Investing.com — In a recent report, Bank of America revealed the top 10 stocks most widely held by funds globally, highlighting their dominance in investment portfolios.

The list is led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), held by 95% of the relevant funds. Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Arm Holdings ADR (NASDAQ:ARM) share the second spot, with 88% of funds holding these stocks.

Samsung Electronics (KS:005930) follows with 83%, while India’s HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE:HDB) and China’s Tencent Holdings Ltd (HK:0700) each appear in 79% of portfolios.

Rounding out the list are Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA), and ASML (AS:ASML), each held by 77% of funds, and Japan’s Keyence (TYO:6861) with a 76% holding rate.

The list demonstrates that the technology sector continues to dominate global investment portfolios.

In 2024, long-only funds significantly increased active exposure to equities, adding $40 billion relative to benchmarks. However, fund managers faced headwinds, as overweight positions underperformed underweights in most regions except the US, where overweights outperformed marginally by 0.2%.

Sector-wise, US Industrials saw the biggest increase in active equity exposure, BofA notes, citing its analysis of 8,400 long-only funds.

US funds also added exposure to Financials “but struggled to increase active exposure to the largest Tech stocks given the substantial index weights of these stocks,” the bank’s strategists led by Nigel Tupper said in the note.

Conversely, in Asia and Emerging Markets, funds reduced their active exposure to Financials while raising their allocations to Tech.

Looking ahead into 2025, BofA’s Triple Momentum analysis indicates a favorable outlook for both Financials and Tech, suggesting these sectors may present compelling opportunities for increased active exposure.

In a separate January Fund Manager Survey (FMS), BofA highlighted strong investor sentiment toward the US dollar and equities, while signaling bearish views on most other asset classes.

The survey indicates that cash allocations have fallen to 3.9%, their lowest point since June 2021. This reduction triggered a second consecutive “sell” signal under BofA’s Cash Rule, a pattern historically linked to weaker equity performance in the months that follow.

A net 41% of fund managers report being overweight equities, though this represents a decline from the three-year peak of 49% recorded in December.

BofA points to a “big January equity rotation from US stocks to Europe,” as exposure to US equities dropped sharply from a net 36% overweight to 19%. At the same time, Eurozone stocks shifted from a net 22% underweight to a 1% overweight, representing the largest monthly increase in Eurozone exposure in 25 years.

The survey also reveals bearish sentiment across other asset classes. Commodities are underweighted by 6% of managers, while 11% are underweight cash, and 20% are underweight bonds.

Investing.com — The debate over whether TikTok will be banned in the United States has reached a critical juncture, with developments raising the stakes for the popular short-video platform. 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a law requiring TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or face a ban on U.S. operations. 

While this ruling is pivotal, the situation remains highly uncertain due to the complex interplay of legal, political, and corporate factors.

As per analysts at Moffett Nathanson, the odds of a TikTok ban are not as straightforward as they may appear. 

Prediction markets like Polymarket place the likelihood at 80%, reflecting a sentiment driven largely by concerns over national security. 

However, other factors complicate the picture. President-elect Donald Trump has expressed opposition to the measure, potentially signaling a more lenient approach from the incoming administration. 

In December, Trump requested a pause in the law’s implementation to explore alternatives, though this effort was nullified by the Supreme Court ruling.

If a ban were to proceed, its enforcement mechanisms would rely on key players in the tech ecosystem, including app store operators like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and internet service providers (ISPs). 

Both Apple and Google are expected to comply by removing TikTok from their platforms, rendering it inaccessible to new users. 

Even for existing users, the app could become inoperable over time as ISPs and service providers cease support for updates and maintenance. 

Reports from ByteDance suggest the company may shut down TikTok’s U.S. operations entirely if the ban is upheld.

Despite these potential outcomes, Moffett Nathanson emphasizes the fluidity of the situation. 

The incoming administration may issue an executive order delaying the ban or even seek to repeal the law altogether. 

TikTok’s executives appear to share this optimism, with confidence that any disruptions could be temporary. This scenario leaves room for the platform to reemerge, potentially after a divestiture or sale.

For competitors like Meta (NASDAQ:META) and YouTube, a TikTok ban could present opportunities. 

Meta’s Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts are well-positioned to absorb displaced users and advertisers, potentially boosting their revenues by 3-5% and 10-15%, respectively. 

Snapchat, while less equipped with short-form video offerings, could still benefit by capturing some of TikTok’s user base, particularly among younger demographics.

Yet, the initial market reaction to the Supreme Court ruling suggests skepticism about the permanence of a ban. 

Stocks for Meta and Snap fell shortly after the announcement, reflecting broader uncertainty about how long TikTok’s absence would last and whether competitors would meaningfully benefit. This reaction may be a forewarning of the volatility that lies ahead in this unfolding saga.

By Aditya Kalra

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – India’s Religare Enterprises (NSE:RELG) said a U.S. businessman has made a proposal to acquire a 26% stake in it, the latest twist in the battle for control of the financial services company which has rejected another bid as being priced too low.

The Indian billionaire Burman family, which has founded and controls consumer goods conglomerate Dabur India (NSE:DABU), raised its stake in Religare to nearly 25% in September 2023, triggering a so-called open offer to buy more shares.

Through the open offer process, which starts on Jan. 27, the Burmans plan to buy around 26% more of Religare to bolster their presence in India’s rapidly growing financial services sector, but Religare’s independent directors flagged this week the offer price of 235 rupees per share was too low.

In a stock exchange disclosure late on Friday, Religare shared a letter from U.S. entrepreneur Digvijay “Danny” Gaekwad’s firm requesting permission from Indian market regulator SEBI to make an open offer of 275 rupees per share for the Indian company, a 17% premium to the current offer.

A representative of the Burman family, Mohit Burman, and the market regulator SEBI did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday. Florida-based Gaekwad did not immediately respond to a Reuters’ email seeking comment outside of normal U.S. business hours.

Religare shares closed at 249.40 rupees on Friday, giving it a market value of 81.83 billion rupees ($949.30 million).

The Burmans, if they win control of Religare, will find themselves pitted against other Indian billionaire families in the financial services business, including Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Financial Services and family-controlled Bajaj Finance (NSE:BJFN).

But the Burmans’ Religare bid has faced regulatory and legal challenges.

Earlier this week, Religare disclosed that a minority shareholder had approached the Delhi High Court, and was seeking to stop Burmans’ open offer bid.

Legal papers show that the shareholder holds 500 shares in Religare, and the court on Tuesday issued a notice to Burmans and SEBI and said any subsequent action – such as an open offer – “shall be subject to the outcome” of the lawsuit.

($1 = 86.2000 Indian rupees)

By Kanishka Singh

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration asked U.S. federal agencies on Friday to terminate roles and offices related to diversity, equity and inclusion programs, a memo circulated by the Office of Personnel Management showed.

WHY IT’S IMPORTANT

Trump, a Republican, has issued a series of executive orders seeking to dismantle DEI programs since he took office on Monday.

DEI programs seek to promote opportunities for women, ethnic minorities, LGBT people and other traditionally underrepresented groups. Civil rights advocates argue such programs, generally backed by Democrats, are needed to address longstanding inequities and structural racism.

Trump and his allies say DEI programs unfairly discriminate against other Americans and weaken the importance of candidates’ merit in job hiring or promotion.

KEY QUOTE

“In accordance with that order, each agency, department, or commission head shall take action to terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions within sixty days,” the memo said.

CONTEXT

Trump has also pressured the private sector to join his attack on DEI. Civil rights advocates say his push marks a significant setback to decades-long efforts to ensure equality in federal hiring and contracts.

It was not immediately clear from the memo how many DEI staffers each federal agency has.

By Jody Godoy

(Reuters) – The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission on Friday acknowledged staff anxiety over returning to full-time in the office at an agency where around 80% work from home most of the week, but said the COVID pandemic is long over and workers need to be at their desks.

In one of his earliest executive orders, President Donald Trump ordered federal workers back to the office. FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson, who noted that Trump was fulfilling a campaign promise with the order, expects staff to revert to full-time in office by March 3, according to an internal memo seen by Reuters.

The aggregate effect of return to office orders and other changes is expected to drive frustrated government employees out of their jobs, a goal the Trump team is explicitly gunning for to help streamline government by cutting staffing, rolling back regulations and slashing budgets.

Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) CEO Elon Musk – who chairs Trump’s government efficiency initiative – predicted that revoking “the COVID-era privilege” of telework would trigger “a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome.”

Musk, a top Trump donor, ordered Tesla employees in 2022 to be in the office 40 hours a week or leave the company. Other U.S. industries, including banks on Wall Street, have taken a similar return-to-office approach.

Aside from noting the pandemic was over, Ferguson said telework had “undermined the rich and unique culture that long made the FTC one of the best places to work in the federal government.

“I can say from experience that it is very difficult for a new employee to learn the ropes when most of his or her interactions are with faces on computer screens, rather than in-person conversations with veterans and mentors,” he added.

But 79% of FTC staff worked from home three or four days a week in 2023, compared with 47% at medium sized agencies across the government, and 23% government-wide, suggesting it could lose a greater number of staff if they decide to quit over the mandate.

The consumer protection and competition enforcement agency has a heavy workload in the years ahead with a full slate of litigation against large companies including Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), and PepsiCo (NASDAQ:PEP).

At the same time, when Trump chose him to lead the agency, Ferguson vowed to “end Big Tech’s vendetta against competition and free speech.”

If staff were to leave while cases are ongoing and Ferguson is ramping up his agenda, it will significantly impact the agency’s ability to function, said former FTC attorney David Schwartz, now a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.

“The chair’s priorities are going to be the ones that suffer. Those are the ones that take the most work, because you are starting from the beginning,” he said.

Ferguson’s memo said the agency would abide by reasonable accommodations previously granted to employees as well collective bargaining obligations to staff who voted to unionize in September. He acknowledged that staff with remote work arrangements may “confront unique difficulties.”

“We are working hard to determine how we can best address those difficulties while still achieving full compliance with the PM (Presidential Memorandum). Finally, we are developing a procedure by which the agency will consider requests for exemptions from the PM in exceptional circumstances,” he said.

(Reuters) – The cyberattack at UnitedHealth’s tech unit Change affected the personal information of 190 million Americans, TechCrunch reported on Friday.

UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH) did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

By Dietrich Knauth

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Purdue Pharma said on Friday it needs more time to build support for a new $7.4 billion settlement that could complete the company’s years-long effort to resolve thousands of lawsuits over its addictive pain medication OxyContin.

The company still needs to hammer out remaining details and seek buy-in from states, local governments, and other creditors that have sued the company and its Sackler family owners over their roles in the deadly U.S. opioid epidemic.

Purdue attorney Benjamin Kaminetsky said at a court hearing in White Plains, New York that the company is “almost there” on a deal that was announced on Thursday by several states’ attorneys general and would propose a formal bankruptcy plan before the end of February.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane, who is overseeing Purdue’s Chapter 11 proceedings, said the company is making concrete progress toward a deal and approved its request to pause all opioid lawsuits against the Sacklers at least until the end of February.

The bankruptcy case has stopped litigation from proceeding against the Sacklers and Purdue, since the company entered Chapter 11 in 2019, and Lane has granted several short-term extensions of the litigation ceasefire in recent months.

“We’ve been doing this for some time now, and the hope is that we’re getting toward the end,” Lane said on Friday.

Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019 in the face of thousands of lawsuits accusing it and Sackler family members of fueling the epidemic through deceptive marketing of OxyContin. Drug manufacturers, distributors, pharmacy operators and others have collectively agreed to pay about $50 billion to resolve similar lawsuits and investigations related to the U.S. opioid crisis.

The new deal, supported by 15 states, offers the company a fresh chance to conclude its long-running bankruptcy after the U.S. Supreme Court scuttled its previous opioid settlement. But it faces a long and uncertain road before the settlement is approved and funds can begin flowing to states, communities and individuals that were harmed by the crisis.

The deal has not yet been reviewed by most of Purdue’s creditors, including the states, local governments, and individuals that have legal claims against the Sacklers.

Key terms of the settlement will be published next week, said David Nachman, an attorney representing New York state. The states that negotiated the deal, including New York, California, Texas and West Virginia, are circulating it to other states to encourage them to support the deal.

“We have work to do to build that consensus, and we are confident that we will be able to do so,” Nachman said.

The new settlement comes seven months after the Supreme Court ruled that the Sacklers, who did not file for bankruptcy themselves, were not entitled to sweeping legal protections meant to give bankrupt debtors a fresh start.

The settlement does not fully shut off lawsuits from states, local governments, or others who would prefer to opt out of the deal and instead sue the Sacklers, who have said they would vigorously defend themselves in court.

The deal is not yet binding even for the 15 states that negotiated it. West Virginia currently supports the deal, but it retains the ability to opt out and litigate separately, according to a spokesman for attorney general John McCuskey.

Lane said creditors, including individuals who were personally harmed by the opioid crisis, will need to be patient as the settlement develops.

“People need to know what benefits the bankruptcy case can bring them before they decide whether other options are the best way to proceed,” Lane said.

By Jessica DiNapoli and Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Ben & Jerry’s on Friday ratcheted up its censorship lawsuit against Unilever (LON:ULVR), accusing its parent company of suppressing a social policy statement the U.S. ice cream maker wanted to release because it mentioned President Donald Trump.

The allegation came in an amended complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, where Ben & Jerry’s in November accused Unilever of silencing its attempts to express support for Palestinian refugees and end military aid to Israel, and threatening to dismantle its independent board.

Ben & Jerry’s wants a court order freeing the board to continue oversight of its social mission, and requiring Unilever to honor its commitment to make $25 million of payments to groups chosen by the ice cream company.

Unilever did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Both companies have been publicly at odds since 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s decided to stop selling Cherry Garcia, Chubby Hubby and other ice cream flavors in the Israeli-occupied West Bank because it was inconsistent with the company’s values.

That led some investors to divest Unilever shares, and Ben & Jerry’s to sue its parent for selling its Israeli business to a local licensee.

A settlement in 2022 required Unilever to respect Ben & Jerry’s independent board and social mission, as well as make the $25 million of payments.

DONALD TRUMP, NELSON PELTZ AND ELON MUSK

In the amended complaint, Ben & Jerry’s said its management and board, with input from Unilever’s global head of litigation, worked after Trump’s election on a post to be released on Inauguration Day, discussing hot-button issues such as abortion, climate change, minimum wages and universal healthcare.

But on Jan. 18, two days before Trump’s inauguration, Unilever ice cream chief Peter ter Kulve “unilaterally barred Ben & Jerry’s from issuing the post because it specifically mentioned ‘Donald Trump,’” the complaint said.

Ben & Jerry’s said ter Kulve appeared to base his decision on intuition, while ignoring the company’s history of challenging the Trump administration.

It also said ter Kulve soon held a town hall meeting where he touted how Unilever board member and activist investor Nelson Peltz, a Trump supporter, had introduced the president to Elon Musk, the Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) founder and close Trump adviser.

The complaint said that according to ter Kulve, “despite four decades of progressive social activism–and years of challenging the Trump administration’s policies specifically–criticizing Trump was now too taboo for the brand synonymous with ‘Peace, Love, and Ice Cream.’”

Many companies in retail, banking and other sectors have curtailed support this month for programs whose perceived social impact has drawn opposition from Trump and his supporters.

RESISTANCE TO PAYMENTS

Ben & Jerry’s was founded by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in a renovated gas station in 1978, and kept its socially-conscious mission after Unilever bought it in 2000.

According to the amended complaint, Ben & Jerry’s planned to direct $5 million from Unilever to human rights groups, and $20 million over 10 years to support Palestinian almond farmers and a fair trade almond supplier it had long used.

It said Unilever opposed the $5 million of payments because it believed they would support “Palestinian human rights,” and has not made the second $2.5 million installment.

Ben & Jerry’s also said ter Kulve resisted the $20 million payment because he disliked the 2022 settlement and had not heard of the almond supplier.

Unilever plans to spin out its ice cream business this year to simplify its product portfolio and cut costs.

Its dozens of other products include Dove soap, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, Knorr bouillon cubes, Surf detergent and Vaseline petroleum jelly.

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) will pay $59.7 million to resolve charges that a company it acquired defrauded Medicare and other healthcare programs by paying kickbacks so doctors would prescribe the migraine drug Nurtec ODT, the U.S. Department of Justice said on Friday.

The Justice Department said that from March 1, 2020, to Sept. 30, 2022, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals violated the federal False Claims Act by providing speaker honoraria and meals at high-end restaurants to doctors, to induce them to prescribe Nurtec more often.

According to the government, some speaker programs were attended multiple times by the same doctors, resulting in no educational benefit, or attended by doctors’ spouses, family members and colleagues who had no educational need to be there.

Pfizer ended the Nurtec speaker programs after paying $11.5 billion to buy Biohaven in October 2022.

“Patients deserve to know that their doctor is prescribing medications based on their doctor’s medical judgment, and not as a result of financial incentives from pharmaceutical companies,” said Trini Ross, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York.

Pfizer did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.

“We are pleased to put this legacy matter behind us, so that we can continue to focus on the needs of patients,” the New York-based drugmaker said in a statement.

The settlement resolves an August 2021 lawsuit filed in the Rochester, New York federal court by Patricia Frattasio, a former Biohaven neuroscience sales specialist.

She will receive about $8.4 million from the settlement. About $41.8 million will go to the federal government and $9.5 million will go to state Medicaid programs.

The False Claims Act lets whistleblowers sue on behalf of the government, and share in recoveries.

By Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has halted all pending environmental litigation and reassigned four career Justice Department attorneys focused on environmental issues, according to three sources familiar with the matter and a pair of memos seen by Reuters on Friday.

The memos order the division not to file any new lawsuits or other legal briefs and to halt all pending settlements and consent decrees to give the new Republican administration time to reconsider previously agreed deals.

The change, one of the memos said, is meant to ensure the federal government “speaks with one voice in its view of the law and to ensure the president’s appointees or designees have the opportunity to decide whether to initiate any new cases.”

The decision to move the four officials, who are not political appointees, from overseeing the natural resources, environmental enforcement, appellate and environmental crimes sections is the latest in a string of similar actions as Trump shakes up the federal government’s 2.2 million-strong workforce.

The department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division is responsible for bringing criminal and civil cases related to air and water pollution, animal welfare and public safety, as well as defending in court government agencies such as the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy.

The four section chiefs were told in an email late Thursday they have 15 days to accept the new assignment to a newly created Sanctuary City Working Group or face adverse consequences, the sources told Reuters.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

The sources were granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media. The sources said the reassigned officials have not been provided further details about their new assignments.

Trump has long dismissed climate change as a “hoax,” vowed to cut regulation and on his first day in office withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate treaty.

Four other Justice Department employees who worked on environmental justice issues were also placed on paid administrative leave this week, four sources familiar with the matter said.

The four officials placed on leave include Cynthia Ferguson, who led the environmental justice office, and Lana Pettus, a prosecutor who worked on some high-profile cases such as the 2015 criminal Clean Water Act case against Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK).

The Trump administration this week ordered anyone in the federal government on diversity, equity and inclusion issues to be placed on leave, and also called for the elimination of any office or position involving environmental justice.

Ferguson and Pettus could not be immediately reached for comment.

The order to freeze all pending environmental regulation was issued to employees on Thursday morning, the sources said.

It is similar to another memo issued earlier in the week to the Civil Rights Division which also halted all litigation, including efforts to finalize court-approved settlements with Minneapolis and Louisville to address civil rights abuses by the police.