Raphael Stevens

More stories

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Finance

    Tariffs will likely raise much less money than White House projects, economists say

    White House trade adviser Peter Navarro estimated the U.S. would raise about $600 billion to $700 billion a year from tariffs.
    Economists say the true number will probably be less than half of that sum. Much depends on the actual policies, though.
    President Donald Trump is preparing to unveil more tariffs against trade partners on Wednesday.

    President Donald Trump speaks before signing executive orders in the Oval Office on March 6, 2025.
    Alex Wong | Getty Images

    President Donald Trump says that tariffs will make the U.S. “rich.” But those riches will likely be far less than the White House expects, economists said.
    The ultimate sum could have big ramifications for the U.S. economy, the nation’s debt and legislative negotiations over a tax-cut package, economists said.

    White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Sunday estimated tariffs would raise about $600 billion a year and $6 trillion over a decade. Auto tariffs would add another $100 billion a year, he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
    Navarro made the projection as the U.S. plans to announce more tariffs against U.S. trading partners on Wednesday.
    Economists expect the Trump administration’s tariff policy would generate a much lower amount of revenue than Navarro claims. Some project the total revenue would be less than half.
    Roughly $600 billion to $700 billion a year “is not even in the realm of possibility,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s. “If you get to $100 billion to $200 billion, you’ll be pretty lucky.”
    The White House declined to respond to a request for comment from CNBC about tariff revenue.

    The ‘mental math’ behind tariff revenue

    There are big question marks over the scope of the tariffs, including details like amount, duration, and products and countries affected — all of which have a significant bearing on the revenue total.
    The White House is considering a 20% tariff on most imports, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. President Trump floated this idea on the campaign trail. The Trump administration may ultimately opt for a different policy, like country-by-country tariffs based on each nation’s respective trade and non-trade barriers.
    But a 20% tariff rate seems to align with Navarro’s revenue projections, economists said.
    The U.S. imported about $3.3 trillion of goods in 2024. Applying a 20% tariff rate to all these imports would yield about $660 billion of annual revenue.
    “That is almost certainly the mental math Peter Navarro is doing — and that mental math skips some crucial steps,” said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Biden administration.

    Trade advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump Peter Navarro speaks to press outside of the White House on March 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. 
    Kayla Bartkowski | Getty Images

    That’s because an accurate revenue estimate must account for the many economic impacts of tariffs in the U.S. and around the world, economists said. Those effects combine to reduce revenue, they said.
    A 20% broad tariff would raise about $250 billion a year (or $2.5 trillion over a decade) when taking those effects into account, according to Tedeschi, citing a Yale Budget Lab analysis published Monday.  
    There are ways to raise larger sums — but they would involve higher tariff rates, economists said. For example, a 50% across-the-board tariff would raise about $780 billion per year, according to economists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    Even that is an optimistic assessment: It doesn’t account for lower U.S. economic growth due to retaliation or the negative growth effects from the tariffs themselves, they wrote.

    Why revenue would be lower than expected

    Tariffs generally raise prices for consumers. A 20% broad tariff would cost the average consumer $3,400 to $4,200 a year, according to the Yale Budget Lab.
    Consumers would naturally buy fewer imported goods if they cost more, economists said. Lower demand means fewer imports and less tariff revenue from those imports, they said.
    Tariffs are also expected to trigger “reduced economic activity,” said Robert McClelland, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
    More from Personal Finance:Economists say ‘value-added taxes’ aren’t a trade barrierTariffs are ‘lose-lose’ for U.S. jobs and industryWhy uncertainty makes the stock market go haywire
    For example, U.S. companies that don’t pass tariff costs on to consumers via higher prices would likely see profits suffer (and their income taxes fall), economists said. Consumers might pull back on spending, further denting company profits and tax revenues, economists said. Companies that take a financial hit might lay off workers, they said.
    Foreign nations are also expected to retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. products, which would hurt companies that export products abroad. Other nations may experience an economic downturn, further reducing demand for U.S. products.

    “If you get a 20% tariff rate, you’re going to get a rip-roaring recession, and that will undermine your fiscal situation,” Zandi said.
    There’s also likely to be a certain level of non-compliance with tariff policy, and carve-outs for certain countries, industries or products, economists said. For instance, when the White House levied tariffs on China in February, it indefinitely exempted “de minimis” imports valued at $800 or less.
    The Trump administration might also funnel some tariff revenue to paying certain parties aggrieved by a trade war, economists said.
    President Trump did that in his first term: The government sent $61 billion in “relief” payments to American farmers who faced retaliatory tariffs, which was nearly all (92%) of the tariff revenue on Chinese goods from 2018 to 2020, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

    The tariffs will also likely have a short life span, diluting their potential revenue impact, economists said. They’re being issued by executive order and could be undone easily, whether by President Trump or a future president, they said.
    “There’s zero probability these tariffs will last for 10 years,” Zandi said. “If they last until next year I’d be very surprised.”

    Why this matters

    The Trump administration has signaled that tariffs “will be one of the top-tier ways they’ll try to offset the cost” of passing a package of tax cuts, Tedeschi said.
    Extending a 2017 tax cut law signed by President Trump would cost $4.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Tax Foundation. Trump has also called for other tax breaks like no taxes on tips, overtime pay or Social Security benefits, and a tax deduction for auto loan interest for American made cars.
    If tariffs don’t cover the full cost of such a package, then Republican lawmakers would have to find cuts elsewhere or increase the nation’s debt, economists said. More

  • 188 Shares179 Views

    in Finance

    Cliff Asness’s AQR multi-strategy hedge fund returns 9% in the first quarter during tough conditions

    Cliff Asness.
    Chris Goodney | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    AQR Capital Management’s multistrategy hedge fund beat the market with a 9% rally in the first quarter as Wall Street grappled with extreme volatility amid President Donald Trump’s uncertain tariff policy.
    The Apex strategy from Cliff Asness’ firm, which combines stocks, macro and arbitrage trades and has $3 billion in assets under management, gained 3.4% in March, boosting its first-quarter performance, according to a person familiar with AQR’s returns who asked to be anonymous as the information is private.

    AQR’s Delphi Long-Short Equity Strategy gained 9.7% in the first quarter, while its alternative trend-following offering Helix returned 3%, the person said.
    AQR, whose assets under management reached $128 billion at the end of March, declined to comment.
    The stock market just wrapped up a tumultuous quarter as Trump’s aggressive tariffs raised concerns about an severe economic slowdown and a re-acceleration of inflation. The S&P 500 dipped into correction territory in March after hitting a record in February.
    For the quarter, the equity benchmark was down 4.6%, snapping a five-quarter win streak. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite lost 10.4% in the quarter, which would mark its biggest quarterly pullback since a 22.4% plunge in the second quarter of 2022. More

  • 188 Shares189 Views

    in Finance

    RFK Jr. is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ endangering lives, say analysts at Howard Lutnick’s former firm

    US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before signing an Executive Order, alongside US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (L) and US Secretary of Commerce nominee Howard Lutnick (R), at the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on Feb. 25, 2025. 
    Jim Watson | AFP | Getty Images

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine crusader, is not qualified to have any power at the agency that’s supposed to protect the health of Americans, said research analysts at Cantor Fitzgerald, which was formerly headed by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
    Cantor’s note came as Peter Marks, the head of the FDA biologics division, resigned in protest of Kennedy’s skepticism of vaccines. Kennedy, a prominent vaccine skeptic, has already taken steps that public health experts say could deter routine immunizations in the U.S.

    “We call on the administration to re-evaluate RFK Jr’s role at HHS. Pushing out one of the most trusted leaders of the FDA to promote an anti-science agenda is a step too far for us,” analysts Josh Schimmer and Eric Schmidt wrote in an unusual note to clients Tuesday. “HHS cannot be led by an anti-vax, conspiracy theorist with inadequate training.”
    Kennedy has downplayed the importance of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and promoted unproven treatments to counter the measles outbreak. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also carrying out a study into long debunked links between vaccines and autism, led by a researcher with a history of spreading misinformation about shots.
    “An amateur scientist who doesn’t appreciate the need for difficult public health policy decisions, who struggles with the difference between causality and correlation, and who promotes unproven remedies at the expense of proven ones is not the right person for the job, on our view,” Cantor analysts wrote.
    Shares of vaccine makers Moderna and Novavax, along with a range of other biotech companies, sold off significantly Monday after the resignation of Marks. Moderna and Novavax both shed more than 8%, while the SPDR S&P Biotech ETF slid nearly 4%.
    “This has nothing to do with stocks, although the biotech tape may be roiled from Marks’ resignation, that’s not what matters,” stated the analysts who normally opine to clients about whether to buy or sell certain equities. “This is much bigger than that.”

    HHS didn’t immediately respond to a CNBC’s request for comment.
    “We already had a needless measles death. It’s time to end the narrative of ‘just take Vitamin A’ and ‘give individuals the freedom to choose’ all whilst telling them vaccines can cause autism. How many more people need to die from this absurdity?” the analysts wrote.
    Lutnick stepped down as chairman and CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald in February after he was confirmed as the Secretary of Commerce. Lutnick led the investment bank for 40 years. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Business

    Eli Lilly sues two pharmacies making copycat Zepbound, Mounjaro

    Eli Lilly is suing Strive Pharmacy and Empower Pharmacy for compounding Zepbound and Mounjaro.
    Compounding of tirzepatide, the active ingredient in Lilly’s obesity drug Zepbound and diabetes drug Mounjaro, was largely supposed to stop last month.
    Lilly argues Strive and Empower are skirting the FDA’s ban on compounding.

    The Eli Lilly logo is shown on one of the company’s offices in San Diego, California, on Sept. 17, 2020.
    Mike Blake | Reuters

    Eli Lilly is suing two pharmacies for compounding Zepbound and Mounjaro, claiming the companies are skirting the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on the practice and luring people away from Lilly’s medicines.
    In lawsuits filed Tuesday in Delaware and New Jersey, Lilly alleges the two companies — Strive Pharmacy and Empower Pharmacy — are falsely marketing their products as personalized versions of the drugs that have been clinically tested and are made using stringent safety standards. Lilly argues these claims are turning people toward compounded drugs and away from its FDA-approved treatments.

    Strive and Empower didn’t immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.
    Compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities were largely supposed to stop making their own versions of tirzepatide, the active ingredient in Lilly’s weight-loss drug Zepbound and diabetes treatment Mounjaro, last month after the FDA determined the branded versions were no longer in shortage. Some continued compounding, tweaking the dosages and combining them with vitamins, distinctions that make them different from Lilly’s drugs and potentially allow them to skirt the FDA’s ban.

    An injection pen of Zepbound, Eli Lilly’s weight loss drug, is displayed in New York City on Dec. 11, 2023.
    Brendan McDermid | Reuters

    Lilly argues Strive and Empower are merely mass producing altered versions of tirzepatide rather than personalizing them. Branded drugs are allowed to be compounded at large scale when they’re in shortage. Outside of that, custom versions can be made for unique situations, like if a person is allergic to an ingredient or can’t take the form of the drug it’s normally sold in.
    Strive and Empower supply tirzepatide to popular telehealth sites, including Lavender Sky Health and Mochi Health. The companies didn’t immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.
    These lawsuits will be the first test of Lilly’s ability to take on compounding pharmacies in court now that Zepbound and Mounjaro are off the FDA’s shortage list. And they could provide a roadmap for Novo Nordisk, whose obesity drug Wegovy and diabetes treatment Ozempic generally can’t be compounded after the end of May. More

  • 225 Shares99 Views

    in Business

    Federal funding cuts are raising questions about university endowments. Here’s what some are worth and how they work

    Columbia is one of the richest universities with a $14.8 billion endowment.
    Still, using these funds to cover federal funding cuts isn’t as simple as smashing a piggy bank.
    Academic experts and former university officials told CNBC how endowments work and why some of them are so large.

    Columbia University
    Education Images | Getty Images

    In early March, the Trump administration canceled $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests last year. The federal government sent the university a list of demands, such as suspending or expelling students who participated in the demonstrations. Columbia agreed to the demands.
    The funds are still being withheld, with the federal task force stating that Columbia’s concessions represent only the “first step.” Dozens of medical and scientific studies at Columbia are in limbo. The Department of Health and Human Services did not reply to a request for comment.

    Meanwhile, the university is facing growing backlash, with several critics arguing that Columbia should use its immense endowment to cover the shortfall rather than capitulate. One such op-ed in the New York Times was accompanied by a photo of a smashed piggy bank.

    Why some universities are so rich

    Columbia has an endowment of $14.8 billion, the 12th largest university endowment in the U.S., according to a study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, or NACUBO, and asset manager Commonfund.
    The study found 658 institutions had endowments totaling $873.7 billion. This wealth is highly concentrated, with 86% held by a fifth of surveyed universities.
    Sheer size isn’t the only measure of Columbia’s financial resources. While Columbia’s endowment ranks behind those of some public universities, the Ivy League school has a much smaller student body, averaging nearly $500,000 in endowments per student. The University of Texas, on the other hand, has less than half as much per student despite having a $47.5 billion endowment.

    But endowments, especially at wealthier institutions, also have a substantial portion of illiquid assets.

    In the case of Columbia’s endowment, while global equities make up the largest allocation (31%), private equity and real assets represent 26% and 12%, respectively. Fixed income and cash make up only 2% and 1%, respectively, and the remaining 28% is is allocated to absolute return strategy funds, which include hedge funds and a portion of which is also illiquid, according to audit documents.
    Education historian Bruce Kimball credits much of the wealth concentration to universities’ willingness to invest in riskier assets. Traditionally, university endowments were invested very conservatively. When Harvard shifted its allocation to 60% equities and 40% bonds in 1951, it was considered a bold move. In the ’70s, the Ford Foundation guided a few wealthy universities away from dividend-paying stocks to growth stocks.
    “Universities that didn’t want to assume the risk fell behind,” said Kimball, emeritus professor of philosophy and history of education at the Ohio State University.
    In the 1990s, Yale University started investing in alternative assets like hedge funds and natural resources. This “Yale Model” proved lucrative, but only universities with large endowments could afford to take on the risk and due diligence that come with alternative investments, according to Kimball.

    Why endowments aren’t piggy banks

    At universities large and small, endowments aren’t slush funds. The endowments are actually made up of hundreds or even thousands of funds, and the majority of those are restricted by donors, to areas such as professorships, scholarships or research.
    “Most of that money was put in for a specific purpose,” said Scott Bok, former chairman of the University of Pennsylvania. “Universities don’t have the ability to break open the proverbial piggy bank and just grab the money in whatever way they want.”
    Endowments often follow a custom of only spending 5% annually, also a practice dating back to the 1970s, according to economist and former Northwestern University president Morton Schapiro. Assuming high single-digit percentage investment returns, spending only 5% allows the principal of the endowment to grow and keep pace with inflation.
    University administrations often point to donor restrictions when pressed to increase spending. But Schapiro said this excuse is overplayed.
    “It’s true that a lot of money is restricted, but it’s restricted to things you’re going to spend on already like need-based aid, study abroad, libraries,” he said.
    Furthermore, some funds are not subject to donor restrictions but rather are earmarked by universities for specific purposes.
    “It’s not really restricted,” said Schapiro of these quasi-endowments. “You could actually spend it at whatever rate that you really want.”
    And while most states have guidelines on how endowment assets are spent, few have a set range or cap on spending, according to Brian Galle, professor of tax policy at Georgetown Law. It is also possible to get court approval to increase spending and use restricted endowments if it is crucial to the university’s mission, Galle said.
    It is possible for universities to increase their endowment spending during times of crisis. Several did during the pandemic, including Northwestern and Penn. Donors can also give their written consent to lift endowment restrictions, according to Micah Malouf, special counsel at Schell Bray.
    That said, while the restrictions may be exaggerated, the financial obligations are real, Kimball said. Colleges allocate nearly half their endowment spending to student financial aid, according to the NACUBO study.
    Kimball described spending endowments or endowment income to cover short-term as “imprudent.” He compared the scenario to an employer canceling a prerequisite expense and asking employees to cover it with their savings and income.
    “That regular salary is already earmarked for other purposes, so you would have to cut back on food, rent, etc.,” he said.

    Get Inside Wealth directly to your inbox

    Depleting the endowment could come at the cost of future cash flow, as the university has less to invest. But Galle told CNBC that he believes this reasoning doesn’t hold water.
    “When your roof is leaking, you don’t say, ‘I’m not going to spend the money now, because then I won’t be able to buy an umbrella in three years,'” he said.
    Schapiro, who retired from Northwestern in 2022, said it’s easier to justify spending more of the endowment when coming off a strong market, which is currently the case.
    However, it depends on how long the university’s shortfall is expected to last.
    “If it’s going to be long term, you’re just delaying the inevitable,” he said.

    There are other threats to college’s finances

    There is no telling when or if the funding will be restored. The National Institute of Health is also implementing a 15% cap on research reimbursements for indirect costs, such as support staff wages and lab maintenance.
    Other storm clouds loom overhead, said Bok, who resigned from Penn in late 2023. For starters, several members of Congress have proposed increasing an endowment tax that currently only applies to some 50 universities.
    Since the first Trump administration, private universities that meet certain conditions, such as assets of $500,000 or more per full-time student, have been subject to a 1.4% tax on net investment income. One proposal would raise the rate to 21%, and another would increase the rate to 10% but lower the endowments per student threshold to $200,000, which would subject far more universities to the tax.
    Adding to the challenges, many colleges are financially dependent on international students, who typically pay full tuition. International student enrollment decreased during the first Trump administration and international applications recently dropped for the first time in five years, according to Common App data.
    All these challenges make for a perfect storm, Bok said.
    “I think universities are going to be reluctant to say, ‘Oh, we’ll just draw down more in the endowment’ because it can fill a small hole but it can’t fill a big hole,” Bok said. “There might actually be a big hole by time all these things play out.”
    Whether wealthy donors will step up is uncertain. Galle, citing research that poor endowment returns are a predictor of donations, said donors “tend to open their wallet” when they know the university is relying on them.
    However, Bok and Schapiro said that covering canceled grants is a harder pitch to donors than building a library.
    “In my experience of 30 years raising money, people give when they are confident in the future,” Schapiro said. “They don’t give money to prevent a disaster.” More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Finance

    ‘Peak’ uncertainty: Evercore ISI predicts market turning point around Trump tariffs

    Market uncertainty should “peak” around the Wednesday tariff deadline, according to Evercore ISI.
    In a note this week, Julian Emanuel wrote investors should resist tariff angst and accumulate stocks.

    “All you need is a little less uncertainty,” the firm’s senior managing director said Monday on CNBC’s “Fast Money.”
    Emanuel compares the market pessimism to the March 2023 regional bank failures.
    “The mood this morning and over the weekend talking with clients and talking with colleagues is as negative as I can remember going back to when Silicon Valley Bank blew up,” he said. “We didn’t know the Fed was going to ‘take care of business.'”
    Emanuel’s bullish forecast comes as Wall Street wrapped up a negative quarter for the major indexes. The S&P 500 and tech-heavy Nasdaq just saw their worst quarterly performances since 2022.
    The Nasdaq is now 14% below its record high hit in December. Yet, Emanuel is finding opportunity.

    “We think you go back to the prior bull market winners in general: technology, communication services and [consumer] discretionary,” he said.
    They were the S&P 500’s worst performing sectors of the month and quarter. But at these levels, according to Emanuel, companies will want to do stock buybacks which would help boost prices.
    Meanwhile, he would avoid the recent leaders.
    “What’s interesting about today is that everyone basically moved their sectors in the direction of how the entire quarter was going,” Emanuel said. “You saw consumer staples outperform. You saw health care very strong. In our view, those are probably the places where defense has been hiding.”
    Health care gained 6% in the first quarter while consumer staples gained about 5%.
    Emanuel thinks the market will regain its footing. His S&P 500 year-end price target is 6,800, which implies a 21% gain from Monday’s close.
    “We don’t think you need a material clarity,” he said. “You need… the very, very extreme scenarios [tied to tariffs] becoming less possible.”
    CNBC’s Christopher Hayes contributed to this report.

    Join us for the ultimate, exclusive, in-person, interactive event with Melissa Lee and the traders for “Fast Money” Live at the Nasdaq MarketSite in Times Square on Thursday, June 5th.

    Disclaimer More

  • 163 Shares119 Views

    in Business

    Vaccine stocks fall after key FDA official resigns in protest of RFK Jr.

    Shares of vaccine makers Moderna and Novavax, along with a range of other biotech companies, fell after the resignation of key FDA official Peter Marks.
    Marks stepped down in protest of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s skepticism of vaccines.
    Wall Street analysts raised concerns about what the move could mean for the approval of safe and effective medicines, but noted new FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has supported proven treatments.

    Rafael Henrique | Lightrocket | Getty Images

    Shares of major vaccine makers dropped on Monday after a key U.S. health official resigned in protest of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s views on immunization.
    The departure of Peter Marks, the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine regulator, has raised fresh fears about whether the Trump administration will quickly approve and promote critical shots. In his position, Marks oversaw the introduction of Covid-19 vaccines and rules for the use of emerging treatments like cell and gene therapies.

    Shares of Moderna and Novavax both closed more than 8% lower Monday. Meanwhile, the SPDR S&P Biotech ETF slid nearly 4%.
    Some Wall Street analysts said Marks’ departure could undermine the FDA’s mission of ensuring safe and effective treatments reach patients in the U.S. That could put even more pressure on a struggling biotech sector.
    “Taking a step back, we view this departure as a significant negative for the BioPharma and Biotech sectors, as FDA’s independence rooted in sound scientific rigor is critical for their efficient functioning,” analysts at BMO Capital Markets wrote in a note Monday.

    Peter Marks, director of the center for biologics evaluation and research at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, May 11, 2021. 
    Greg Nash | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    In his resignation letter obtained by CNBC on Friday, Marks criticized Kennedy’s “misinformation and lies” about immunization. He said a growing measles outbreak that started in Texas came as a consequence of “undermining confidence in well-established vaccines.”
    “As you are aware, I was willing to work to address the Secretary’s concerns regarding vaccine safety and transparency by hearing from the public and implementing a variety of different public meetings and engagements with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,” Marks wrote. “However, it has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies.”

    The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
    Kennedy, a prominent vaccine skeptic, has already taken steps that public health experts say could deter routine immunizations in the U.S. He has downplayed the importance of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and promoted unproven treatments to counter the measles outbreak. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is also carrying out a study into long debunked links between vaccines and autism, led by a researcher with a history of spreading misinformation about shots.
    Analysts at Leerink Partners wrote in a Monday note that the effect of Marks’ resignation on biotech and pharmaceutical stocks will depend in part on who replaces him at the FDA and whether Republicans in the White House and Congress start to lose patience with his approach. Other analysts also stressed that Marks is only one official at the agency and noted that new FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has a track record of supporting proven treatments.
    “Though many believe the Marks resignation is a very bad omen for the Healthcare industry and innovation at large, it may be a bit premature to cast too dark of a shadow on the entirety of Pharma and Biotech,” wrote Mizuho Securities analyst Jared Holz.
    — CNBC’s Angelica Peebles and Annika Kim Constantino contributed to this report More

  • 175 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    Conservative cable channel Newsmax spikes more than 700% in first trading day on NYSE

    Cable channel Newsmax began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on Monday, and shares spiked more than 700%.
    The conservative TV news outlet has seen its ratings rise with the election of President Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans — although it still falls behind the dominant Fox News.
    Newsmax raised $75 million through the sale of 7.5 million class B common shares at a price of $10 a share.

    Fox News and Newsmax television studios are seen in the Fiserv Forum on the day before the Republican National Convention begins, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 14, 2024.
    Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Newsmax went public on the New York Stock Exchange on Monday, as the conservative cable news network audience has grown after the election of President Donald Trump and other right-wing politicians.
    The network began trading under the symbol “NMAX” late Monday morning, opening at $14 a share after pricing at $10 a share. It soared more than 700% in volatile trading on Monday.

    Newsmax’s stock closed at $83.51 for the day.
    In September, Newsmax announced its plans for an initial public offering in early 2025. On Friday, the company said it raised $75 million through the sale of 7.5 million shares of Class B common stock at a price of $10 per share.
    A pure-play TV network IPO in the U.S. is a rarity, with Dealogic data showing there hasn’t been one comparable to Newsmax in recent decades. Newsmax’s IPO comes at a time when traditional cable TV has suffered as consumers flee the bundle in favor of streaming. Now, news and live sports nab the biggest audiences and most advertising revenue dollars.
    The debut also comes as the audience for right-wing prime-time content has grown with the rise of Trump and other right-leaning politicians in recent elections.
    Christopher Ruddy, the company’s founder and CEO, said Monday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that he saw an opportunity to join the mix since Fox Corp.’s Fox News didn’t have a competitor in the “center right market.”

    “I think there was a demand for more competition against Fox,” Ruddy said Monday. Ruddy founded Newsmax in 1998 as a digital offering before it became a cable TV network in 2014.
    While the cable news landscape is dominated by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, Newsmax has grown its audience in recent years and is offered through most major pay-TV providers.
    Ruddy on Monday said that Newsmax is the “No. 4 cable news channel in the United States, right behind CNN.” Nielsen confirmed Monday that Newsmax ratings have “consistently” been in the fourth spot behind Fox News, MSNBC and CNN.
    Still, Newsmax’s audience has yet to reach the breadth of Fox News, according to Nielsen data. Between Dec. 30 and March 20, Newsmax had an average of 309,000 primetime viewers and 211,000 daytime viewers. Fox News attracted an average of nearly 3.1 million primetime viewers and roughly 2 million daytime viewers during the same period.
    Overall, Newsmax ranks in the top 20 among cable network average viewership in both prime time and daytime, Nielsen said Monday.
    “I think it’s a pretty big achievement for a 10-year-old, new cable company,” Ruddy said Monday on “Squawk Box.”
    As its popularity has risen, Newsmax has negotiated receiving licensing fees from cable TV providers. In its early days, Newsmax relied on advertising revenue. In 2023, it resolved a dispute with DirecTV — which led to it being dropped from the pay TV provider for a short period — after pushing to receive fees.
    As the company went public, Ruddy downplayed the pro-Trump leanings of Newsmax — which reached a $40 million settlement last year with Smartmatic over the network’s false claims that the voting machine company helped to rig the 2020 presidential election in favor of former President Joe Biden.
    “We believe we’re conservative with an independent news mission, and ask tough questions of the Trump administration,” Ruddy said Monday on “Squawk Box.”
    In a post on social media platform X on Tuesday, Ruddy said he received a call from Trump and that the conversation touched on various topics, including the company’s upcoming IPO. “I shared with Potus my new saying: ‘A rising Trump lifts all boats!'” Ruddy wrote. More