Markus Andrews

President Donald Trump’s recent comments about the economy raised fears about a potential recession.
Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about their financial future as a wave of economic uncertainty takes hold.
The perceived likelihood of missing a minimum debt payment hit a five-year high.

More Americans fear missed payments

Households also grew more worried about being able to pay their bills, the New York Fed’s survey found. Respondents’ perceived likelihood of missing a minimum debt payment over the next three months rose to 14.6%, the highest level since April 2020, near the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
“The past few months have shown a resurgence in price increases in many food and energy products,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com. “Coupled with shelter costs that continue to increase faster than many workers’ wages, the pressure on household budgets is unrelenting.”

Consumers are understandably worried about an economic slowdown as tariffs roll out, according to Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.
Economists say Trump’s tariffs on imports from Canada, China and Mexico are bound to raise prices on a host of consumer goods. One recent report found that 86% of Americans surveyed said trade tensions are likely to hit their wallets.
“There’s just an enormous amount of uncertainty around the economy right now as we watch the early days of the new administration play out,” Schulz said. “People don’t have any idea what things will look like in three to six months, and that’s really unnerving.” 

Consumer confidence is falling

The Conference Board’s consumer confidence index sank in February, notching the largest monthly drop since August 2021. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index similarly found that Americans largely fear that inflation will flare up again.
“The truth is that millions of Americans are doing okay right now, but feel like their financial situation could go from pretty good to pretty dicey in a hurry if they were to encounter a job loss, a medical emergency or some other unexpected event,” Schulz said.
“That’s a scary place to be,” he added.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

Ron Baron, founder of Baron Capital.
Anjali Sundaram | CNBC

Billionaire investor Ron Baron is standing by Elon Musk’s Tesla even in the face of its dramatic sell-off. The stock plunged 15% on Monday, its biggest one-day loss since September 2020.
“I can’t believe how cheap they are, things that we look at,” Baron said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Tuesday. “I was thinking we would make four times over the next 10 years. I think we’re gonna make more than that now from these prices.”

The Baron Capital chair and CEO first invested $400 million in Tesla between 2014 and 2016, and that early bet has made him billions of dollars as the EV company gained mainstream acceptance. Tesla represented 12% of Baron’s entire portfolio across different funds at the end of 2024.
Tesla shares have been on a roiller coaster ride since Musk went to Washington, D.C. to take on a major role in the second Trump White House. Tesla just suffered a seventh straight week of losses, its longest weekly decline since debuting on the Nasdaq in 2010.

Stock chart icon

Tesla shares in 2025.

Baron Capital trimmed its Tesla position in the second quarter last year because the holding had gotten too big in its portfolio. Baron vowed that his personal Tesla shares would be the last he would touch when it comes to portfolio management.
“I’m the last in, I’ll be the last out. So I won’t sell a single share personally until I sell all the shares for clients, and that’s what I’ve done,” he said.
Musk admitted Monday he is running his businesses “with great difficulty,” as he took on the role of heading Trump’s advisory Department of Government Efficiency, which is engaged in a broad, controversial effort to reduce federal government spending and slash employee headcount at dozens of agencies.
“I would hope that he would be a little less visible, but he feels that this is the way he’s going to get things done,” Baron said of the 53-year-old Musk. “He is more charged up about his business now than he’s ever been.” More

President Donald Trump signed an executive order that aims to limit eligibility for a popular student loan forgiveness program.
Here’s what you need to know.

Apu Gomes | Afp | Getty Images

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that aims to limit eligibility for a popular student loan forgiveness program.
According to Trump’s executive order, borrowers employed by organizations that do work involving “illegal immigration, human smuggling, child trafficking, pervasive damage to public property and disruption of the public order” will “not be eligible for public service loan forgiveness.”

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007, allows many not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of payments.
More from Personal Finance:DOGE layoffs may ‘overwhelm’ unemployment systemEducation Department cuts leave student loan borrowers in the darkCongress’ proposed Medicaid cuts may impact economy
The order says that PSLF “has misdirected tax dollars into activist organizations that not only fail to serve the public interest, but actually harm our national security and American values.”
Consumer advocates say that is not accurate, and were quick to condemn Trump’s move, accusing the president of depriving debt forgiveness to those who work in fields he does not approve of.
“The PSLF program, which was created by Congress almost 20 years ago, does not permit the administration to pick and choose which non-profits should qualify,” said Jessica Thompson, senior vice president of The Institute for College Access & Success.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request from CNBC for comment.
Here’s what borrowers in the program need to know.

Unclear which organizations could be excluded

For now, the language in the president’s order was fairly vague. As a result, it remains unclear exactly which organizations will no longer be considered a qualifying employer under PSLF, experts said.
The Trump administration might try “to exclude jobs that they deem objectionable,” said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

What might that mean?
In his first few weeks in office, Trump’s executive orders have targeted immigrants, transgender and nonbinary people and those who work to increase diversity across the private and public sector. Many nonprofits work in these spaces, providing legal support or doing advocacy and education work.
“Borrowers that work for those organizations are concerned,” said Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit.

Changes could take ‘a year or more’

Borrowers in the PSLF program won’t see an immediate effect. Trump’s order requested an update to the regulations regarding the program, she said: “That process can take a year or more.”
“I also suspect that this will be challenged in court,” Mayotte said. “The bottom line is that 501(c)(3)s are eligible for PSLF under the law. An EO can’t change.”
Changes also can’t be retroactive, she said. That means that if you are currently working for or previously worked for an organization that the Trump administration later excludes from the program, you’ll still get credit for that time, at least up until the changes go into effect.
For now, those pursuing PSLF should print out a copy of their payment history on StudentAid.gov. Keep a record of the number of qualifying payments you’ve made so far.
With the PSLF help tool, borrowers can search for a list of qualifying employers and access the employer certification form. Try to fill out this form at least once a year, experts say. More

Social Security beneficiaries who receive more money than they are owed will now face a 100% default withholding rate from their monthly checks.
The new policy goes into effect on March 27, the Social Security Administration said.
The change marks a reversal from a 10% default withholding rate that was put into effect in 2024.

Fertnig | E+ | Getty Images

If you receive more Social Security benefits than you are owed, you may face a 100% default withholding rate from your monthly checks once a new policy goes into effect.
The change announced last week by the Social Security Administration marks a reversal from a 10% default withholding rate that was put in place last year after some beneficiaries received letters demanding immediate repayments for sums that were sometimes tens of thousands of dollars.

The discrepancy — called overpayments — happens when Social Security beneficiaries receive more money than they are owed.
The erroneous payment amounts may occur when beneficiaries fail to report to the Social Security Administration changes in their circumstances that may affect their benefits, according to a 2024 Congressional Research Service report. Overpayments can also happen if the agency does not process the information promptly or due to errors in the way data was entered, how a policy was applied or in the administrative process, according to the report.
More from Personal Finance:DOGE layoffs may ‘overwhelm’ unemployment systemEducation Department cuts leave student loan borrowers in the darkCongress’ proposed Medicaid cuts may impact economy
The Social Security Administration paid about $6.5 billion in retirement and disability benefit overpayments in fiscal 2022, which represents 0.5% of total benefits paid, the Congressional Research Service said in its 2024 report. The agency also paid about $4.6 billion in overpayments for Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, benefits in that year, or about 8% of total benefits paid.
The Social Security Administration recovered about $4.9 billion in Social Security and SSI overpayments in fiscal 2023. However, the agency had about $23 billion in uncollected overpayments at the end of the 2023 fiscal year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

By defaulting to a 100% withholding rate for overpayments, the Social Security Administration said it may recover about $7 billion in the next decade.  
“We have the significant responsibility to be good stewards of the trust funds for the American people,” Lee Dudek, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, said in a statement. “It is our duty to revise the overpayment repayment policy back to full withholding, as it was during the Obama administration and first Trump administration, to properly safeguard taxpayer funds.”

New overpayment policy goes into effect March 27

The new 100% withholding rate will apply to new overpayments of Social Security benefits, according to the agency. The withholding rate for SSI overpayments will remain at 10%.
Social Security beneficiaries who are overpaid benefits after March 27 will automatically be subject to the new 100% withholding rate.
Individuals affected will have the right to appeal both the overpayment decision and the amount, according to the agency. They may also ask for a waiver of the overpayment, if either they cannot afford to pay the money back or if they believe they are not at fault. While an initial appeal or waiver is pending, the agency will not require repayment.

Beneficiaries who cannot afford to fully repay the Social Security Administration may also request a lower recovery rate either by calling the agency or visiting their local office.
For beneficiaries who had an overpayment before March 27, the withholding rate will stay the same and no action is required, the agency said.

Some call 100% withholding rate ‘clawback cruelty’

The new overpayment policy goes into effect about one year after former Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley implemented a 10% default withholding rate.
The change was prompted by financial struggles some beneficiaries faced in repaying large sums to the Social Security Administration.
At a March 2024 Senate committee hearing, O’Malley called the policy of intercepting 100% of a benefit check “clawback cruelty.”
At the same hearing, Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., recalled how one constituent who was overpaid $58,000 could not afford to pay her rent after the Social Security Administration reduced her monthly checks.

Following the Social Security Administration’s announcement that it will return to 100% as the default withholding rate, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare said it is concerned the agency may be more susceptible to overpayment errors as it cuts staff.
“This action, ostensibly taken to cut costs at SSA, needlessly punishes beneficiaries who receive overpayment notices — usually through no fault of their own,” the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, an advocacy organization, said in a statement.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Revolving debt, which mostly includes credit card balances, jumped 8.2% in January, according to the Federal Reserve’s latest consumer credit report.
Altogether, consumer debt, including student loans, auto loans and credit card debt, now stands at $5 trillion.
Higher prices driven by tariffs could stretch household budgets even more in the months ahead, experts say.

Total outstanding consumer debt stood at $5 trillion as of January, according to the Federal Reserve’s G.19 consumer credit report released on Friday. That is up slightly from a month earlier but down 0.6% compared to a year ago.
Revolving debt, which mostly includes credit card balances, jumped 8.2% year over year, while nonrevolving debt, such as auto loans and student loans, rose 3%.

“Some small cracks are starting to emerge,” said Ted Rossman, senior industry analyst at Bankrate.
Overall, “consumers are still spending, of course,” Rossman said.
However, “sentiment has been depressed — and has taken another few steps down in recent weeks due to tariff worries,” he added.
More from Personal Finance:Americans are suffering from ‘sticker shock’Canada, Mexico tariffs create ‘ripple effects’ on consumer pricesAs tariffs ramp up, this investment can protect against inflation
The G.19 report shows “significant-but-not-crazy growth in revolving credit, and moderate growth in nonrevolving and overall credit,” according to Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.

But economists say Trump’s tariffs on imports from China, Mexico and Canada are bound to raise prices for consumers, which is fueling concern among households. One recent consumer survey found that 86% of Americans said trade tensions are likely to hit their wallets and another 22% have also started stockpiling certain items, regardless of whether they can afford it.
In the last year, credit card debt rose to a record $1.21 trillion, with 34% of credit card borrowers saying they expect to take on more debt this year, according to a separate poll of 2,000 adults in February by CreditCards.com.

How to get a handle on credit card debt

Credit cards are also one of the most expensive ways to borrow money. The average credit card currently charges more than 20%, near an all-time high.
“If you have credit card debt — and about half of cardholders do — my best advice is to sign up for a balance transfer card with a lengthy 0% promotion,” Rossman said. Cards offering 12, 15 or even 21 months with no interest on transferred balances are one of the best weapons Americans have in the battle against credit card debt, experts often say.
Working with a reputable nonprofit credit counseling agency is another solid option, Rossman added.
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

In 2024, 52% of couples who were surveyed said their engagement ring featured a lab-grown diamond, according to the 2025 Real Weddings Study by The Knot.
In the first quarter of 2025, an unbranded, round, 1-carat lab-grown diamond cost, on average, $845, according to Paul Zimnisky, a global diamond industry analyst. A similar natural diamond would cost about $3,895.
Here’s what to know if you are shopping for an engagement ring.

Fg Trade | E+ | Getty Images

More couples are saying “yes” to lab-grown diamonds.
In 2024, 52% of couples surveyed said their engagement ring featured a lab-grown diamond, according to the 2025 Real Weddings Study by The Knot. The popularity of lab-grown diamonds increased by 6% from last year and by 40% since 2019, the bridal site found.

In addition to data from prior reports, the Knot 2025 Real Weddings Study includes insights from nearly 17,000 couples in the U.S. who got married in 2024 and data from couples getting married in 2025.
Many couples end up buying a lab-grown diamond ring because of the lower price tag, according to experts. On average, a proposer looking to buy a lab-grown engagement ring could expect to spend about $4,900 compared with $7,600 for a mined diamond ring, the Knot found.
More from Personal Finance:Couples leverage ‘something borrowed’ to cut wedding costsSome couples are having ‘micro weddings’Why couples avoid talking about financial issues
In general, lab-grown diamonds can sell for around one-tenth the price of a comparable natural diamond, according to Paul Zimnisky, a global diamond industry analyst and founder of Paul Zimnisky Diamond Analytics.
In the first quarter of 2025, an unbranded, round, 1-carat lab-grown diamond costs about $845, according to Zimnisky’s proprietary data and analysis. A similar natural diamond would cost about $3,895.

Lab-grown diamonds possess the same chemical properties and hardness as naturally mined diamonds, and thus are subject to the same “four C’s” — cut, color, clarity and carat — grading system as natural gems.
The big question — can you tell if a diamond was human-made or mined?
Both stones are optically the same, meaning they will look the same to the naked eye, experts say. However, under the proper testing conditions, scientists and jewelers with the expertise can tell them apart, according to Ulrika F.S. D’Haenens-Johansson, a research scientist and senior manager of diamond research at the Gemological Institute of America.
If you’re in the market for an engagement ring this year, here are some key factors you should consider about lab-grown diamonds versus a natural diamond, according to experts.

Pros and cons to a lab-grown diamond

A major advantage to lab-grown diamonds over natural diamonds is the lower cost. Prices for lab-grown diamonds have been dropping as manufacturers increase the supply.
“The price has become enticing for a lot of people,” said Amanda Gizzi, director of public relations and events at the Jewelers of America, a trade organization.
However, there are other factors to consider when it comes to lab-grown diamonds:

Ethics: For some shoppers, lab-grown stones helped provide an option for those concerned about “blood diamonds,” or diamonds mined in war zones and used to fund conflict and human rights abuses. However, experts noted that the diamond industry has come a long way from how diamonds are sourced. The Kimberley Process is an international trade regime created in 2003 to add oversight to the diamond supply chain and eliminate the trade of diamonds sold by rebel groups or their allies.

Environmental impact: While lab-grown diamonds have gained a reputation for being a “greener” way to purchase diamonds, it’s uncertain how truly sustainable they are. “Lab-grown [diamonds] require higher energy consumption because they’re growing in a laboratory that [is] powered by fossil fuels,” Gizzi said. If sustainability is important, Zimnisky said, consider a second-hand or repurposed diamond for “the lowest environmental impact.”

Value over time: Engagement rings are typically purchased for sentimental reasons and are not considered investments. But it’s worth noting that lab-grown diamonds do not hold their value and will likely sell for less than what you initially paid for, Gizzi said. A high-quality natural diamond or gemstone may hold its value, or even appreciate.

What to consider when ring shopping

The first thing you should do is set a realistic budget, said Lauren Kay, executive editor at The Knot.
“You should determine what price you’re comfortable with,” she said.
The rule of thumb about spending “three months’ salary” on a diamond ring is an outdated myth, she said.
Gizzi agreed: “I haven’t used that in a decade.” 

Whether you pick a lab-grown diamond or a natural one, “buy the best diamond that your budget can afford,” as the ring is a piece of jewelry your significant other will appreciate for a long time, Gizzi said.
“It’s not something that you’re going to upgrade a year later,” Gizzi said.
If you’re in the process of buying a ring, here are two more things to consider when shopping for engagement rings:
1. The four C’s
The four C’s, the color, carat, clarity and cut, can influence the overall cost of the diamond. Knowing which of the qualities matters most to you and your significant other can help you bring down the overall cost, The Knot’s Kay said.
2. The metal
The metal of the ring you choose can also influence the price, Kay said. For example, while platinum and white gold look similar, platinum is “rarer and stronger” and can cost more, she said.
But you also want to consider the longevity of the jewelry piece, she said. Even though white gold can be a cheaper metal and can lower upfront costs, you may want to consider long-term maintenance into the price, she said.
For instance, a durable metal like platinum is unlikely to change color over time, Gizzi said. White gold, on the other hand, will require you to periodically re-plate the ring to restore the original finish.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

In order to meet budget goals, Congress will likely have to implement Medicaid cuts.
One way of restricting access to the program would be to add work requirements.
If such a change were put in place, some individuals would no longer qualify for Medicaid.

Protect Our Care supporters display “Hands Off Medicaid” message in front of the White House ahead of President Trump’s address to Congress on March 4 in Washington, D.C. 
Paul Morigi | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Cuts to Medicaid will have to be on the menu if House Republicans want to meet their budget goals, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report this week.
The chamber’s budget blueprint includes $880 billion in spending cuts under the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the program.

Medicaid helps cover medical costs for people who have limited income and resources, as well as benefits not covered by Medicare such as nursing home care.
To curb Medicaid spending, experts say, lawmakers may choose to add work requirements. Doing so would make it so people have to meet certain thresholds, such as 80 hours of work per month, to qualify for Medicaid coverage.
Republicans have not yet suggested specific changes to Medicaid. However, a new KFF poll finds 6 in 10 Americans would support adding work requirements to the program.
More from Personal Finance:DOGE layoffs may ‘overwhelm’ unemployment systemEducation Department cuts leave student loan borrowers in the darkCongress’ proposed Medicaid cuts may impact economy
Imposing work requirements may provide a portion of lawmakers’ targeted savings. In 2023, the Congressional Budget Office found implementing work requirements could save $109 billion over 10 years.

Yet that change could also put 36 million Medicaid enrollees at risk of losing their health-care coverage, estimates the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That represents about 44% of the approximately 80 million individuals who participate in the program. The estimates focus on adults ages 19 to 64, who would be most likely subject to a work requirement.
The idea of work requirements is not new. Lawmakers have proposed work hurdles to qualify for other safety net programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.  

The approach shows an ideological difference between the U.S. and European social democracies that accept a baseline responsibility to provide social safety nets, said Farah Khan, a fellow at Brookings Metro’s Center for Community Uplift.
“We view welfare as uniquely polarized based on which party comes into power,” Khan said.
When one party frames it as a moral failing to be poor because you haven’t worked hard enough, that ignores structural inequalities or systemic injustices that may have led individuals to those circumstances, she said.

Medicaid work requirements prompt coverage losses

Loss of coverage has been a common result in previous state attempts to add Medicare work requirements.
When Arkansas implemented a work requirement policy in 2018, around 1 in 4 people subject to the requirement, or around 18,000 people total, lost coverage in seven months before the program was stopped, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When New Hampshire attempted to implement a work requirement policy with more flexible reporting requirements, 2 in 3 individuals were susceptible to being disenrolled after two months.
“Generally, Medicaid work requirements have resulted in coverage losses without incentivizing or increasing employment and are a policy that is really unnecessary and burdensome,” said Laura Harker, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The “administrative barriers and red tape” from work requirements broadly lead to coverage losses among both working individuals and those who are between jobs or exempt due to disabilities, illnesses or caretaking responsibilities, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Notably, around 9 in 10 Medicaid enrollees are already working or qualify for an exemption, Harker said.
Separate research from the American Enterprise Institute finds that in a given month, the majority of working-age people receiving Medicaid who do not have children do not work enough to meet an 80-hour-per-month requirement.
Consequently, if work requirements are imposed on nondisabled, working-age Medicaid recipients, that would affect a large number of people who are not currently in compliance, said Kevin Corinth, deputy director at the Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility at the American Enterprise Institute.
Either those individuals would increase their work to remain eligible or they wouldn’t, and they would be dropped off the program, Corinth said.
“If you put on work requirements, you’re going to affect a lot of people, which could be good or bad, depending on what your view of work requirements are,” Corinth said.
Lawmakers may also cut Medicaid in other ways: capping the amount of federal funds provided to state Medicaid programs; limiting the amount of federal money per Medicaid recipient; reducing available health services or eliminating coverage for certain groups. More

In this photo illustration, a Coterra Energy Inc. logo is seen on a smartphone screen.
Pavlo Gonchar | SOPA Images | LightRocket | Getty Images

The Trump administration’s tariff policy rattled stocks last week, and uncertainty weighed on the major averages.
Amid the ongoing volatility, investors seeking stable returns can consider adding some dividend stocks to their portfolios. The recommendations of top Wall Street analysts could help inform investors as they pick stocks that have a steady record of paying dividends and can enhance overall returns.

Here are three dividend-paying stocks, highlighted by Wall Street’s top pros on TipRanks, a platform that ranks analysts based on their past performance.
Coterra Energy
This week’s first dividend pick is Coterra Energy (CTRA), an exploration and production company with operations focused in the Permian Basin, Marcellus Shale and Anadarko Basin. The company recently delivered upbeat fourth-quarter earnings. Dividends and share repurchases totaled $1.086 billion in 2024, representing 89% of the full-year free cash flow.  
Further, the company hiked its dividend by 5% to 22 cents per share for the fourth quarter of 2024. CTRA stock offers a dividend yield of 3.3%.
Following the Q4 2024 print, Mizuho analyst Nitin Kumar reiterated a buy rating with a price target of $40, calling CTRA stock a “top pick.” The analyst stated that the company yet again posted better-than-expected earnings per share and cash flow per share (CFPS), thanks to higher oil production and solid volumes.
Kumar noted that Coterra reaffirmed its initial outlook for 2025 that was issued in November, but changed the spending mix by slightly lowering Permian Basin expenditure by $70 million and boosting Marcellus spending by $50 million. The analyst explained that this modest change in the capex spending mix is in line with the company’s outlook for commodity prices and reflects CTRA’s flexibility in capital allocation.

The analyst also contends that “CTRA’s exposure to natural gas prices is often underappreciated in our view, especially when the outlook for the commodity is strengthening.”
Kumar ranks No. 347 among more than 9,400 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 58% of the time, delivering an average return of 10.8%. See Coterra Energy Stock Buybacks on TipRanks.
Diamondback Energy
Let’s look at another dividend-paying stock, Diamondback Energy (FANG) – an independent oil and natural gas company with a focus on the Permian Basin. Last year, the company strengthened its business with the acquisition of Endeavor Energy Resources. On Feb. 24, Diamondback announced market-beating fourth-quarter results.
The company announced an 11% increase in its annual base dividend to $4.00 per share. It declared a Q4 2024 base cash dividend of $1.00 per share, payable on March 13.
In reaction to the impressive results, Siebert Williams Shank analyst Gabriele Sorbara reaffirmed a buy rating on FANG stock with a price target of $230. The analyst noted that the Q4 results reflected the company’s strong operational execution, with better-than-anticipated production and lower spending. Also, Q4 free cash flow (FCF) surpassed Sorbara’s estimate by 9.8% and the Street’s consensus expectation by 13%.
Sorbara also mentioned the company’s better-than-feared outlook for 2025, with the possibility for upside revision to the FCF outlook of over $5.9 billion at $70/bbl WTI price level.
Overall, Sorbara is optimistic about FANG stock and believes that it is well-positioned “with a strong sustainable FCF yield supported by its best-in-class Permian Basin assets, which are strengthened further with the recently announced Double Eagle IV acquisition.”
Sorbara ranks No. 217 among more than 9,400 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been successful 51% of the time, delivering an average return of 18.4%. See Diamondback Energy Insider Trading Activity on TipRanks.
Walmart
Big-box retailer and dividend king Walmart (WMT) reported top and bottom line beats in the fiscal fourth quarter. However, the company cautioned investors about a slowdown in profit growth amid subdued consumer spending and forex headwinds.
Interestingly, Walmart announced a 13% increase in its annual dividend to 94 cents per share (quarterly dividend of $0.235 per share). This marks the 52nd consecutive year of dividend increases for the company.
Following the results, Evercore analyst Greg Melich reiterated a buy rating on Walmart stock but lowered the price target to $107 from $110 to reflect the lower EPS expectations. Specifically, the analyst slightly reduced his calendar year 2025 and 2026 EPS estimates by 10 cents and 5 cents, respectively, due to forex pressures, the impact of the Vizio acquisition and a higher effective tax rate compared to the previous year.
Despite the near-term headwinds, Melich remains bullish on WMT stock and highlighted multiple strengths, including the retailer’s value proposition, robust merchandising capabilities and improved customer experience.
The analyst thinks that Walmart is well-positioned to continue to gain market share and expand its earnings before interest and tax margin, backed by ad revenues, automation and operating leverage.
Melich believes that the post-earnings pullback in WMT stock presents a “second chance for those wanting quality growth, in our view, with the flywheel set in motion as a result of value leadership and innovation.”
Melich ranks No. 537 among more than 9,400 analysts tracked by TipRanks. His ratings have been profitable 68% of the time, delivering an average return of 12.8%. See Walmart Ownership Structure on TipRanks. More