Home Blog Page 281

Newest version of crypto Clarity Act may drop as soon as next week, sources say

0
Newest version of crypto Clarity Act may drop as soon as next week, sources say

But elsewhere, another sign of hope appeared in a Wednesday letter from Senator Ron Wyden to Senate leadership that the Oregon Democrat supported the way the earlier legislation handled the legal protections for developers — specifically the section of Clarity known as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which would ensure crypto developers wouldn’t be treated under federal regulations as money transmitters if they’re not handling customer assets. The decentralized finance (DeFi) sector has made preserving the BRCA a top aim in the Clarity negotiations.

Though some of the crypto industry’s DC insiders had begun to express private uncertainty about the Clarity Act’s survival, the effort hasn’t yet reached its fatal deadline for getting done before the summer congressional break and the shift of attention to the fall midterm elections.

The Senate calendar includes three remaining weeks in July and the first week of August. However, the process to advance the legislation could take a few days of that time, meaning there’s scant runway left for a 2026 takeoff. And there’s some concern a defense spending bill may also complicate the chamber’s bandwidth.

Also, the U.S. House of Representatives would need to approve the Senate’s version of Clarity before it could become law, so the process would await the action of a House that’s been nearly paralyzed by Republican infighting. And it would then head to the desk of President Donald Trump for a signature to make it law, though the president has refused to sign another popular piece of legislation — the Senate’s bipartisan housing bill — as he insists that Congress needs to prioritize his demands for new voting rules.



Source link

Is Brown & Brown (BRO) a Compelling Investment Opportunity?

0
Is Brown & Brown (BRO) a Compelling Investment Opportunity?


Artisan Partners, an investment management firm, issued its first-quarter 2026 investor letter for the “Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund”. A copy of this letter is available for download here. In Q1 2026, the portfolio underperformed the benchmark Russell Midcap Value Index as the market favored momentum-driven stocks over quality factors. Some holdings faced company-specific setbacks and negative sentiment. The Fund’s Investor Class: ARTQX returned -4.93%, Advisor Class: APDQX declined by -4.90%, and Institutional Class: APHQX fell by -4.97%, all trailing the Index’s 3.68% gain. The equity market in the quarter was mixed, with mid- and small-cap indices showing resilience despite lagging large-cap growth stocks. Volatility increased, initially fueled by interest in AI and private credit, but escalated after the outbreak of war in Iran, leading to rising oil prices. Sector performance varied, with energy leading the gains. The Fund continues to seek companies capable of value growth during market dislocations at attractive entry points. Also, review the Fund’s top five holdings to see its best picks for 2026.

In its first-quarter 2026 investor letter, Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund highlighted Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) as a newly added position. Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) is a leading insurance brokerage firm that operates through Retail and Specialty Distribution segments. On July 7, 2026, Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) closed at $69.27 per share, reflecting a market capitalization of $23.48 billion. Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) posted a one-month return of 15.10%, while its shares lost 35.94% over the past 52 weeks.

Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund stated the following regarding Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) in its Q1 2026 investor letter:

“We initiated six new positions in Q1, representing an above-average rate of new purchase activity. Increased market volatility and greater dispersion in US equities during the quarter created more opportunities to add new names that meet our three margin-of-safety criteria: attractive business economics, sound financial condition and attractive valuation. Additionally, we sought to use recent volatility to upgrade the portfolio’s quality. Our three largest new buys by position size were Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO), Veralto and IQVIA Holdings.

Brown & Brown is a leading US insurance broker focused on the middle market. The shares have come under pressure alongside the broader broker group, as investors recalibrated expectations following a period of elevated growth driven by a hard insurance market. As pricing and growth have begun to normalize, valuations have compressed, creating what we believe is a more attractive entry point. From a business economics perspective, insurance brokerage is a compelling model. Brokers act as intermediaries without taking underwriting risk, resulting in high margins, low capital intensity and strong free cash flow conversion, supported by high customer retention. Brown & Brown has built a scaled platform serving small- and mid-sized businesses, a segment that tends to exhibit resilient demand, and has compounded value over time through consistent organic growth and acquisitions in a fragmented industry. While near-term growth is moderating and competition has increased, we view concerns around AI driven disruption as overstated. Brokers provide critical advisory and claims support functions that remain difficult to replicate, and technology should enhance productivity over time rather than displace the model. From a financial standpoint, the company is generating strong, recurring cash flows, with a solid balance sheet that supports continued reinvestment and M&A. With the shares now trading closer to the lower end of their historical valuation range, we believe the risk/reward is favorable.”

“I’ve Already Got CrowdStrike”: Customer Confidence Highlights CRWD’s AI Strength

Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) is not on our list of 40 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds Heading Into 2026. According to our database, 41 hedge fund portfolios held Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) at the end of the first quarter, compared to 42 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the potential of Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you’re looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.

In another article, we covered Brown & Brown, Inc. (NYSE:BRO) and shared Madison Mid Cap Fund’s views on the company. In addition, please check out our hedge fund investor letters Q1 2026 page for more investor letters from hedge funds and other leading investors.

READ NEXT: 33 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 15 Stocks That Will Make You Rich in 10 Years.

Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.



Source link

Private credit faced $15 billion in redemptions requests in brutal Q2

0
Private credit faced $15 billion in redemptions requests in brutal Q2

Others took a more macro view. Strive CEO Jack Mallers, among others, described bitcoin’s selloff as a warning of a macro fiat liquidity crunch. Bitcoin has a history of moving early and aggressively on liquidity shifts and is often viewed as one of the most sensitive assets to changes in money supply growth, Treasury operations, and overall financing conditions.

Average requests rose to 10.3% of shares from 9.7% in Q1, but ranged widely (1.3%–38.1% at Blue Owl’s OTIC). Many requests were follow-ups from investors who were only partly satisfied last quarter. New inflows fell by about 56% on average, so most funds saw net outflows of roughly 3% of the prior quarter’s net asset value.

Fitch, therefore, expects continued redemptions in months ahead.

“With BDCs capping redemptions at 5% quarterly, unfulfilled requests will lead to persistent elevated redemptions for many firms in the coming quarters,” ratings agency Fitch warned,” the ratings agency said.

Same story but different structures

Bitcoin ETFs are liquid, exchange-traded vehicles, where outflows directly impact the spot price of BTC. Private credit BDCs are the opposite: illiquid, long-duration lending vehicles with built-in quarterly gates.

Still, the fact that investors rushed for exit in both at the same time does point to broader caution around liquidity and risk appetite. Amid all this, energy markets continue to send risk-off signals, with the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve falling to lowest since 1983. So, if energy market remains disrupted, the government now has significantly less buffer to flood the market with oil and keep prices lower.



Source link

PepsiCo vs. Molson Coors: Which Stock Will Quench Investor Thirst For Profits in 2026?

0
PepsiCo vs. Molson Coors: Which Stock Will Quench Investor Thirst For Profits in 2026?


Choosing between stable dividends and turnaround potential often defines a portfolio strategy. For 2026, comparing snack powerhouse PepsiCo (NASDAQ:PEP) and brewer Molson Coors Beverage (NYSE:TAP) reveals two very different paths for investors.

PepsiCo dominates through its convenient foods and non-alcoholic drinks, leveraging a massive global distribution network. Molson Coors Beverage focuses on the beer market but is aggressively expanding into ready-to-drink cocktails and premium offerings. While both operate in the defensive consumer space, their recent financial trajectories suggest distinct risks and rewards.

The case for PepsiCo

The company sells iconic brands like Lay’s, Doritos, and Gatorade across 200 countries. It relies heavily on retail giant Walmart (NASDAQ:WMT) for approximately 14% of its net revenue. Customer concentration like this adds a layer of risk to the business. As of June 2026, the company no longer has subsidiary ownership of Pizza Hut after Yum! Brands (NYSE:YUM) sold that division. PepsiCo now focuses more on its direct delivery relationships, e-commerce, and the development of snacks that align with changing health trends.

In FY 2025, revenue reached approximately $93.9 billion, representing nearly 2.3% year-over-year growth. Net income for the period was approximately $8.2 billion, lower than the $9.6 billion reported in the previous year. The company carries a debt-to-equity ratio of approximately 2.5x. Free cash flow for the year was close to $7.7 billion, representing the cash generated after capital investments.

The case for Molson Coors Beverage

Molson Coors produces a wide variety of beers and beverages, including Coors Light and Miller Lite. The company is actively diversifying its portfolio into the beverage stock category through acquisitions such as Atomic Brands. It operates through a three-tier distribution system in the United States and has no single customer representing more than 10% of sales. This diversification helps the company reach a broader consumer base as traditional beer volumes face pressure.

During FY 2025, revenue was nearly $11.1 billion, representing a decline of roughly 4% from the prior fiscal year. The company reported a net loss of approximately $2.1 billion for the period. This loss follows a profitable fiscal year 2024 where the company earned more than $1.1 billion, illustrating the volatility of its current transition. These figures highlight the challenges of shifting a legacy business model toward more premium offerings.

As of its December 2025 balance sheet, the debt-to-equity ratio was close to 0.6x. This indicates a lower reliance on borrowed money compared to shareholder equity. Molson Coors Beverage produced nearly $1.1 billion in free cash flow during FY 2025. This cash generation is essential, as it fuels the company’s expansion into non-beer categories such as energy drinks and cocktails.

Risk profile comparison

PepsiCo faces significant risks from shifting consumer behaviors, including the rise of GLP-1 medications and increased price sensitivity. Its scale makes it a target for legal scrutiny, such as recent lawsuits regarding data privacy and product labeling. Furthermore, the business is vulnerable to commodity price fluctuations and geopolitical conflicts that can disrupt global supply chains. If the company fails to use its data analytics effectively to innovate, it could lose volume to lower-priced private-label alternatives.

Molson Coors Beverage must successfully integrate new acquisitions and premiumize its portfolio to offset declining beer consumption. It faces intense competition from Anheuser-Busch InBev (NYSE:BUD) and Constellation Brands (NYSE:STZ) in both traditional and emerging beverage categories. Operational risks such as labor strikes and the ongoing implementation of a global digital infrastructure could disrupt production. Additionally, increasing global scrutiny and mandatory health warning labels on alcohol products pose a long-term threat to demand in key markets.

Valuation comparison

Molson Coors Beverage appears to be the more value-oriented choice for investors as it trades at a significantly lower Forward P/E and P/S ratio than PepsiCo. The Forward P/E compares the stock price to expected earnings over the next year, while the P/S ratio compares the stock price to revenue.

Sector benchmark uses the SPDR XLP sector ETF.
Valuation metrics sourced from Financial Modeling Prep (FMP) and may differ from other data providers.

Which stock would I buy in 2026?

Molson Coors’ primary beer brands, Coors Light and Miller Lite, benefited from the consumer backlash against Bud Light, but that is one of the few bright spots for a company that is struggling to grow beer sales as consumers drink less and increasingly opt for craft beer when they do drink. Wall Street sees 2026 as the third straight year of declining sales, with revenue expected to be a few million dollars lower than in 2025. The move into beverages besides beer is promising, but the business remains less than 10% of Molson Coors’ sales.

PepsiCo is best known for its beverages, including Pepsi, but it is primarily a food company. About 60% of PepsiCo’s revenue comes from snack brands like Lay’s and Tostitos. The rise of GLP-1s is moving consumers toward savory snacks and away from sweets, and PepsiCo is adjusting its product mix and packaging to accommodate this shift. Management says trends indicate savory snacks will outgrow food, benefiting its snack business. Pepsi seems to be more affected by rising U.S. consumer caution about spending, given its snack-food exposure, too.

Both companies are appreciated by investors for their reliable dividend payments. Molson Coors has the higher forward dividend yield at today’s price, at 4.95%, versus PepsiCo’s 4.15%.

Despite Molson Coors’ better dividend and cheaper ratios, investors should want to see a sales turnaround before investing. PepsiCo may be growing slowly, but it is still growing and is the stock to buy.

Should you buy stock in PepsiCo right now?

Before you buy stock in PepsiCo, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and PepsiCo wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004… if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $407,651!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005… if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,252,823!*

That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by 4xStock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don’t miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of July 9, 2026.

Brendan Coffey has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Constellation Brands and Yum! Brands. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

PepsiCo vs. Molson Coors: Which Stock Will Quench Investor Thirst For Profits in 2026? was originally published by The Motley Fool



Source link

Solana under pressure: Pump.fun’s $10M SOL move sparks THIS Q3 debate

0
Solana under pressure: Pump.fun’s $10M SOL move sparks THIS Q3 debate


For Layer 1 networks, price action isn’t just driven by technicals. Solana fits this narrative well.

As a Layer 1 that powers an entire ecosystem, Solana’s growth story isn’t just about price action or creating value for token holders. It’s also tied to how applications and protocols within its ecosystem perform on-chain, driving network demand, revenue, and overall activity.

With that in mind, Pump.fun is back in the spotlight.

The platform recently sold another 122,498 SOL, worth $10.08 million. That brings its total SOL sales to 4,656,826 SOL, valued at $794.8 million, at an average selling price of $170.70.

The chart below shows why this latest move has become a key point of discussion. 

Solana
Source: Dune

Evidently, Pump.fun has become one of Solana’s most active trading venues.

Daily Spot Volume has climbed to around $725 million, with more than 517,000 wallets interacting with on-chain DEXs.

Moreover, since the 27th of June, Pump.fun’s revenue has grown 32.2%, while weekly DEX trading volume has increased 57.2% compared with early June.

As one of Solana’s biggest applications, Pump.fun continues to be a major driver of on-chain activity.

Against that backdrop, its latest round of SOL sales quickly grabbed the market’s attention. The move reignited the debate around Pump.fun’s “extraction” narrative, with analysts arguing that the platform is continuously taking value out of the ecosystem rather than recycling it back into Solana.

As a result, some market participants are starting to question Solana’s [SOL] Q3 outlook.

Pump.fun’s selling wave tests Solana’s fundamentals 

On one hand, Pump.fun’s growth reflects the strength of Solana’s network.

The thesis is straightforward. As a leading memecoin launchpad, Pump.fun can only generate this level of trading volume because Solana provides the liquidity, and low-cost infrastructure to support it. From a network perspective, that’s a constructive signal, as higher application activity translates into stronger demand for Solana’s on-chain fundamentals.

The debate, however, begins with how that value is ultimately distributed.

From a technical perspective, this argument is starting to gain attention. Despite strong network activity and rising on-chain metrics, SOL is still struggling to reclaim the $100 level. With the latest $10 million SOL sell-off adding more pressure, the key resistance around $80 remains a major hurdle for bulls.

SOLSOL
Source: TradingView (SOL/USDT)

This puts Solana’s fundamentals under the spotlight.

With Pump.fun’s selling pressure and a broader risk-off market, the big question is whether Solana’s network growth and on-chain activity can translate into enough demand to push SOL above key resistance levels. 

If not, the weakness may extend beyond technicals, creating a more challenging setup for Q3.


Final Summary

  • Pump.fun is driving strong activity on Solana, but its SOL sales have raised concerns about value leaving the ecosystem.
  • SOL remains under pressure despite strong fundamentals, with Q3 depending on whether network growth can overcome selling pressure.

 



Source link

Why the Silent Rules Nobody Made Are Killing Your Company

0
Why the Silent Rules Nobody Made Are Killing Your Company


Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Key Takeaways

  • If no one can name who authorized a rule or why it exists, it’s probably not a real policy — it’s a habit wearing a costume. Kill it.
  • Each extra approval or check costs a minute. Multiply across every employee, every week, and you’re paying salaries to wait, not produce.
  • Removing friction is cheaper than buying growth. Cut the red tape you never approved before adding another headcount.

Every successful business relies on policies and procedures. Policies and procedures create consistency, improve quality and allow organizations to move in a unified direction.

For this reason, most successful companies have policies and procedures manuals and other written policies. Without them, companies become chaotic and inconsistent as they grow. But there is an important distinction between systems that are intentionally designed and those that simply evolve over time.

The most damaging policies in a business are often the ones that were never actually created.

These can be called made-up rules — unwritten practices that slowly become accepted as official policy, even when no owner, executive, or person with authority ever approved them. They emerge quietly and gradually. An employee assumes something is required in every circumstance. Another employee observes that behavior and repeats it. Before long, an entire department believes a process is a mandatory policy when, in reality, it is not at all.

As organizations grow, these unofficial rules have a way of growing. Each one may seem insignificant on its own, but together they create a layer of legalism that slows decision-making, frustrates employees, delays customer service and quietly limits growth. It can also upset employees by creating an abundance of rigid rules that make the employees feel restricted. Unlike obvious problems such as declining sales or rising expenses, these self-made policies and procedures are rarely visible on a financial statement. Yet, their impact can be enormous.

Good intentions can create bad processes

One of the biggest challenges is that these rules often originate from good intentions. An employee wants to avoid making a mistake, so an extra rigid rule is added to prevent a situation from repeating itself. In other instances, someone encounters an unusual circumstance and begins treating that exception as the standard procedure. Over time, isolated events become permanent rules that harm, not help the company.

The problem is that businesses rarely struggle because of one unique situation. Instead, hundreds of small, unnecessary rules accumulate over months and years. Each additional email, approval, signature, or verification adds only a minute or two. Standing alone, that seems inconsequential. Collectively, however, those minutes become hours, days and eventually weeks of lost productivity, revenue or efficiency across an organization.

Imagine an employee who must wait for an internal confirmation before beginning work, even though all of the information needed to proceed is already available. Perhaps no owner, CEO or senior leader required this waiting period. It simply became “the way we’ve always done it.” If that delay happens dozens of times each week across multiple employees, the organization begins paying people to wait rather than to produce. Customers experience slower service, revenue decreases and management wonders why the business feels less efficient despite hiring more people.

Growth often brings more red tape

This scenario becomes even more pronounced in growing companies. Startups often move quickly because communication is simple and decisions are made by a small group of people. As headcount increases, however, there is a natural temptation for mid or lower level employees to add more approvals, more meetings, more documentation and more checkpoints. While some of these additions are necessary, many are simply reactions to isolated situations rather than thoughtful improvements to the business as a whole.

Over time, employees begin confusing caution with excellence. Instead of asking, “What is the best way to accomplish this?” they begin asking, “What is the safest way to avoid criticism?” Those are fundamentally different questions. The first encourages innovation and efficiency. The second often produces bureaucracy and red tape out of a desire for self-protection.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of made-up rules is that no one takes responsibility for them. Ask employees why they follow a particular procedure, and familiar responses usually emerge: “That’s just what we’ve always done,” or “I thought that was company policy.” Continue asking questions, and it frequently becomes clear that no one can identify when the rule started or who authorized it. The process has simply taken on a life of its own.

Challenge every unwritten process

Business owners should periodically examine their organizations with fresh eyes. Rather than asking employees whether they are following procedures, leaders should ask why those procedures exist in the first place and who authorized them. Every recurring process should have a clear purpose. If no one can explain why a particular step is necessary, it deserves careful scrutiny. In many cases, the unwritten rule should be disavowed and eliminated.

One effective exercise is asking managers to identify the biggest obstacles that slow their teams each day. Their answers are often revealing. Employees are rarely frustrated by hard work. They are frustrated by preventable delays — waiting for approvals, tracking down information, duplicating work or complying with procedures that no longer serve a meaningful purpose. These bottlenecks consume time without creating additional value for customers or employees.

It is also important to recognize that removing unnecessary rules does not mean lowering standards. High-performing organizations absolutely need accountability, quality control and thoughtful procedures. The goal is not to eliminate structure. The goal is to eliminate red tape that adds complexity without improving outcomes. Every policy should either reduce risk, improve quality, enhance the customer experience or increase efficiency. If it accomplishes none of those objectives, or it creates more problems than it helps, it is reasonable to question whether it should continue to exist.

Speed is a competitive advantage

Business leaders often focus tremendous energy on generating more revenue. They invest in advertising, marketing, recruiting and technology to accelerate growth. Yet, they sometimes overlook the operational drag occurring inside their own organizations. A company can spend millions of dollars attracting new customers while simultaneously slowing those customers’ experience through unnecessary internal processes. Removing friction is often one of the least expensive — and most profitable — ways to improve performance.

In today’s competitive environment, speed has become a meaningful differentiator. Customers have more choices than ever before, and they increasingly expect prompt responses, efficient service and straightforward interactions. Organizations that eliminate unnecessary delays position themselves to deliver a better experience without spending additional money on customer acquisition.

The best leaders understand that their role is not simply to create new policies. It is also to challenge existing assumptions. They recognize that every process should earn the right to continue existing—and should not be professed as policy without the company specifically authorizing it. As businesses evolve, procedures that once made perfect sense may become outdated. Failing to revisit them allows yesterday’s solutions to become tomorrow’s obstacles.

Eliminate the unnecessary rules

Every organization accumulates unwritten rules over time. Meetings become longer, approvals become more numerous and workflows become increasingly complicated. Left unchecked, these changes gradually reduce the agility that once fueled growth. Successful companies recognize that maintaining operational excellence requires periodic auditing and removal of these unwritten rules. Just as businesses routinely evaluate expenses, marketing efforts and financial performance, they should also evaluate the rules employees create or follow every day.

Sustainable growth is not achieved simply by working harder or hiring more people. It is achieved by creating an organization where talented employees can perform meaningful work without being slowed by unnecessary red tape. The companies that consistently outperform their competitors are often not those with the most elaborate systems. They are the ones disciplined enough to remove the systems that no longer serve a purpose.

Sometimes the greatest improvement a leader can make is not introducing another policy. It is eliminating unwritten rules that were never approved in the first place.

Key Takeaways

  • If no one can name who authorized a rule or why it exists, it’s probably not a real policy — it’s a habit wearing a costume. Kill it.
  • Each extra approval or check costs a minute. Multiply across every employee, every week, and you’re paying salaries to wait, not produce.
  • Removing friction is cheaper than buying growth. Cut the red tape you never approved before adding another headcount.

Every successful business relies on policies and procedures. Policies and procedures create consistency, improve quality and allow organizations to move in a unified direction.

For this reason, most successful companies have policies and procedures manuals and other written policies. Without them, companies become chaotic and inconsistent as they grow. But there is an important distinction between systems that are intentionally designed and those that simply evolve over time.

The most damaging policies in a business are often the ones that were never actually created.



Source link

Cipher, TeraWulf among AI infrastructure stocks trading below contract value, Compass Point argues

0
Cipher, TeraWulf among AI infrastructure stocks trading below contract value, Compass Point argues

Using that approach, the firm said Applied Digital (APLD), TeraWulf (WULF) and Cipher Mining (CIFR) appear to offer the largest disconnect between their contracted business and current valuations. In each case, Compass Point argues the market is assigning little, if any, value to additional AI capacity that has yet to be leased, despite the potential for those projects to generate significant rental income once completed.

Core Scientific (CORZ) and Riot Platforms (RIOT) stand out for different reasons. Compass Point said Core Scientific’s existing contracts are already largely reflected in its valuation, meaning further upside will likely depend on signing new customers. Riot, meanwhile, is valued more on future potential than current lease income, with investors placing a premium on its Corsicana campus and broader AI development pipeline despite its relatively limited contracted capacity today.

The report argues the next two years will be a turning point for the sector as companies shift from announcing AI infrastructure deals to delivering them. As projects are completed, tenants move in and rent payments begin, investors will have a clearer picture of the recurring cash flow these facilities can generate. Companies that execute successfully could be rewarded with valuations more in line with other income-producing infrastructure assets.



Source link