Connect with us

Finance

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Published

on

Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change

Banks have had a stellar first quarter. The major U.S. banks raked in nearly $50 billion in profits in the first three months of the year, The Guardian reported.

That was largely due to Wall Street bank traders, who profited from a volatile stock exchange, Reuters showed.

But even without the extra bump from stock trading, banks are doing well when it comes to interest, the same Reuters article found. And some banks could stand to benefit even more from this one potential rule change.

Morgan Stanley thinks it could have a major impact on Citi in particular.

Upcoming changes for banks

To understand why Morgan Stanley thinks things are going to change at Citi, you need to understand some recent bank rule changes.

Advertisement

Banks make money by lending out money, which usually comes from depositors. But people need access to their money and the right to withdraw whenever they want.

So, banks keep a percentage of all money deposited to make sure they can cover what the average person needs.

But what happens if there is a major demand for withdrawals, as we saw during the financial crisis of 2008?

That’s where capital requirements come in. After the financial crisis, major banks like Citi were required by law to hold a higher percentage of money in order to avoid major bank failures.

For years, banks had to put aside billions of dollars. Money that couldn’t be lent out or even returned to shareholders.

Advertisement

Now, that’s all about to change.

Morgan Stanley thinks Citigroup could see an uptick in profit. Getty Images

Capital change requirements for major banks

Banks that are considered globally systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs) have a higher capital buffer than community banks as they usually engage in banking activity that is far more complicated than your average market loan.

The list depends on the size of the bank and its underlying activity, according to the Federal Reserve.

Current global systemically important banks

A proposal from U.S. federal banking regulators could drastically reduce the amount that these large banks have to hold in reserve.

Changes would result in the largest U.S. banks holding an average 4.8% less. While that might seem like a small percentage number, for banks of this size, it equates to billions of dollars, according to a Federal Reserve memo.

Advertisement

The proposed changes were a long time coming, Robert Sarama, a financial services leader at PwC, told TheStreet.

“It’s a bit of a recognition that perhaps the pendulum swung a little too far in the higher capital requirement following the financial crisis, making it harder for banks to participate in some markets,” he said.

Citi’s upcoming relief  

Citi is a G-SIB and as such, is subject to the capital requirement rules. And the fact that it could get 4.8% of its money back to spend elsewhere is why Morgan Stanley is so optimistic about the bank.

In a research note, Morgan Stanley analysts said they expect Citi’s annualized net income to be better than expected due to the upcoming capital relief.

Advertisement

While Citi stated its return on average tangible common equity (ROTCE), a type of financial measure, to be close to 13% by 2028, “the fact that Citi’s near-term and medium-term targets excluding capital relief were only marginally below our expectations including capital relief actually suggest upside to our numbers if Citi can deliver,” the note said.

More bank news

In fact, Citigroup’s own projections are likely conservative and it’s likely to show improvement each year, the analysts expanded.

“We have high conviction that the proposed capital rules will be finalized later this year and expect Citi can eventually revise the medium-term targets higher, suggesting further upside to consensus,” the Morgan Stanley analysts wrote.

Related: Citi just added an AI agent to your wealth management team

Advertisement

This story was originally published by TheStreet on May 11, 2026, where it first appeared in the Investing section. Add TheStreet as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

Finance

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Founded in 2013, Robinhood (HOOD +2.80%) changed the brokerage industry with its free trading model. Today, the broker’s product lineup has expanded well beyond stocks to include products like cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. With a focus on smaller investors, Robinhood is living up to its goal to “democratize finance for all.” But is becoming a full-service financial platform enough to make the stock a buy?

Robinhood is growing quickly

Although it was founded in 2013, Robinhood didn’t go public until 2021. In its first earnings release in the second quarter of that year, it had $102 billion in custody. In the first quarter of 2026, roughly five years later, that figure had grown to $307 billion, and it is now called total platform assets, given the broadening of the company’s business. The company has rapidly become a major player in the finance industry, building off its early success in attracting younger traders interested in stocks.

Image source: Getty Images.

There’s no question that management deserves a great deal of credit for what Robinhood has achieved. But that alone doesn’t make the stock worth buying. Notably, Robinhood is being afforded a premium valuation, with a price-to-earnings ratio of 45x, compared to P/Es of 39x for Interactive Brokers (IBKR +0.96%) and 18x for Charles Schwab (SCHW 2.97%). A growth investor may be able to justify Robinhood’s valuation, but a value investor likely wouldn’t be interested.

What’s going on with Robinhood’s customer base?

There’s another issue to consider here as well. With a focus on new investors, Robinhood may be taking on more risk than its long-established peers, such as Charles Schwab. This potential risk was highlighted in Robinhood’s solid first quarter 2026 results. Risk-taking is the big issue.

Advertisement

While Robinhood’s transaction-based revenue jumped 7% year-over-year in the quarter, that growth was largely driven by prediction markets, which boosted “other” revenue by 320%. Cryptocurrency-related revenue, however, fell by 47%. This is notable because it suggests that aggressive investors shifted to what is the current hot trading idea.

Robinhood Markets Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(2.80%) $2.95

Current Price

$108.15

The problem is that Robinhood has never lived through a deep market downturn, such as the dot-com crash or the bear market associated with the Great Recession. Until it has, it is hard to know what its customers will do when every market seems to be heading lower, and losses are piling up. In other words, what will its customers do when there’s no new hot investment idea to jump on? There is a very real possibility that fear drives less experienced investors to get out of the market and stay out. Risk-averse investors will likely want to wait for Robinhood to be stress-tested before buying it.

Robinhood is not a bad company, but it is still quite young

None of this is meant to suggest that Robinhood is a bad company. It has done incredible things in a very short period of time. But that short period of time is a problem because the vast majority of it has been good for the stock market and investing. Robinhood’s stock is expensive, and the company has yet to face a deep, prolonged market downturn. Only the most aggressive growth investors will likely be interested in it for now.

Charles Schwab is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool recommends Charles Schwab and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $43.75 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, short January 2027 $46.25 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, and short June 2026 $97.50 calls on Charles Schwab. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Elon Musk made history again this month with the largest public offering of a company in the history of the known universe. Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, began trading June 12 on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker symbol SPCX. In the first three days, the stock soared by 50%, blasting the rocketeer past Amazon into fifth place among America’s largest companies.

While the public liftoff was impressive for its size and the hype surrounding it, what truly set this transaction apart was how Musk used his leverage to succeed in changing the rules during the final countdown and advance his own interest at the expense of shareholders.

Space Exploration Technologies is a truly intriguing collection of assets with a history of big accomplishments and even bigger ambitions. At its core is Starlink, a profitable satellite internet and data transmission operation. In the offering document, Musk imagines a network of massive orbiting data centers, which is not entirely crazy and is likely to face less political opposition from nearby residents.

SpaceX also includes the familiar rocket launch enterprise and an artificial intelligence startup called xAI with its Grok AI assistant. While private investors and Starlink have provided operating cash flows to fund the space operations, SpaceX needs substantial additional funding to support its galactic expansion plans. That requires selling shares of this privately held company to the public in an initial public offering.

The process involves a syndicate of investment banks that facilitates the sale of shares held by the company’s founders or private investors at a specific price, the proceeds of which allow early investors to cash out and provide a large injection of capital. Once the shares are sold to public buyers, they change hands on a market exchange at a price determined by supply and demand.

Advertisement

The prospect of the largest initial offering ever ignited a frenzy of interest. It also allowed Elon Musk to leverage the buzz of a monster IPO to convince Wall Street to bend the rules.

To win the listing, the Nasdaq stock exchange agreed to substantial waivers of its own listing rules. While new companies must typically wait at least three months before they become eligible for inclusion in the popular Nasdaq 100 index, Nasdaq jettisoned this “seasoning” period and allowed SpaceX to enter the index after only 15 days. This tech-heavy index serves as the benchmark for over $1.4 trillion in fund assets that will now be required to sell other holdings to make room for SpaceX in their portfolios. Estimates range from $8 to $15 billion in forced purchases that will create artificial demand for the stock. It also means that many passive investors in retirement funds will end up owning the stock, like it or not.

Nasdaq also waived its own liquidity rules. Ordinarily, at least 10% of the company’s shares must be offered to the public, called the “float,” or percentage, of the total stock value that trades publicly. SpaceX floated only 4.3% of its stock, with private shareholders retaining 95.7%. Using some arithmetic legerdemain, Nasdaq created a “multiplier,” triple-counting the float for companies in the top 40 by total market value. Presumably for firms whose founders’ initials are E.M.

To its credit, S&P Global Inc. considered but ultimately refused to loosen its own standards for joining the S&P 500 index, concerned about the potential reputational damage. The S&P 500 is the benchmark for $20 trillion in assets and opted to retain its 12-month seasoning period as well as a four-quarter profitability hurdle. SpaceX may one day dock with the S&P 500, but the countdown has not started.

Aside from eliciting waivers and exceptions for index inclusion, SpaceX massively advantages its visionary but mercurial founder. In its surprisingly entertaining prospectus, the company boosted Musk’s control far beyond his ownership stake. The shares issued to the public are called Class A shares, and each carries one vote on matters of corporate governance. However, Musk’s stake resides in so-called Class B shares, each with 10 votes, giving Musk 84% voting control.

Advertisement

There are a few other little gems. The prospectus requires that any disputes between shareholders and the company must be settled privately through arbitration. Lawsuits, including the type of class action suits that tend to hold management’s feet to the fire, are expressly prohibited. And speaking of fire, Musk may only be fired by himself.

Some of these more restrictive provisions have been used before. For instance, in its initial offering, Google essentially pioneered the idea of multiple share classes that vested voting control with the founders. SpaceX propels contempt for shareholder rights into a higher orbit.

Separate from the structural disadvantage to public shareholders is the question of valuation. SpaceX lost nearly $5 billion in 2025 and another $4 billion just last quarter. The initial offering of loss-making companies is hardly new, especially in technologically emerging fields. SpaceX has reached the stratosphere.

With no profits to measure, a useful metric is the ratio of the total value of all the company’s stock divided by last year’s revenues, called the price to sales ratio. When the unprofitable Amazon went public in 1996, its total market value was three times its 1995 sales. Google’s 2004 offering priced at 15 times sales, Facebook at a hefty 28 times, and even Musk’s own Tesla launched at a multiple of 15 times sales. SpaceX cleared the tower at an otherworldly 95 times sales, soaring to 130 by the end of day two as the frenzy intensified. During the first full trading day, it comprised 75% of all stock purchases by individual investors. In the prospectus, Musk expatiates on his plan to colonize Mars. He’s halfway there.

There is no precedent for a public offering of this size, with such a long and speculative arc toward profitability and so few shareholder protections. SpaceX is a pure play wager on a precocious space cadet with interstellar aspirations astride a solid rocket booster. Enjoy the ride.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

Published

on

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) – Initial public offerings, better known as IPOs, may seem like big investment opportunities, but a financial adviser is warning they could be a risky addition to your portfolio.

Dan Cunningham of the investment management company One Day in July, said he recommends that people stay away when a company starts selling initial shares on the stock market.

Most recently, Elon Musk’s SpaceX became the biggest IPO ever, but Cunningham said people shouldn’t get caught up in the hoopla.

“They generate a lot of excitement, but when you look at long term results, IPOs have not been a good investment. So we really try to encourage people to stay away from the hype. You are really betting on the future and taking an enormous amount of risk by buying IPO shares in many cases,” Cunningham said.

According to Cunningham, the good news is that, over the long term, the market and most retirement funds that mirror it will balance out.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 WCAX. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending