Archive

August 30, 2025

Browsing
In Stocks

Super Micro shares slide 5% on internal control weakness disclosure

3 Mins Read

Super Micro Computer Inc. (NASDAQ: SMCI) saw its shares drop more than 5% on Friday after the artificial intelligence-focused server maker reiterated weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting.

The disclosure, made in a regulatory filing late Thursday, raised renewed concerns about the company’s governance and ability to deliver timely and accurate financial results.

The selloff put Super Micro on track to shed more than $1 billion from its roughly $26 billion market capitalization if the losses persist.

Internal control issues resurface

In its annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, Super Micro repeated warnings first flagged in its May quarterly filing, cautioning that the unresolved problems could “adversely affect” its reporting of operational results.

The company added that it continues to work on addressing the deficiencies.

The issue is not entirely new for the San Jose-based server manufacturer.

Last year, Super Micro failed to meet an August deadline to file its annual report.

The delay, followed by the October resignation of its auditor Ernst & Young LLP, fueled skepticism among investors and analysts about the company’s governance and transparency practices.

Although Super Micro eventually filed its long-delayed report earlier this year, the repeated cautionary language has once again pressured investor sentiment.

Valuation and analyst outlook

Despite the disclosure, Super Micro remains a significant player in the high-demand market for servers optimized for artificial intelligence workloads.

The company currently trades at 16.28 times its forward 12-month earnings estimates, according to LSEG data.

That valuation is notably higher than some of its peers, including Dell Technologies Inc. (NYSE: DELL), which trades at 13.12 times earnings, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (NYSE: HPE), at 10.81 times.

Analyst sentiment on the stock remains divided. Of the 19 brokerages covering Super Micro, seven maintain a “buy” rating, nine suggest “hold,” and three recommend “sell.”

The median price target for SMCI shares is $49, according to LSEG.

The mixed outlook underscores both the opportunities and risks tied to the company’s position in the growing AI infrastructure market, coupled with ongoing governance concerns.

Industry context and rival moves

Super Micro’s disclosure came on the same day rival Dell reported disappointing stock performance.

Dell shares dropped about 10% on Friday, as higher manufacturing costs for AI-driven servers and intensifying competition weighed on its outlook.

While Dell reaffirmed robust demand forecasts for AI infrastructure, investors appeared cautious about profit margins in the increasingly crowded space.

The parallel declines highlight the pressures facing server makers as they navigate surging demand for AI technology alongside challenges in cost management, competition, and regulatory scrutiny.

For Super Micro, the combination of strong market demand and internal financial control concerns presents a complex investment profile—one that leaves analysts and investors divided heading into the second half of the year.

The post Super Micro shares slide 5% on internal control weakness disclosure appeared first on Invezz

Keep Reading
In World news

Editor’s Picks: Gold Price Breaks US$3,400, Silver Added to Draft US Critical Minerals List

5 Mins Read

The gold price was on the rise this week, breaking through US$3,400 per ounce once again.

It’s been pushed higher by US dollar weakness, as well as Federal Reserve turmoil.

President Donald Trump has been pressuring Fed Chair Jerome Powell to cut interest rates for months, and on Monday (August 25) the situation developed further when Trump posted a letter on his social media platform Truth Social. In it, he said he was removing Lisa Cook from her position on the central bank’s board of governors due to allegations of mortgage fraud.

Cook, who has been voting to hold rates steady, was due to serve until 2038; she has now filed a lawsuit asking for Trump’s order to be declared ‘unlawful and void.’

The move has spurred questions about whether Trump can actually fire her — while the Federal Reserve Act doesn’t allow him to remove Fed officials at will, he can do so ‘for cause.’

For its part, the Fed has said it will abide by any court decision.

The situation is still developing, and gold market watchers are keeping a close eye on how it plays out. The yellow metal tends to fare better when interest rates are low, and some experts believe that a rate cut from the Fed could kick off its next move higher

The Fed’s next meeting is scheduled to run from September 16 to 17. Expectations are high that it will cut rates at that time, even though the latest data shows that its preferred measure of inflation, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, was up 2.6 percent year-on-year in July.

Core PCE, which excludes food and energy, saw a rise of 2.9 percent.

Bullet briefing — US drafts new critical minerals list, uranium miners make cuts

US drafts new critical minerals list

The US Department of the Interior has released a new draft critical minerals list, and the recommended additions include silver, as well as potash, silicon, copper, rhenium and lead.

Silver’s potential inclusion is turning heads in the mining community as market participants assess the potential impact for the metal. The critical minerals list is designed to guide federal strategy, investment and permitting deals as the US works to lock down supply of key commodities, meaning that silver-focused companies could see benefits such as tax breaks and faster timelines.

In total, the draft list has 54 minerals, with 50 included based on results from an economic effects assessment. Three were selected on the back of a qualitative evaluation, and zirconium is there because of the potential for a single point of failure in the US supply chain.

The list was set up after a 2017 executive order from Trump and is updated every three years.

It’s worth noting that silver and the other recommended additions aren’t officially critical minerals yet — the draft critical minerals list was posted for public comment on Tuesday (August 26), and feedback will be accepted for 30 days. It’s also worth noting that two commodities may be stripped of their critical mineral status — arsenic and tellurium have been recommended for removal.

Critical minerals lists vary from country to country based on individual needs, although in many cases they have similarities. In January 2024, a group of silver industry participants, including many major miners, sent a letter to Canada’s energy and natural resources minister proposing that silver be included in the nation’s critical minerals list; to date, it has not been added.

Uranium miners cut production guidance

Sweden’s government has proposed the removal of the country’s ban on uranium mining as it looks to reduce its reliance on imports of the energy fuel.

Uranium mining has been banned in Sweden since 2018, but the country has six operating reactors and generates around one-third of its power from nuclear energy.

The ban is set to be removed on January 1, 2026, and comes as nations increasingly look to nuclear power to fill their energy needs. It also comes amid supply questions — although demand is rising and prices are out of a years-long slump, miners have been slow to ramp back up post-Fukushima.

Just last week, Kazatomprom said it was lowering its 2026 production target compared to earlier estimates, cutting about 8 million pounds. Although the company sees stability in long-term uranium prices and strong sector fundamentals, it isn’t prepared to return to 100 percent levels.

Cameco (TSX:CCO,NYSE:CCJ) made a similar statement this week, saying its 2025 output will be impacted by delays in transitioning the Saskatchewan-based McArthur River mine to new mining areas. Production will be 4 million to 5 million pounds lower, although there is a chance for Cigar Lake to partially offset that loss.

Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Keep Reading
In Business

Cracker Barrel rebrand: Why companies retreat when faced with consumer criticism

5 Mins Read

It’s been a busy week for Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s marketing team.

The restaurant chain announced a rebrand and new logo last week, faced widespread criticism from social media users, including President Donald Trump, and proceeded to walk back its plan to change the logo.

In that span of time, the company lost and regained almost $100 million in market value, bringing it about back to where it started. The stock gained 8% on Wednesday.

The Cracker Barrel saga is just the latest example of a consumer-facing company making big branding decisions, then pulling back after alienating its customer base.

“It’s very tricky to be a brand for everyone today,” Carreen Winters, president of reputation at the global public relations firm MikeWorldWide, said in an interview. “Legacy brands are particularly tricky, because you have to figure out what is cherished and authentic from the old and marry it with the new.

“In Cracker Barrel’s case, they’re trying to attract a new, younger customer [which] is no longer sufficient,” she continued. “You need to actually think about all of your stakeholders and how they will react, respond, feel about what you’re doing or the direction you’re taking. And you need to be sure that what you’re doing is consistent with shared values.”

Rebranding failures are not a new phenomenon. One of the most famous marketing blunders of all time happened in 1985 when the Coca-Cola company introduced “New Coke” with a new formula. After a firestorm of outrage from its customers, the company returned to its classic formula a few months later.

But social media has made backlash from consumers faster and more widespread, meaning businesses are usually quicker to walk back on their branding failures.

In 2010, retailer Gap ditched its decades-old blue box logo for a more minimalist design. It faced intense backlash on social media through thousands of engagements and, within less than a week, the company said it was reverting to its original logo.

More recently in May, Warner Bros. Discovery announced its streaming platform would undergo another name change, after switching from HBO to HBO Max to Max and then back again to HBO Max.

Major rebrands don’t always go awry. For example, Kentucky Fried Chicken successfully rebranded to KFC in 1991. Its customers already used the acronym and the rebrand signified that the restaurant chain offers more than just fried chicken.

Dunkin’ Donuts also successfully underwent its name change to Dunkin’ in 2019. It did face some criticism from its loyal customers at the time, but Winters said today the “Dunkin’” name and branding are widely accepted over its original name.

“Dunkin’ rebranded in accordance with the behavior that the customer created,” she said. “It aligned with their strategy of being more than Donuts and really building their coffee business.”

She also mentioned IHOP as an example of a brand that has been able to freshen up its look and stay relevant in culture. She said IHOP’s change has been an “evolution, not a revolution.”

Beth LaGuardia Cooper, chief marketing officer at Advantage, The Authority Company, added during an interview that Starbucks had subtle changes to its logo over time, which allowed it to hold the base of its identity close.

While some social media users disliked Cracker Barrel’s new branding simply because they said it lacked substance and was too “sterile” or “soulless,” others, especially conservatives, claimed the new logo leaned into “wokeness” and diversity efforts.

Cracker Barrel is widely considered a classic American restaurant chain. It began in Tennessee in 1969 and its branding evokes Southern charm and nostalgia for its consumer base.

Eric Schiffer, chairman of the firm Reputation Management Consultants, said the new branding, without the iconic “Uncle Herschel” figure, suggested to conservatives that having a white man featured on the logo was wrong or politically incorrect.

He said that pushback represents a larger trend where conservatives are feeling under attack by diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

“I think the perspective of conservatives is, don’t ruin Cracker Barrel with the Bud Light meets Jaguar marketing playbook,” said Schiffer, adding that those brands “attempted to disrupt positively and what they did was they nuked brand sentiment and shareholder confidence.”

In November, Tata Motors-owned Jaguar Land Rover announced a rebrand that removed its “leaper” big cat imagery from its logo and changed the brand’s font. Its new promotional materials included brightly dressed models, but no cars. The brand faced significant pushback, including tens of thousands of responses on social media.

Elon Musk criticized the company on X at the time, asking Jaguar’s official account: “Do you sell cars?”

Earlier this month, Trump piped in with his insults, calling Jaguar’s ad campaign “stupid” and “seriously WOKE.”

The Telegraph reported in May that Jaguar was searching for a new advertising agency after the public backlash.

Similarly, Anheuser-Busch InBev’s Bud Light faced heavy criticism from conservatives in 2023 after a collaboration between the beer brand and social influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who is transgender.

“If you’re trying to be a tough, male-focused, football fan-oriented beer, the last thing you want to do is put the wrong spokesperson in front of the brand,” Schiffer said. “It will turn off that audience and it allows competitors to capture that market share.”

“The throughline in all of this is, don’t rip apart and disrespect audiences that brought you to the dance,” Schiffer said. “Find a way, if you’re going to want to expand, do it in a way that doesn’t cut at the core of what the brand stands for — and in the process, create cognitive dissonance and blow up market cap.”

Branding experts told CNBC that at the end of the day, people are talking about Cracker Barrel, which is a win for the company by itself.

“Everybody loves a comeback in America,” LaGuardia Cooper said. “So I would root for them to make this happen, make something good out of it.”

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Keep Reading
In Politics

Lawyers for Cook, DOJ trade blows at high-stakes clash over Fed firing

5 Mins Read

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday grilled lawyers for the Justice Department and Lisa Cook over President Donald Trump’s historic attempt to fire her from the Federal Reserve.

The landmark case is almost certain to be kicked to the Supreme Court for review. Despite the high-stakes nature of the legal dispute, Friday’s hearing ended after more than two hours without clear resolution. 

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, declined to immediately grant the temporary restraining order sought by Lisa Cook’s attorneys, which would keep her in her role on the Fed’s Board of Governors for now. 

Cook’s lawyers included the request for the temporary restraining order in the lawsuit filed in federal court on Thursday, challenging Trump’s attempt to fire her from her position on the independent board due to allegations of mortgage fraud. 

Instead, Judge Cobb ordered both parties to submit any supplemental briefs to the court by Tuesday, shortly before she dismissed the lawyers for the long weekend.

Cobb noted the novelty of the case before her, which involves the first attempt by a sitting president to oust a Federal Reserve governor ‘for cause.’ 

The fraud allegations were first leveled by Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He accused Cook of claiming two primary residences in two separate states in 2021, with the goal of obtaining more favorable loan conditions. 

Trump followed up by posting a letter on Truth Social earlier this week that he had determined ‘sufficient cause’ to fire Cook, a dismissal he said was ‘effective immediately,’ prompting her attorneys to file the emergency lawsuit.

The crux of Friday’s arguments centered on the definition of what ‘for cause’ provisions must entail for removal from the board under the Federal Reserve Act, or FRA, a law designed to shield members from the political whims of the commander in chief or members of Congress. 

The arguments also centered on Cook’s claims in her lawsuit that Trump’s attempt to fire her amounts to an illegal effort to remove her from the Fed well before her tenure is slated to end in January 2038 to install his own nominee. 

Lawyers for Cook argued that her firing was merely a ‘pretext’ for Trump to secure a majority on the Fed board, a contention that Cobb admitted made her ‘uncomfortable.’

They also attempted to poke holes in the mortgage fraud allegations, which they said were made on social media and ‘backfilled.’

The case ‘obviously raises important questions’ about the Federal Reserve Board, Cobb said shortly before adjourning court.

She also noted that she had not yet made a determination about the alleged ‘irreparable harm,’ prompting her to set the Tuesday filing deadline.

Cook’s attorneys argued Friday that Trump’s attempt to fire her violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as well as her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the Federal Reserve Act. 

Her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, noted on several occasions that there was no ‘investigation or charge’ from the administration prior to Trump’s abrupt announcement that he would fire Cook.  

Lowell also vehemently disputed the Justice Department’s allegations that Cook had an ‘opportunity’ to respond to the mortgage fraud accusations leveled by Bill Pulte, noting that they were made just 30 minutes before Trump called for Cook to be removed.  

He told Cobb that it was the latest attempt by the Trump administration to ‘litigate by tweet.’

Lawyers for the Trump administration, for their part, argued that the president has broad latitude to determine the ‘for cause’ provision.

Justice Department attorney Yakoov Roth told Cobb that the determination of when to invoke the provision should be left to the president, regardless of whether it is viewed by others as ‘pretextual.’

‘That sounds to me like the epitome of a discretionary determination, and that is when the president’s power is at [its] apex,’ Roth said.

DOJ lawyers also noted that Cook, to date, has not disputed any of the allegations in question and argued there is ‘nothing she has said’ about the allegations that would cause her to not be fired.

‘What if the stated cause is demonstrably false?’  Cobb asked, going on to cite hypothetical concerns that a president could, theoretically, use allegations to stack federal boards with majorities.

As for the issue of ‘irreparable harm,’ Justice Department attorneys argued that it would be more harmful for Cook to remain in office, arguing that the ‘harm of having someone in office who is wrongfully there … outweighs the harm of someone being wrongfully removed from office.’

Cook’s attorneys said Friday that in reviewing the lawsuit, the court need not itself establish a definition of what ’cause’ means under the Federal Reserve Act.

Instead, Lowell suggested, the court should instead work backwards to determine whether the accusations leveled by Pulte were in fact ‘backfilled’ by Trump to form the basis of her removal.  

‘It’s very difficult to come up with an 11-page definition of what it is,’ Lowell said Friday of the ’cause’ definition, adding that it is far easier to come up with a one-page definition of ‘what it’s not.’ 

‘Whatever it is, it’s not this,’ Lowell said.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Keep Reading