5% y/y, while lower expenses and provisions supported results.Flagstar announced a $250 million share repurchase program and reported higher loan and deposit balances. Shares of Flagstar Bank, National Association (FLG - Free Report) plunged 5.9% in Friday’s trading session on lower-than-expected quarterly results. Its second-quarter 2026 adjusted earnings per share of 5 cents missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 6 cents. In the year-ago quarter, the company had incurred a loss of 14 cents.

Results were primarily affected by lower non-interest income. However, higher net interest income (NII), lower expenses and a decline in provisions for credit losses offered some support.

Results excluded certain non-recurring items. After considering this item, net income available to common shareholders on a GAAP basis was $26 million against a net loss of $78 million in the prior-year quarter.

FLG’s Quarterly Revenues Rise & Expenses DeclineQuarterly revenues of $516 million missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $545 million by 5.3%. The metric rose 4% from the prior-year quarter.

NII was $440 million, up 5% year over year. The net interest margin of 2.13% expanded 32 basis points from the year-ago quarter, driven by lower deposit and borrowing costs, partially offset by lower earning-asset yields.

Non-interest income was $76 million, down 1% from the year-ago quarter. The decrease was mainly due to lower gains on loan sales and securitizations and reduced other income, partly offset by higher fee income and bank-owned life insurance income.

Non-interest expenses of $450 million decreased 12% year over year. Adjusted operating expenses were $427 million, down 7% from the second quarter of 2025, reflecting lower FDIC insurance, compensation and benefits, professional services, and general and administrative costs.

Flagstar Financial’s Loans & Deposits IncreaseTotal loans and leases held for investment increased 1% sequentially to $60.9 billion as of June 30, 2026. The increase was due to solid commercial and industrial loan growth, partly offset by continued reductions in multi-family and commercial real estate portfolios.

As of June 30, 2026, total deposits increased 1% sequentially to $67.5 billion. Growth was driven by higher Commercial and Private Bank deposits, along with core deposits.

FLG’s Credit Quality ImprovesNon-accrual loans held for investment were $2.8 billion, down 12% from $3.2 billion as of June 30, 2025.

Net charge-offs were $100 million, down 15% year over year.

The company recorded a provision for credit losses of $18 million, down 72% from $64 million in the year-ago quarter.

Flagstar Financial’s Capital Ratios StrengthenAs of June 30, 2026, the common equity tier 1 ratio was 13.16% compared with 12.33% as of June 30, 2025. The total risk-based capital ratio increased to 16.58% from 15.77% in the year-ago quarter.

The leverage capital ratio rose to 9.70% from 8.61% a year ago, reflecting improved capital strength.

The company also announced a $250-million share repurchase program, citing progress in executing its strategic plan, a strong capital position and a positive long-term outlook.

Our View on FLGFlagstar Financial’s solid C&I loan and deposit growth, lower funding costs, expense discipline and reduced commercial real estate exposure remain encouraging. The company delivered positive operating leverage, supported by higher NII and substantially lower credit provisions and expenses from the year-ago period.

However, lower non-interest income remains a concern. Continued execution on commercial banking expansion, operating efficiency initiatives and revenue diversification will be key to sustaining earnings improvement.

Performance of Other BanksZions Bancorporation’s (ZION - Free Report) second-quarter 2026 adjusted earnings of $1.74 per share surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.57. Moreover, the bottom line increased 10.1% from the year-ago quarter.

ZION’s results were primarily aided by higher net interest income and growth in non-interest income. Higher sequential loan balance was another positive. However, a rise in non-interest expenses hurt the results to some extent.

Commerce Bancshares Inc.’s (CBSH - Free Report) second-quarter 2026 earnings of $1.10 per share surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.04. The bottom line reflected a rise of 1% from the prior-year quarter.

CBSH’s results primarily benefited from higher NII and a rise in non-interest income. The sequential rise in loan balances acted as a tailwind. However, higher expenses and provisions hurt CBSH’s results to some extent.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/27/bitcoin-vs-solana-which-crypto-is-the-better-buy-r/

Solana’s consumer card ecosystem achieved record performance in Q2 2026, reporting $246 million in top-ups and $185 million in card spending, as per data from SolanaFloor. This milestone underscores the increasing adoption and usage of Solana’s payment infrastructure, which enables users to load funds and transact through card rails. The broader Q2 2026 report highlighted a surge in activity across various sectors, including tokenized assets and decentralized exchange volumes, suggesting robust non-speculative engagement with Solana’s network. The news comes amid heightened interest in Solana’s capabilities and its potential impact on the network’s valuation.

Advertisement

Key Takeaways Solana’s consumer card ecosystem appears to have reached a new peak in Q2 2026, reflecting increased user engagement. The reported growth in card top-ups and spending suggests strong adoption of Solana’s payment solutions. Market pricing suggests that participants view this development as supportive of Solana’s price prospects. What to Watch The Solana price prediction market shows a subdued outlook, with only a 1.6% probability of Solana reaching $90 by August 1, 2026. Investors and analysts may look for further adoption indicators and network upgrades, such as the Alpenglow upgrade, as potential catalysts for price movements. Additionally, developments like ETF inflows or regulatory announcements could significantly alter market expectations. Watch for announcements from key actors like Anatoly Yakovenko or changes in macroeconomic conditions that could influence Solana’s market dynamics.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h August 1 2026 1.5% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.3% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.2% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.8% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.3% — — View market → August 1 2026 1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.2% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 9.5% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market →

There is a spending contest underway in big tech, and Apple (AAPL +0.80%) has declined to enter it.

Alphabet lifted its 2026 capital spending plan to a top end of $205 billion last week. Amazon expects to invest about $200 billion this year, Microsoft has pointed to roughly $190 billion, and Meta Platforms plans as much as $145 billion. Together, that's more than $700 billion in a single year, the great majority of it aimed at AI (artificial intelligence) infrastructure.

Apple's capital expenditures in fiscal 2025 were $12.7 billion. In other words, the world's largest consumer technology company is spending a fraction of what those four rivals will spend, combined, while they race to add AI computing capacity.

So is Apple's restraint a capital-allocation edge, or a company in denial about what AI requires? With Apple's fiscal third-quarter report due Thursday, July 30, it's the right week to ask.

Image source: Apple.

Renting the build-out instead of funding it Apple's small budget isn't an accident. It reflects a deliberate structure.

On the company's fiscal first-quarter earnings call, chief financial officer Kevan Parekh described a "hybrid" capital model, in which Apple leverages "a combination of first and third-party capacity." In other words, Apple rents much of its computing power from cloud computing providers rather than building data centers itself, and when it does build for AI, it runs the servers on its own chips. That's the basis of Private Cloud Compute, the infrastructure behind Apple Intelligence.

The structure means Apple can access third-party capacity without carrying the full construction bill. And if computing gets cheaper as all of that new supply comes online, renters could benefit first. Whether the access holds up at scale is the open question the next few years will answer.

Meanwhile, the strategy shows up where shareholders can see it. In the March quarter, Apple generated more than $28 billion in operating cash flow, a record for the period -- and with capital spending under $3 billion, nearly all of it was free cash flow. Compare that with Alphabet, whose free cash flow was negative $5.9 billion in its most recent quarter, or Amazon, whose trailing-12-month free cash flow has fallen to $1.2 billion as its capital spending climbs.

Today's Change

(

0.80

%) $

2.68

Current Price

$

335.70

Discipline is winning so far Restraint would mean little if Apple's business were stalling. It isn't.

Fiscal second-quarter revenue rose 17% year over year to $111.2 billion, and earnings per share climbed 22% to $2.01. iPhone revenue hit $57 billion, a March-quarter record, up 22% year over year on demand for the iPhone 17 lineup. Services set an all-time revenue record. For perspective, Apple's revenue grew about 6% in all of fiscal 2025 -- so growth hasn't just held up under the low-spend strategy, it has accelerated sharply.

That's the case for discipline. The case for denial is worth taking seriously, too.

Apple's approach partly depends on third-party capacity in a world where computing power is scarce -- its rivals are spending those hundreds of billions precisely because demand keeps outrunning supply. If AI features become the deciding factor in phone and device purchases, and if delivering them requires more compute than Apple can rent or build quickly, the company could find itself paying up later at worse prices. That scenario can't be ruled out, and it's the main thing I'll be listening for on the July 30 call. Apple's own capital spending rose in fiscal 2025, with Parekh noting the company built out its Private Cloud Compute environment last year.

And the stock leaves little room for the strategy to fail. Shares trade near $333 as of this writing, just below their record high, at about 40 times earnings.

My verdict leans toward discipline. Apple is growing faster than it has in years and generating record cash, while its rivals bear the cost, and the risk, of their own infrastructure build-outs. If the strategy proves wrong, Apple has the cash flow to change course and pay up later. If it proves right, shareholders will never have paid for the detour.

Thursday's report offers the next test. Another quarter of double-digit growth alongside a capital spending line that remains tiny next to its peers' would be the strategy working, measurably. I own the stock, and nothing about the $700 billion around it makes me want to change that.

Key Takeaways Microsoft guided Azure and cloud revenue growth of 39-40% in constant currency for the quarter.MSFT expanded AI offerings with Microsoft IQ, Foundry updates and new Azure infrastructure.Microsoft entered fiscal Q4 with AI demand exceeding capacity as capital spending remained elevated. Microsoft's (MSFT - Free Report) fourth-quarter fiscal 2026 results, scheduled to be reported on April 29, are likely to be driven by steady growth in its cloud platform, Azure.

The quarter unfolded against a backdrop of surging AI consumption, expanding agentic platforms and persistent capacity constraints that had defined the company's cloud narrative through fiscal 2026.

Click here to know how the company’s overall fiscal fourth-quarter performance is likely to have been.

Azure Guidance and CapacityManagement's guidance, issued alongside third-quarter fiscal 2026 results, called for Azure and other cloud services revenues to grow 39% to 40% in constant currency, consistent with the third quarter's pace. Intelligent Cloud revenues were guided between $38 billion and $38.3 billion. Leadership indicated on the prior call that Azure capacity was expected to remain constrained through the remainder of 2026, even as dock-to-live times for new GPUs improved and additional capacity came online, with modest acceleration anticipated in the second half of the calendar year. Capital expenditure, including finance leases, was expected to exceed $40 billion for the quarter, supporting the buildout underpinning that growth.

AI Monetization SignalsHeading into the fiscal fourth quarter, Microsoft's annualized AI revenue run rate stood above $37 billion, having grown 123% year over year in the third quarter, while Copilot paid seats had surpassed 20 million. Momentum in Copilot usage was described by leadership as running on a different trajectory across coding, productivity and security, a trend that fourth-quarter commercial activity appeared to extend. Microsoft 365 Copilot E7, the Frontier Suite bundling Microsoft 365 E5, Copilot and Agent 365, reached general availability on May 1, alongside Agent 365 itself, giving enterprise customers a consolidated agentic offering. Deployments tied to these products, including a large-scale Copilot rollout across Atos Group's workforce announced in June, offered early evidence of enterprise uptake during the quarter.

Platform and Model ExpansionThe quarter featured several developments that should enhance Microsoft's competitive position against other cloud giants, including Alphabet's (GOOGL - Free Report) Google, Amazon (AMZN - Free Report) and Oracle (ORCL - Free Report) .

At Microsoft Build in early June, the company introduced Microsoft IQ, unifying Work IQ, Fabric IQ and Foundry IQ to give agents shared, governed context across Microsoft's data estate, with Work IQ reaching general availability during the month. Foundry agents gained the ability to publish directly into Microsoft 365 Copilot and Teams, also reaching general availability in June, while additional third-party models became generally available within Microsoft Foundry, broadening the multi-model options available to enterprise builders alongside new in-house MAI models. The Azure Cobalt 200 Arm-based virtual machine entered early access preview, offering up to 50% better generational performance for agentic workloads, and GPU-accelerated capabilities were added to Fabric Data Warehouse. Infrastructure additions included a planned datacenter expansion in Cheyenne, Wyoming, announced in April, and a new East US 3 Azure region alongside additional availability zones across existing U.S. regions.

Balancing Demand Against CostCollectively, these developments pointed to broadening AI adoption across coding, productivity and infrastructure layers, supporting the case for Azure growth holding near the guided range. Yet the pace of platform expansion also reinforced that capital intensity was not easing, with billing shifts such as GitHub Copilot's move to usage-based pricing in June adding a variable that could influence near-term consumption trends without yet being reflected in comparable prior-period figures.

Investment PerspectiveMicrosoft entered its fourth-quarter fiscal 2026 report with Azure demand still outpacing supply and AI annualized revenues expanding rapidly, supported by a wave of agentic platform launches and multi-model expansion through Foundry. Enterprise deployments and new infrastructure announced during the quarter reinforced the demand narrative, but continued capacity constraints and an elevated capital expenditure run rate kept the durability of AI-driven margins as the central open question ahead of results. MSFT currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Key Takeaways Johnson & Johnson's MedTech sales rose 4.5% to $8.93B in Q2 but slightly missed consensus estimates.JNJ expects stronger H2 MedTech growth despite softer Abiomed demand and ongoing China VBP headwinds.Johnson & Johnson expects new OTTAVA and VARIPULSE launches to support MedTech growth in H2. Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ - Free Report) medical devices segment, known as MedTech, offers products in the orthopedics, surgery, cardiovascular and vision markets. The MedTech segment accounts for around 36% of J&J’s total revenues. In MedTech, J&J is a global leader in electrophysiology, circulatory restoration and heart recovery.

The MedTech segment delivered a mixed performance in the second quarter of 2026, with growth remaining positive but below the pace seen in its Innovative Medicines business.

Q2 Numbers of J&J’s MedTech SegmentJ&J’s MedTech segment underperformed in the second quarter despite overall solid results. Sales rose 4.5% to $8.93 billion, with operational growth of 3.6%, but slightly missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $8.96 billion.

The shortfall was largely due to weaker Cardiovascular performance. Operational sales in the Cardiovascular business grew 3.1%. However, the growth was slower than prior trends due to competitive pressure in the electrophysiology business and decline in Abiomed sales, partially offset by continued double-digit growth in Shockwave.

Shockwave revenues rose 14.6% to $335 million. Electrophysiology sales increased 3.1%, supported by procedure growth and new products but were hurt by competitive pulsed field ablation (PFA) pressures and unfavorable China inventory dynamics.

Abiomed sales declined 2% due to slow procedural volumes for the Impella heart pump franchise. Abiomed procedure volumes were hurt by uncertainty among physicians after a U.K. study questioned the benefit of using Impella devices in certain high-risk procedures. J&J believes this led to slower Impella usage as doctors reassessed patient selection for the device. J&J believes this is a temporary issue and is working with physicians to ensure the device is used in the right patients based on its existing clinical evidence. However, Abiomed sales in outside U.S. markets remained strong.

Nonetheless, while J&J’s Cardiovascular sales slowed down in the second quarter due to weakness in Abiomed, its other three businesses, Surgery, Vision and Orthopedics, all accelerated in the quarter and performed above expectations.

Worldwide Surgery grew 3.9%. Worldwide Orthopedics rose 4.9% and Worldwide Vision rose 6.0% in the second quarter.

While Abiomed procedures slowed, J&J claimed that overall procedure volumes were stable and there was no broad-based slowdown in medical procedure volumes across its MedTech business. J&J clarified that although some large U.S. hospitals have reported weaker volumes for certain elective procedures, those trends are not reflected in its own business. J&J also said that the expiration of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies has not had any meaningful impact on procedure volumes so far and is unlikely to affect MedTech demand materially.

The company continues to face headwinds in China from the government's volume-based procurement (VBP) program and expects these pressures to continue through 2026, particularly in the second half.

Outlook for J&J’s MedTech in H2Reflecting these challenges, J&J tempered its outlook for Abiomed, now expecting only modest growth in the second half of 2026 rather than the stronger rebound it had previously anticipated, with the impact of the U.K. study likely to persist until PROTECT IV study data are presented in 2027. PROTECT IV is a large clinical study of the company’s Impella device in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention.

Despite the Abiomed challenges, J&J remains optimistic about MedTech's trajectory in the second half of 2026. J&J expects its MedTech business to perform better in the second half of the year than it did in the first half, driven by strength in Vision, Orthopedics, Surgery and better performance in Cardiovascular. While the Abiomed softness creates a new overhang, it is only 2% of sales, and J&J has various other top-line drivers to compensate.

The FDA recently approved J&J’s OTTAVA robotic surgical system which is considered a key new product in its portfolio, along with the VARIPULSE pulsed field ablation system for atrial fibrillation. Increased adoption of these newly launched products should contribute to better growth in the second half.

J&J’s Key Competitors in the Medical Devices MarketJ&J’s MedTech unit faces strong competition from several major players in the medical device industry like Medtronic (MDT - Free Report) , Abbott,Stryker (SYK - Free Report) and Boston Scientific (BSX - Free Report) .

While Medtronic has a strong presence in cardiovascular, neuroscience and surgical technologies, Stryker is a major player in orthopedics and surgical equipment. Boston Scientific markets products for cardiovascular, endoscopy, urology and neuromodulation. Abbott is known for its medical devices across cardiovascular, diagnostics, and diabetes care. 

JNJ’s Price Performance, Valuation and EstimatesJ&J’s shares have outperformed the industry so far this year. The stock has risen 28.7% this year compared with a 14.5% appreciation of the industry. 

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

From a valuation standpoint, J&J is slightly expensive. Going by the price/earnings ratio, the company’s shares currently trade at 21.39 forward earnings, higher than 19.06 for the industry. The stock is also trading above its five-year mean of 15.65.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2026 earnings has risen from $11.58 per share to $11.65 per share over the past 30 days, while that for 2027 earnings has gone up from $12.65 per share to $12.80 over the same time frame.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

J&J has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) at present. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) and General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) have both been upgraded to ‘Buy’ by Jefferies analysts, who pointed to improving earnings prospects, stronger free cash flow generation and progress on several operational challenges.

For Ford, Jefferies upgraded the stock ahead of second-quarter earnings, calling the period a potential margin trough as production normalizes following disruptions and the company benefits from improved capital allocation.

The analysts raised their price target to $17.50, noting that Ford’s valuation gap with GM has narrowed. Shares are currently trading at about $14, up 10% so far this year.

Jefferies expects Ford’s adjusted EBIT to reach $10.3 billion in 2026, near the upper end of the company’s guided range of $8.5 billion to $10.5 billion. The analysts also raised their adjusted free cash flow estimate to about $4 billion, supported by earnings improvements, working capital benefits and lower supplier EV compensation costs.

The analysts highlighted progress across several areas, including Ford’s universal EV platform strategy, battery energy storage system investment, warranty improvements and efforts to reduce its European asset footprint. Jefferies expects Ford’s Blue business to improve in 2027, helping earnings recover after a challenging period.

The firm expects Ford’s second-quarter results to reflect continued volume pressure but noted that lower production could allow the company to focus on vehicle mix and avoid higher-cost aluminum sourcing. Jefferies estimates second-quarter group adjusted EBIT of $2.5 billion and expects EV losses to moderate.

For General Motors, Jefferies also raised its rating to 'Buy,' citing confidence that the automaker can continue strengthening its position in the US market and generate more than $10 billion in annual real free cash flow from 2027 onward.

The firm raised its 2026-2028 estimates by about 6% and increased its price target to $99, above current levels of about $86.

Jefferies expects GM’s earnings improvement to be supported by new vehicle launches, efficiency gains and greater diversification. The analysts highlighted upcoming Silverado and Sierra truck launches, improved vehicle content, including Super Cruise technology, and potential growth from digital services.

The firm raised its 2026 adjusted EBIT estimate for GM to $15.8 billion, at the upper end of company guidance, and projected 2027 adjusted EBIT of $17.4 billion. Jefferies expects North American operations to remain the key earnings driver, supported by stable market share, improved pricing and continued progress on warranty costs.

The analysts noted that GM has made progress reducing warranty expenses, with $500 million of improvement recorded in the first half of the year, while additional cost opportunities remain. They also highlighted that much of the company’s EV-related cash costs have already been incurred, reducing future pressure.

Jefferies wrote that both companies are positioned for improved earnings visibility, with Ford trading at about 6.6 times estimated 2027 earnings and GM at about five times estimated 2027 earnings.

The firm noted that a valuation re-rating could provide additional upside, although it is not required to support its price targets.

Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM | QCOM Price Prediction) heads into Wednesday’s Q3 earnings report on July 29 at just 15x forward earnings, despite returning billions of dollars to shareholders and expanding beyond smartphones. Qualcomm also offers investors a dividend yield above 2% alongside exposure to growing automotive, IoT, and hyperscaler chip businesses.

Qualcomm’s 15x Forward P/E Leaves Room for Upside QCOM trades at a trailing P/E of 18, a forward P/E of 15, and a PEG of 0.527. Analysts’ consensus price target sits at $221.23, roughly 31.27% above Monday’s $166.97 open. The business’s free cash flow yield sits at 7.28% against a $175.99 billion market cap, backed by FY25 free cash flow of $12.82 billion.

A $20 Billion Buyback Authorization Could Shrink the Share Count The recent $0.89 quarterly dividend delivers a 2.16% annualized dividend yield, and management returned $12.596 billion to shareholders in FY25 ($8.791 billion in buybacks retiring 56 million shares plus $3.805 billion in dividends).

First-half FY26 already saw $5.4 billion in shares repurchased against the newly authorized $20 billion program. The company’s 18.6x interest coverage ratio and net debt/EBITDA of 0.61 give the business a strong balance sheet for continued capital returns.

Wednesday’s Earnings Could Confirm the Next Growth Cycle Qualcomm is dropping its Q3 FY26 results on Wednesday, July 29. Polymarket currently assigns a 90.5% probability that QCOM beats consensus, which makes sense considering the company has delivered four consecutive EPS beats ahead of this week’s results.

Act now: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just named his top 10 AI stocks — and Qualcomm didn't make the cut. Grab the names FREE today.

CEO Cristiano Amon has already confirmed a “leading hyperscaler custom silicon engagement is on track for initial shipments later this calendar year.“ Automotive plus IoT grew 20% YoY last quarter, with Automotive alone up 38% to a record $1.326 billion.

QCOM Trades at Less Than Half Nvidia’s P/E and Offers Dividend Income NVIDIA’s (NASDAQ:NVDA) trailing P/E ratio of 42 is more than double QCOM’s 18. Qualcomm also offers a meaningful 2.16% dividend yield, compared with Nvidia’s negligible 0.02%, while its 7.28% free cash flow yield easily tops Nvidia’s 1.93%. Both companies are pursuing hyperscaler custom silicon opportunities in 2026, but Qualcomm offers better dividend income along with a stronger FCF yield.

China Is the Biggest Risk, but a Recovery Could Begin Next Quarter Bears point at Chinese handset softness and memory supply constraints, which pulled Q2 FY26 handset revenue down 13% YoY. Management has explicitly guided Chinese handsets to bottom in Q3, with sequential recovery expected in Q4.

Meanwhile, automotive and IoT revenue continues to grow, a hyperscaler chip launch is approaching, and Qualcomm is returning substantial cash through dividends and buybacks. At 15x forward earnings, Wednesday’s report could show whether investors are placing too much weight on the temporary handset slowdown.

Act now: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just named his top 10 AI stocks — and Qualcomm didn't make the cut. Grab the names FREE today.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.