Analyst Justin Post wrote, “We believe Amazon’s valuation reflects uncertainty on AWS positioning, which has the potential to improve in 2026 if AWS revenue growth accelerates, and the company strengthens its relative AI capabilities.” Basically, the current price is being held back by hesitation around its cloud unit. But Bank of America thinks that will change fast, and investors should start accumulating shares now.

Bank of America expects growth from retail and cloud

The Bank of America note also said Amazon is positioned for multiple expansions as it keeps rolling out more AI tools. On the retail side, Post said the company “continues to execute on efficiencies,” and predicted that Amazon’s profit growth will beat other mega-cap tech peers. This is all happening as the company gears up to report Q4 earnings for fiscal 2025, with analysts expecting $1.97 per share, up from $1.86 a year ago.

Amazon has already beat Wall Street’s profit forecast for four quarters straight. In Q3, it posted $1.95 EPS, blowing past estimates by 23.4%. Full-year profit for 2025 is expected to hit $7.17 per share, a jump of nearly 30% from last year’s $5.53. Analysts also see 2026 EPS reaching $7.85, another 9.5% increase. So far this year, Amazon shares are up 3%, and over the past 52 weeks, they’ve climbed 11.4%.

However, the figure is still behind the S&P 500’s 17.7% and the Consumer Discretionary ETF’s 11.6%, which is part of why Bank of America sees more upside left. Bank of America’s bullish call on Amazon was part of a wider list that included Brookdale Senior Living, Carvana, Corning, and Vertiv; each was flagged for different reasons.

Brookdale got an upgrade from Joanna Gajuk, who raised her target from $6.75 to $13, citing operating leverage and low exposure to government payors. Carvana got a target bump to $515 from $455, with analyst Michael McGovern calling out its expansion into physical dealerships and “best-in-class eCommerce growth.”

The post Bank of America urges users to buy Amazon stock first appeared on Coinfea.

The potential guideline may penalize banks that refuse because of their political affiliation or crypto involvement. A draft examined by The Wall Street Journal showed that banks found in violation will be liable to fines, suits, or pressure to transform their practices. 

The order would instruct federal regulators to vet violations of antitrust, consumer protection, and credit opportunity laws. Even though authorities anticipate the order this week, there is no definitive time since there are internal debates.

Crypto firms and conservatives report account closures

Crypto companies and so-called conservative organizations allege that their bank accounts have been denied services due to political/ ideological reasons. Even with no violation of the law, some reports are being designated as questionable or deleted unreasonably.

One prominent example is the Bank of America, which shut down the accounts of a Christian organization that conducts its business in Uganda. The group asserted that the move was religiously triggered. The bank claimed that it did so according to one of its policies against small businesses beyond the United States.

The draft criticizes this second point because certain banks disclosed customer information to federal officials as part of the Capitol riot investigation. It asserts that banks self-reported suspicious transactions that they suspected were connected with the events of January 6. On the one hand, such a level of control by banks could allow them to be used as political filters against access, giving unfair access.

Instead, several crypto companies report their silent and organized ban under the Biden administration. According to them, the regulators discouraged banks from cooperating with companies working with digital assets, and it is a so-called shadow ban.

Banks defend actions under compliance rules

According to Banks, they have incorporated risk into their decisions, particularly when it involves digital assets. They cite anti-money-laundering regulations and murky federal guidelines as reasons to be wary.

A number of them have revised internal regulations to explain non-discrimination based on political considerations. Still others have been working with Republican attorneys general to assure them of their willingness to play by the rules.

A Bank of America spokeswoman, speaking on behalf of the bank, confirmed that the bank is in support of clear federal guidance. He observed that the institution had made submissions to assist in enhancing the regulatory environment.

Executive order to limit the use of reputational risk

Provided in the draft, the regulators are told to eliminate regulations that apply the concept of reputational risk when making decisions about banking. Critics add that it enables banks to become moral referees. The order seeks to avoid the situation where banks will use their reputation in a bid to refuse services.

It also instructs the Small Business Administration to investigate how banks treat people who inquire about SBA-backed loans. Any changes to the policies may affect thousands of small businesses.

The post White House targets banks over bias against crypto firms first appeared on Coinfea.

On May 16, the S&P 500 hit a TD Combo sell signal, a technical sign that a short-term fall may follow. The analysts wrote on Wednesday that its relative strength index, a tool that measures how fast prices are moving, also points to a pullback. “The S&P 500 isn’t moody, just a little overbought and wary of rates. Dip due, buy it,” they said.

According to a business insider report, Bank of America sees support for the S&P 500 at about 5,580, roughly 5% below its current level. If stocks slide to that point, buyers will get in at a lower price. On the upside, analysts expect the index to rise back toward 6,000 to test its record high and even reach 6,266 later this year.

Bank of America urges investors to buy stocks amid drop

According to the Bank of America, there are only two things that could push the price of stocks higher. First, the market’s path looks a lot like what happened from 2015 to 2018, closely after the presidential election. At that time, stocks gained about 7% before peaking.

Back then, the S&P 500 later fell around 10% in 2018 from its post-election peak. “If this plays out in 2025, the SPX could hit 6,266 this summer. As Newton’s third law says, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” the analysts wrote.

Second, there is an increasing number of winning stocks as compared to losing stocks. Over 50% of S&P 500 stocks now trade above their 200-day simple moving average, a sign that gains are spreading across the market.

So far this month, the S&P 500 is up, wiping out its losses from the start of the year. However, it has slipped over 1.6% today and has been since last Friday, when Moody’s cut its U.S. debt rating and raised fresh worries about the growing budget gap.

The post Bank of America analysts warn of stock dip ahead first appeared on Coinfea.

With billions of dollars in daily transactions tied to fiat-pegged digital assets, traditional financial institutions are seeking a stronger foothold in the evolving digital economy.

Bank of America pushes for regulatory clarity

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan announced in February that the bank is ready to issue a stablecoin once Congress provides a clear regulatory path. Since then, the bank has been lobbying through groups like the American Bankers Association and the Bank Policy Institute to influence lawmakers. Its goal is to secure an advantage for traditional banks while limiting the role of non-bank issuers, including tech firms and fintech startups.

Two pending bills in Congress—the House’s STABLE Act and the Senate’s GENIUS Act—are central to the ongoing debate. Since they establish regulatory parameters, these proposed bills can define how non-bank entities will gain participation in stablecoin creation. Recently, Bank of America and additional large institutions voiced their opposition to stablecoin issuance by Meta or Amazon because it introduces significant privacy challenges and competitive hazards. 

Concerns over non-bank participation

Bank of America and its supporters maintain that companies involved in digital finance activities create confusion regarding banking and non-banking separation. Bank of America and its partners assert that the overlap creates risks for companies to gain control of sensitive customer data that threatens both privacy and market equity. Legislative proposals released so far demonstrate that they have not eliminated the possibility for non-bank organizations to issue stablecoins.

Even though traditional banks oppose their involvement in the market, lawmakers avoid setting strict restrictions on non-bank financial institutions. Advocates state that the innovation should not be confined to conventional financial institutions when providing access to stablecoin issuance.

Tether and Circle respond to growing competition

While Bank of America positions itself for entry, Tether and Circle expand their influence in the stablecoin market. Circle has been lobbying for regulatory standards that support non-bank issuers while focusing on consumer protection and transparency. Tether, which operates internationally, is exploring entry into the U.S. market and recently proposed launching a dollar-backed subsidiary for institutional clients.

Circle maintains about $60 billion worth of USDC although Tether holds the largest amount at over $145 billion USDT. Experts predict that Tether will encounter difficulties from rigorous audit and reserve protocols because the company has received criticism for its insufficient third-party audit performance compared to Circle.

The post Bank of America Accelerates Stablecoin Plans in Bid to Compete with Tether and Circle first appeared on Coinfea.

The bank’s latest financial disclosures reveal a divergence in expectations within its ranks, highlighting the broader market’s uncertainty about the Fed’s monetary policy direction.

Predictions diverge within Bank of America

Bank of America’s management team has anticipated that the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates in three separate quarters: September, November, and December. In contrast, Michael Gapen, the bank’s chief economist, initially forecasted only one rate cut of 25 basis points in December. 

However, following unexpectedly mild June inflation figures, Gapen adjusted his predictions, now considering the possibility of the rate cuts commencing sooner than expected. This disparity underscores a common theme across Wall Street, where predictions can vary significantly even within the same institution, reflecting the complex factors influencing economic forecasts. These include market-driven expectations, often derived from derivative contract trends.

Shift in market expectations

The market’s expectations have shifted markedly, with derivative markets now indicating a higher likelihood of the Federal Reserve cutting rates sooner than later. As per the CME FedWatch tool, there is currently a 93.3% probability that the Fed will reduce its target range for the federal funds rate to between 5% and 5.25% by September, down from the current 5.25% to 5.50%.

Additionally, there’s a 6.7% chance that the cuts could total half a point, implying potential rate reductions at the end of July, followed by another in September. This change in sentiment follows the latest consumer price index report, which showed a 0.1% decline from the previous month, bringing the annual inflation rate down to 3%—the lowest in three years.

Economists revise forecasts

Major financial institutions, including Barclays, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, and JPMorgan, have revised their forecasts to more closely align with these new market expectations. Previously, the consensus among these economists was a single quarter-point reduction by December, a stance they have now abandoned in response to the changing economic indicators.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has indicated that the central bank is prepared to act by September to adjust rates. In a recent statement, Powell highlighted that the Fed aims to ensure greater confidence in inflation returning to its 2% target without necessarily waiting for it to reach that point due to the lagging effects of policy measures.

“The Fed is looking for greater confidence that inflation will return to the 2%. What increases that confidence is more good inflation data, and lately, we have been getting some of that,” Powell explained.

This evolving situation highlights the dynamic nature of economic forecasting and the significant impact of new data on market expectations and policy decisions. As Wall Street navigates through these uncertain times, the coming months will be crucial in shaping the economic landscape influenced by the Federal Reserve’s actions.

The post Wall Street Concerns Mount Over Federal Reserve’s Planned Interest Rate Cuts first appeared on Coinfea.

Despite reporting the incident to the bank and local police, her request for reimbursement was initially denied. It wasn’t until media outlets like CBS Boston and WBZ-TV’s I-Team began investigating that Bank of America decided to refund the stolen amount.

Friedman was in the process of helping a friend with a PayPal refund when she received a fraudulent call from someone posing as a PayPal employee. Trusting the caller, she clicked on a link sent to her, which ultimately granted the scammer access to her bank account. Cybersecurity expert Peter Tran compared the act of clicking on such a link to “giving everybody a key to the front door of your home.”

Media involvement leads to refund

After the media picked up Friedman’s story, Bank of America reversed its decision and processed the refund. The bank cited “additional information” provided by Friedman as the reason for the change, although the nature of this new information has not been disclosed. This development has led to questions about why the bank initially refused to reimburse the stolen funds and whether media attention was the primary factor in the bank’s reversal.

Friedman expressed both relief and frustration following the refund, questioning why the bank didn’t have more robust fraud protection measures to flag suspicious transactions. The bank’s initial denial and subsequent reversal after media involvement have raised questions about its fraud protection protocols.

Peter Tran, a cybersecurity expert, emphasized the risks associated with clicking on unverified links, stating that such actions could be likened to “giving everybody a key to the front door of your home.” He mentioned that scams like these are becoming increasingly sophisticated, making it difficult for individuals to distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent communications.

The post Bank of America reverses decision on refusing customer refund after media inquiry first appeared on Coinfea.