Operator

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. My name is Colby, and I’ll be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome you to the Primis Financial Corp. First Quarter Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions]

I will now turn the call over to Matthew Switzer. You may begin.

Matthew Switzer
Executive VP & CFO

Good morning, and thank you for joining us for Primis Financial Corp.’s 2026 First Quarter Webcast and Conference Call.

Before we begin, please note that many of our comments during this call will be forward-looking statements, which involve risk and uncertainty. There are many factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.

Further discussion of the company’s risk factors and other important information regarding our forward-looking statements are part of our recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our recently filed earnings release, which has also been posted to the Investor Relations section of our corporate site, primisbank.com. We undertake no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changes in assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results over time.

In addition, some of the financial measures that we may discuss this morning are non-GAAP financial measures. How a non-GAAP measure relates to the most comparable GAAP measure will be discussed when the non-GAAP measures used, if not readily apparent.

I

This is a question that tends to induce bouts of anxiety and even fierce debate between different departments within the business. Without question, branded gifts have a value beyond their actual cost and they are a great way of getting your brand in front of people, but how much should you spend to achieve this aim?

It’s not easy to give a definitive answer about how much to spend on branded gifts. This is because every business will have a different size of budget in mind, and even a different mindset about what represents good value for money.

Certain branded gifts, such as mugs with logo, are often cost-effective solutions as you won’t have to spend huge sums of your marketing budget to see a positive return on your investment. To get a bit of clarity on the subject, here’s some key points to consider.

Understand why you are spending the money

A good starting point would be to appreciate why you are spending money on branded gifts and what you want to achieve from your investment in this proven marketing tool.

Ultimately, you are looking to try and build strong relationships with your customers and keep your name in their mindset when they are making purchasing decisions. Corporate gifts are a great way of achieving those aims as they help encourage a sense of loyalty and appreciation.

When you give someone a branded gift it helps them to feel valued. Even a relatively modest outlay on something like branded mugs or pens can really help strengthen that bond. How do you quantify that sort of response to your gift?

Instead of looking at the pure cost of a branded gift that you are going to use to promote your business it’s wise to also make an allowance for the benefits it delivers as well.

Finding the right balance

There can often be a fine dividing line between spending too much on corporate gifting, or too little. Neither scenario is good, for many reasons.

If you try to cut corners and end up with something that looks too cheap, it sends out the wrong message about your business and the recipient won’t feel that valued either. On the other hand, if your gift is too extravagant, it can lead someone to think that you must be making too much money out of them to be able to afford to spend so lavishly.

As you can see, it’s a fine balancing act to get it just right. A good approach would be to look at branded gifts that are of a good quality but also serve a useful or practical purpose, which makes them more likely to be well received.

A good example of this would be if you gave someone a good quality branded coffee mug. They are likely to use it on a regular basis, so you get a positive brand association, and it won’t have blown a huge hole in your overall marketing budget.

All things considered, rather than simply focusing on price to decide how much you spend you should also consider how well your branded gift will be received by the person you give it to.

Conference Call Participants

Stephen Robert Powers – Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division
Dara Mohsenian – Morgan Stanley, Research Division
Lauren Lieberman – Barclays Bank PLC, Research Division
Peter Grom – UBS Investment Bank, Research Division
Peter Galbo – BofA Securities, Research Division
Christopher Carey – Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division
Robert Ottenstein – Evercore ISI Institutional Equities, Research Division
Kevin Grundy – BNP Paribas, Research Division
Filippo Falorni – Citigroup Inc., Research Division
Bonnie Herzog – Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division
Kaumil Gajrawala – Jefferies LLC, Research Division
Andrea Teixeira – JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Olivia Tong Cheang – Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division
Robert Moskow – TD Cowen, Research Division
Edward Lewis – Rothschild & Co Redburn, Research Division
Michael Lavery – Piper Sandler & Co., Research Division

Presentation

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Nvidia Corp. remains one of the most compelling yet polarizing investment stories in 2026, with Wall Street analysts overwhelmingly recommending investors buy shares of the AI chip leader even as the stock trades at elevated valuations following massive gains driven by insatiable demand for its GPUs.

As of late April 2026, Nvidia’s consensus rating stands as Strong Buy from dozens of analysts covering the stock. The average 12-month price target hovers around $268–$275, implying roughly 30–35% upside from recent trading levels near $200. Individual targets range from conservative lows near $210 to optimistic highs of $380, reflecting varying assumptions about the pace of AI infrastructure spending.

The bull case is straightforward and powerful. Nvidia continues to dominate the artificial intelligence accelerator market with its Blackwell and Hopper architectures. Data Center revenue has exploded, powering massive hyperscale buildouts by companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta and Amazon. Recent quarterly results showed revenue exceeding $68 billion in one period, with gross margins remaining exceptionally strong above 70%. Analysts project continued robust growth through 2027 as inference workloads and enterprise AI adoption accelerate.

CEO Jensen Huang has repeatedly emphasized that the company is still in the early innings of the AI revolution. New product cycles, including the Rubin architecture expected later in 2026, keep Nvidia firmly ahead of competitors. Partnerships, software moats through CUDA, and expanding total addressable market in robotics, autonomous vehicles and sovereign AI initiatives provide multiple growth vectors.

Several major banks and research firms have raised price targets in recent months. Rosenblatt, JPMorgan, Bank of America and others see significant upside, with some calling for $300+ by year-end. The consensus among more than 50 analysts shows overwhelming Buy or Strong Buy ratings, with very few Holds and almost no Sells.

Bears, however, highlight legitimate risks. Nvidia’s valuation — trading at premium forward multiples — leaves little room for disappointment. Competition from AMD, custom chips from hyperscalers, and potential margin pressure as the market matures could weigh on returns. Geopolitical tensions, export restrictions to China and any slowdown in Big Tech capital expenditure represent meaningful headwinds. Some analysts caution that expectations may already be too high.

For long-term growth investors, the case for buying Nvidia remains compelling. The company sits at the center of the most transformative technology shift since the internet. Strong balance sheet, exceptional execution under Huang, and a widening technological lead support continued outperformance. Many portfolio managers view it as a core holding for exposure to AI infrastructure.

Shorter-term traders or more conservative investors might exercise caution at current levels. Pullbacks on any perceived AI spending moderation could offer better entry points. Diversification is essential given the stock’s volatility and concentration risk in a single technology theme.

Institutional ownership remains very high, and retail enthusiasm continues. Options activity shows bullish sentiment overall, though elevated implied volatility reflects uncertainty around upcoming product cycles and macro factors. The stock has delivered extraordinary returns over the past several years, but past performance does not guarantee future results.

Nvidia’s trajectory in 2026 will likely be shaped by successful execution on next-generation platforms, sustained data center demand and the company’s ability to defend its massive market share. Positive developments on these fronts could drive shares significantly higher, while any stumbles might lead to sharp corrections typical of high-growth tech names.

Ultimately, whether to buy or sell Nvidia in 2026 depends heavily on individual risk tolerance, time horizon and conviction in the AI secular trend. Growth-oriented investors with a multi-year perspective generally see it as a Buy. Those seeking stability or concerned about valuations may prefer to Hold existing positions or wait for dips. Most advisors recommend sizing positions thoughtfully within a diversified portfolio.

As the AI supercycle continues unfolding, Nvidia stands as the clearest and most dominant beneficiary. With strong analyst support, robust fundamentals and multiple growth drivers, the company offers significant potential for patient investors — even after years of spectacular gains. The debate is not whether Nvidia will grow, but how much and at what valuation the market is willing to pay.

As more Americans take a hands-on approach to their finances, many are weighing whether to invest in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or mutual funds.

Both offer a simple way to build a diversified portfolio of stocks or bonds, and at their core, the two investment vehicles are very similar. But key differences – including how they trade and how they are taxed – can shape long-term returns, experts say.

“When investors compare ETFs and mutual funds, it’s important to start with what they have in common: both are professionally managed portfolios that provide diversified exposure to stocks or bonds,” Kathy Kellert, head of index equity product at Vanguard, told FOX Business. “The biggest differences for investors come down to how the funds are bought and sold and how taxes are handled.”

ETFs can trade at slight premiums or discounts to the value of their underlying holdings. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WHAT ARE ACTIVE ETFS AND HOW ARE THEY RESHAPING HOW AMERICANS INVEST?

While ETFs trade throughout the day on exchanges – like stocks – with prices that fluctuate in real time, mutual funds are priced once daily after the market closes.

“An ETF is best thought of as a mutual fund that trades on an exchange like shares of stock,” Dan Sotiroff, associate director of U.S. passive strategies research at Morningstar, told FOX Business.

Because of that structure, ETFs can trade at slight premiums or discounts to the value of their underlying holdings, though Sotiroff noted the gap is typically “very small and inconsequential.”

Taxes are another major consideration.

ETFs use a structure that allows many transactions, like rebalancing, to take place without triggering taxable capital gains. Mutual funds, on the other hand, may distribute those gains to investors in the year they are realized, according to Kellert and Sotiroff.

A BEGINNER-FRIENDLY ETF PORTFOLIO THAT REQUIRES ALMOST NO MAINTENANCE AND DELIVERS LONG-TERM RESULTS

ETFs trade throughout the day on exchanges while mutual funds are priced once daily after the market closes. (Lilli Förter/picture alliance via Getty Images)

“All things equal, ETFs are more tax efficient than mutual funds,” Sotiroff said. “ETF investors will still have to pay capital gains taxes when they sell their shares, so ETF investors are really deferring capital gains, not avoiding them. The advantage is that ETF investors can choose when to realize those gains while mutual fund investors have less control.”

Will Rhind, CEO of GraniteShares, described ETFs as a “new technology” compared to the “old technology” of mutual funds.

“ETFs are, generally speaking, cheaper, more tax efficient, provide much broader choice and are, of course, liquid,” Rhind told FOX Business.

Unlike many mutual funds, which may require minimum investments of $1,000 or more, ETFs can often be purchased for the price of a single share or even a fraction of one, according to Rhind.

COULD S&P 500 ETFS ALONE FUND YOUR ENTIRE RETIREMENT?

Taxes are another major consideration when choosing between ETFs and mutual funds. (iStock)

However, experts say that choosing between ETFs and mutual funds ultimately depends on the investor.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

“For many investors, the tax efficiency, intraday trading and transparency of ETFs… make them a compelling choice. For others – particularly for retirement accounts, where the tax efficiency is not an impact – [mutual funds] allow dollar investing versus share prices and are a long-standing choice,” Riz Hussain, senior investment portfolio strategist at Schwab Asset Management, told FOX Business.

Kellert added, “What matters most is not the wrapper, but whether the fund aligns with an investor’s goals, time horizon and comfort level. When used thoughtfully, both ETFs and mutual funds can play an important role in a well-diversified portfolio.”

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Advanced Micro Devices Inc. shares have delivered strong gains in 2026, but the question of whether to buy, sell or hold the semiconductor giant remains a hot debate on Wall Street as the company rides the artificial intelligence wave while facing steep competition and elevated valuations.

As of late April 2026, AMD trades around $300–$350 per share after a volatile but ultimately rewarding start to the year. Analysts maintain a consensus Moderate Buy to Strong Buy rating, with an average 12-month price target near $290–$296. While some forecasts see limited near-term upside from current levels, longer-term bulls point to significant growth potential in data center and AI GPUs.

The bull case centers on AMD’s expanding role in the AI infrastructure boom. Data Center revenue has surged, driven by EPYC server CPUs and Instinct MI series accelerators. Management has expressed confidence in capturing meaningful share from Nvidia in inference workloads and custom AI solutions. Partnerships with major hyperscalers and strong demand for Ryzen AI PC processors further support growth projections.

CEO Lisa Su has described 2025 as a defining year, with expectations of continued acceleration into 2026. Analysts project Data Center revenue could grow substantially, potentially pushing overall company revenue higher. The upcoming Q1 2026 earnings on May 5 will be closely watched for updates on MI300 and next-generation MI350 shipments.

Several Wall Street firms have raised price targets in recent months, with optimistic calls reaching $345–$380 based on AMD’s ability to scale AI GPU production and benefit from broader AI adoption. The consensus among roughly 40 analysts shows strong Buy leanings, with no Sell ratings in many aggregations.

Bears, however, caution that AMD remains a distant No. 2 in the high-end AI GPU market. Nvidia’s dominance in CUDA software creates a significant moat, and execution risks around new product ramps persist. Valuation concerns are also prominent — forward price-to-earnings multiples sit above historical averages, leaving less margin of safety if growth slows.

Some analysts recommend a Hold or cautious approach until clearer evidence of market share gains materializes. Macro risks, including potential slowdowns in AI spending or geopolitical tensions affecting chip exports, add another layer of uncertainty.

For investors considering a position in 2026, the case for buying rests on AMD’s competitive positioning in multiple high-growth segments. Beyond AI accelerators, the company benefits from strength in gaming consoles, PC processors and embedded solutions. Long-term forecasts suggest AMD could sustain robust revenue and earnings growth if it executes well on its roadmap.

Risk-tolerant growth investors may find current levels attractive for long-term holding, especially on any pullbacks. Those with shorter horizons or lower risk tolerance might prefer waiting for better entry points or allocating to more established AI leaders. Diversification remains key given the sector’s volatility.

Institutional ownership remains high, and retail interest continues strong following recent product launches and AI optimism. Options activity shows bullish sentiment overall, though implied volatility reflects ongoing uncertainty.

AMD’s trajectory in 2026 will likely hinge on several key factors: successful ramp of next-generation AI products, continued data center momentum, and broader market conditions for semiconductors. Positive Q1 results and forward guidance could catalyze further upside, while any misses or softening demand might trigger pullbacks.

The company’s history of innovation under Su gives many investors confidence. From a niche player challenging Intel in CPUs to a serious contender in AI, AMD has repeatedly exceeded expectations. Yet the stock’s rapid run in recent years means new buyers must weigh the potential for continued growth against the risk of valuation compression.

Ultimately, whether to buy or sell AMD in 2026 depends on individual circumstances. Growth-oriented investors comfortable with technology volatility generally see it as a Buy for long-term portfolios. More conservative investors may opt to Hold existing positions or wait for clearer signals from upcoming earnings and product cycles.

As the AI supercycle evolves, AMD stands as one of the more compelling ways to gain exposure beyond the dominant leader. With solid fundamentals, strong analyst support and multiple growth avenues, the company offers an intriguing opportunity — tempered by the need for disciplined execution in a highly competitive landscape.

Investors should monitor Q1 results closely and consider broader market trends. For those positioned for the long haul, AMD’s story in 2026 could continue rewarding patience and conviction in the semiconductor recovery and AI transformation.

LOS ANGELES — Nearly two years after its controversial cancellation, Star Wars: The Acolyte has made a surprising return to Disney+’s Top 10 TV shows chart in the United States, climbing to No. 9 and sparking renewed fan conversations about the polarizing High Republic-era series.

According to FlixPatrol data for April 22, 2026, the eight-episode first season re-entered the platform’s rankings amid strong performance from the new Star Wars series Maul — Shadow Lord, which currently sits atop both overall and TV charts. Industry observers suggest algorithmic recommendations and renewed curiosity are driving viewers back to the 2024 show, long after most assumed its streaming moment had passed.

The Acolyte premiered on Disney+ in June 2024 to significant fanfare as the first live-action Star Wars series set in the High Republic era, roughly a century before the Skywalker Saga. Created by Leslye Headland, it followed a former Padawan investigating a series of crimes that uncovered a rising dark side threat. The show earned a respectable 79% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes but faced intense audience backlash, finishing with a 37% audience score amid accusations of review bombing and debates over its handling of Jedi lore and diverse casting.

Despite a strong debut with 4.8 million views on day one and 11.1 million in its first five days — Disney+’s biggest series premiere of 2024 at the time — viewership dropped sharply in subsequent weeks. Disney canceled the series in August 2024, citing high production costs relative to viewership performance. Co-chairman Alan Bergman later noted the numbers “weren’t where we needed them to be.”

Yet the show has never fully disappeared from cultural conversations. In 2024, it ranked as the second-most-watched Disney+ original with 2.7 billion minutes viewed, behind only Percy Jackson and the Olympians. Its lingering presence, combined with the current Star Wars content wave including Maul — Shadow Lord, appears to be fueling this unexpected resurgence.

Fan reactions on social media range from celebration to skepticism. Supporters argue the return validates the series’ quality and calls for a potential revival, while critics dismiss the ranking as algorithmic noise rather than genuine renewed interest. Many point out that FlixPatrol tracks chart position rather than total minutes viewed, so the data does not necessarily indicate a massive surge in new watchers.

The timing coincides with broader Star Wars momentum on Disney+. Recent releases and anniversary discussions have kept the franchise visible, potentially exposing newer subscribers to The Acolyte through “because you watched” recommendations. Some viewers report rewatching the season with fresh eyes, appreciating its bold storytelling choices away from the Skywalker focus.

Industry analysts see the re-emergence as a reminder of how streaming catalogs can deliver long-tail value. Even canceled shows can generate ongoing engagement years later, especially within massive franchises like Star Wars. However, this does not typically translate into revival prospects, as Disney has shown little appetite for resurrecting high-cost projects with mixed reception.

The Acolyte’s story remains one of the most divisive in recent Star Wars television history. Praised by some for its fresh perspective, diverse cast and mystery-thriller tone, it drew sharp criticism from others over pacing, character decisions and perceived deviations from established lore. The discourse often extended beyond the show itself into larger culture war debates.

For Disney+, the quiet return offers a small win in catalog performance. The platform continues investing heavily in Star Wars content, with multiple series in development and theatrical films on the horizon. Whether The Acolyte’s chart appearance leads to any meaningful long-term boost remains uncertain.

Star Wars fans have mixed feelings about potential revivals. While some petitioned for a second season immediately after cancellation, others believe the franchise benefits from focusing forward rather than revisiting polarizing entries. Headland and the cast have occasionally reflected on the experience positively in interviews, expressing pride in what they created.

As The Acolyte sits comfortably in the Top 10 again, it serves as a case study in streaming longevity. Cancelation does not always mean erasure, especially in a franchise with such dedicated fans. The show’s return highlights how algorithms, timing and adjacent content can breathe new life into older titles.

For now, viewers have the opportunity to revisit or discover The Acolyte on Disney+ while the franchise pushes into new territory. Whether this resurgence sparks meaningful renewed interest or remains a brief algorithmic blip will become clearer in the coming weeks as charts evolve.

The unexpected chart return of a canceled Star Wars series two years later proves that in streaming, stories — and controversies — rarely stay buried for long. As fans debate its merits once more, The Acolyte reminds audiences that the Force, and Disney+ recommendations, work in mysterious ways.