Tata Consultancy Services has been drawing renewed attention after Morgan Stanley reiterated its “Overweight” rating, maintaining an “In-line” industry view and setting a price target of Rs 2,880, implying about 10% upside from current levels.

TCS shares were trading nearly 2% lower at Rs 2,569 during Wednesday’s session, reflecting short-term market pressure even as longer-term sentiment improves.

Morgan Stanley’s thesis hinges on a potential recovery in revenue growth and valuation re-rating, suggesting that recent underperformance may be nearing an inflection point. The brokerage sees improving fundamentals positioning TCS to outperform peers as growth stabilizes.

The brokerage expects the stock to outperform the broader market index over the next 60 days.

It also forecasts around 4% revenue growth in FY27, which would be comparable to or better than many large-cap peers. After lagging in FY26, TCS’s weaker growth is already reflected in its valuation, with its P/E multiple trading at a notable discount to peers. Morgan Stanley anticipates this gap will begin to close, particularly as early large-cap earnings suggest TCS may be better positioned on FY27 growth expectations.

Currently, TCS trades at about a 19% discount to peers such as HCLTech, a gap the brokerage expects to narrow in the coming quarters.
Overall, the firm assigns a probability of over 80% to this scenario, indicating a high level of confidence, though it notes that such estimates are subjective and based on its internal assessment.On the technical side, data from Trendlyne shows the 14-day RSI for Tata Consultancy Services at 58.4. Typically, an RSI below 30 signals an oversold condition, while a reading above 70 indicates the stock may be overbought.

In terms of moving averages, the trend appears slightly bearish, with TCS trading below five of its eight simple moving averages (SMAs). The stock is currently holding above only its 10-day, 20-day, and 30-day SMAs.

Looking at the shareholding pattern for the March 2026 quarter, foreign institutional investors (FIIs) have trimmed their stake from 10.37% to 9.66%. In contrast, mutual funds have raised their holdings from 5.52% to 5.77%. Promoter ownership remains steady at 71.77% during the same period.

(Disclaimer: The recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times.)

Shares of Transformers and Rectifiers (India) crashed more than 11% to Rs 295 on Wednesday after the company reported a 5% year-on-year (YoY) decline in consolidated net profit to Rs 89 crore for the fourth quarter of the financial year 2026, while announcing a dividend of Rs 0.25 per share.

The company announced the outcome of its board meeting in the post-market hours of Tuesday. WhileTARIL’s consolidated net profit declined, the company’s revenue from operations increased nearly 16% YoY to Rs 783 crore during the January-March quarter of FY26.

TARIL reported an order book of nearly Rs 5,005 crore with FY26 inflows at Rs 2,374 crore. Total income grew 18% YoY to Rs 805 crore, while total expenses increased nearly 21% YoY to Rs 686 crore.

On a standalone basis, the firm’s net profit gained a little over 1% YoY to Rs 77.5 crore, while revenue from operations increased 16% YoY to Rs 752 crore during the quarter under review. Net profit margin, however, contracted 170 basis points to 10%, while the EBITDA margin declined 200 basis points to 15.1%.

Net profit for the entire financial year 2026 gained more than 20% YoY to Rs 225.43 crore, while revenue from operations increased around 23% YoY to Rs 2,395.49 crore. EBITDA, meanwhile, rose 17% YoY to Rs 370 crore.

What TARIL’s management said

“FY26 has been a year of strong and consistent performance for TARIL. Our ability to deliver robust revenue growth along with sustained profitability reflects the strength of our execution capabilities and disciplined operational approach. The healthy order inflows and strong order book provide us with clear visibility for the coming periods. As we continue to scale our capacities and enhance our technological capabilities, we remain focused on improving efficiencies, strengthening margins, and delivering long-term value,” said Satyen J. Mamtora, Managing Director & CEO of TARIL.
The company added that it continues to benefit from improvements in manufacturing efficiency, supply chain optimisation and project execution. “In line with its growth plans, the company is undertaking a planned capex investment of approximately Rs 600 crore over the next 15 months to enhance capacity and support future demand,” it said.
Along with the Q4 results, TARIL announced a dividend of Rs 0.25 (25%) per equity share with a face value of Re 1 each. The record date to determine the eligibility of shareholders set to receive the payment is yet to be announced.

TARIL share price

TARIL shares dropped to an intraday low of Rs 295 apiece on NSE on Wednesday. The company has a market capitalisation of nearly Rs 9,150 crore.

In the longer term, the stock has rallied over 830% in three years and more than 3,350% in five years.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)

WASHINGTON — Federal authorities are investigating a string of deaths and disappearances involving at least 11 American scientists and researchers with ties to sensitive nuclear, aerospace and space defense programs, as lawmakers warn the pattern could signal a national security threat and fuel speculation of coordinated foul play.

The cases, spanning from 2022 to early 2026, include scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory and other facilities linked to classified research. Some died under unexplained circumstances, while others vanished without trace, prompting the FBI to lead a coordinated review alongside the Department of Energy, Department of Defense and NASA.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said Monday the panel has demanded briefings from the four agencies, expressing concern that “something sinister could be happening.” Comer noted the individuals had access to highly sensitive information involving rocket technology, nuclear secrets and advanced aerospace programs, some connected to commercial space efforts by companies including SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Among the cases drawing scrutiny is the 2023 death of Michael David Hicks, a longtime NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist who worked nearly 25 years on projects including asteroid deflection technology. His passing was followed by the death of Frank Maiwald, a 61-year-old JPL space research specialist, in Los Angeles in 2024. Monica Jacinto Reza, 60, director of JPL’s Materials Processing Group and involved in advanced alloy research, disappeared while hiking in a Los Angeles-area forest in June 2025.

Other notable incidents include the fatal shooting of MIT nuclear physicist Nuno Loureiro outside his Massachusetts home and the homicide of Caltech astrophysicist Carl Grillmair. Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland, who commanded research labs tied to advanced propulsion and materials, vanished from his New Mexico home in early 2026. Additional disappearances involve Los Alamos-linked personnel, including administrative assistant Melissa Casias, contractor Steven Garcia and property custodian Anthony Chavez for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

A pharmaceutical scientist with indirect ties to research networks, Jason Thomas, was also found dead. Some reports reference a total of 11 individuals when including earlier or related cases, though exact counts vary slightly across agencies as investigations overlap.

The FBI confirmed Tuesday it is “spearheading the effort to look for connections” among the missing and deceased scientists. Officials emphasized that while the cases have generated public attention and online speculation, no definitive evidence has established a single coordinated cause. Circumstances differ: some involve apparent homicides, others unexplained deaths, and several remain active missing persons investigations.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration is conducting a “holistic review” and vowed to leave “no stone unturned.” Energy Secretary Chris Wright acknowledged the Department of Energy’s involvement, noting many nuclear security scientists fall under its purview, and confirmed a coordinated investigation across government branches.

Lawmakers from both parties have expressed alarm over potential national security implications. The affected researchers worked on technologies with dual-use applications, including propulsion systems, materials science for extreme environments and nuclear-related programs. Some had exposure to classified aspects of space defense, satellite technology and even programs studying unidentified anomalous phenomena, according to congressional letters.

Social media has amplified theories ranging from foreign espionage by state actors to internal cover-ups or targeted eliminations tied to breakthroughs in sensitive fields. Speculation has linked the cases to broader debates over UAP disclosure, advanced energy systems and competition in the commercial space sector. However, officials and experts caution against jumping to conclusions, noting that scientists in high-stress fields with security clearances can face personal challenges, accidents or unrelated crimes.

A former nuclear official told reporters that the probe could uncover “crazy stuff” but stressed the need for thorough, evidence-based analysis rather than conspiracy narratives. Independent experts in intelligence and security have pointed out that while the cluster is unusual, proving causation requires forensic links, timeline overlaps and motive evidence that current public information does not fully provide.

The timing has heightened concerns. Several cases clustered in the Los Angeles area near JPL and Caltech, while others center in New Mexico around Los Alamos, a key nuclear research hub. Disappearances of personnel with security clearances raise questions about potential insider threats, data exfiltration or external recruitment attempts by adversaries.

NASA stated it is cooperating fully with federal partners and reviewing internal security protocols for personnel involved in sensitive missions. The agency has not commented on specific individuals but noted that employee safety remains a priority.

The House Oversight Committee’s demand for information highlights possible gaps in inter-agency information sharing. Letters sent to the FBI, Pentagon, DOE and NASA seek details on any common threads, including shared projects, clearances or external contacts.

Public reaction has been intense, with viral posts and cable news segments amplifying the story. Some commentators draw parallels to historical patterns of suspicious scientist deaths during the Cold War or in other nations, though direct comparisons remain speculative.

Authorities urge patience as investigations proceed. Local law enforcement in California and New Mexico continue active searches and probes into individual cases, sharing findings with federal teams. Forensic reviews, digital analysis of communications and background checks on potential suspects or witnesses are underway.

For families of the missing and deceased, the lack of answers has been agonizing. Relatives of Reza and McCasland have made public appeals for information, while others have requested privacy amid the heightened scrutiny.

The broader context includes intensifying global competition in space and nuclear technologies. China and Russia have accelerated their own programs, raising espionage risks. U.S. officials have previously warned about intellectual property theft in aerospace and energy sectors.

Despite the mystery, officials stress that most scientist deaths and disappearances historically prove unrelated upon full investigation. Factors such as age, health issues, travel in remote areas or personal circumstances often explain individual cases once thoroughly examined.

Still, the sheer number and professional overlaps have elevated the matter to a priority national security review. Updates are expected in coming weeks as the FBI and congressional committees receive briefings.

As the probe deepens, questions linger about whether these tragedies represent coincidence amplified by public attention or something more deliberate targeting expertise critical to America’s technological edge. For now, the mystery surrounding the 11 scientists continues to unsettle Washington and the scientific community alike.

Trump Media & Technology Group on Tuesday named an interim chief executive as Devin Nunes stepped aside, marking a leadership transition at the parent of Truth Social following recent board departures and steep financial losses in 2025.

The company appointed longtime advisor Kevin McGurn as interim CEO effective immediately, succeeding Nunes, who has led the company since 2022. McGurn brings more than two decades of experience across media, telecommunications and advertising technology, according to the company.

The leadership shift comes as Trump Media continues to report significant losses relative to its revenue. The company posted a net loss of more than $712 million in 2025 – on roughly $3.7 million in revenue, according to its annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

GOP SENATOR WILL BLOCK WARSH NOMINATION UNTIL ‘BOGUS’ POWELL PROBE ENDS

Financial disclosures show expenses far outpaced revenue, including more than $576 million in operating costs. A substantial portion of the losses was tied to write-downs and losses related to digital assets, highlighting the company’s exposure to volatile investment areas.

“I want to thank Devin Nunes for his dedicated service to the Company over the past four years, and congratulate Kevin McGurn on his appointment as Interim CEO,” Donald Trump Jr., a board member, said in a statement.

TRUMP MEDIA TO MERGE WITH TAE TECHNOLOGIES, CREATING ONE OF THE FIRST PUBLICLY-TRADED FUSION COMPANIES

Nunes said the transition comes as the company enters a new phase, adding it was “an appropriate time” for McGurn to take over leadership while he shifts focus to other roles, including serving as chairman of the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

Ticker	Security	Last	Change	Change %
DJT	TRUMP MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY GROUP CORP	9.82	-0.38	-3.73%

The leadership change follows a series of recent board departures disclosed in regulatory filings. Former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer resigned from the board in March, and director Eric Swider stepped down earlier this month. The company said in both cases the exits were not due to any dispute with management.

TRUMP MEDIA BACKS 5 AMERICA-FOCUSED ETFS

Trump Media, which operates the Truth Social platform along with its streaming service Truth+ and fintech brand Truth.Fi, has sought to expand beyond social media into areas including financial services and digital assets as it looks to grow its business.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

The company has framed the leadership transition as part of its next phase, with McGurn expected to guide operations and strategic initiatives moving forward.

Royal Mail has put a £500 million price tag on rescuing its battered reputation for on-time delivery, unveiling a five-year recovery plan that will see Saturday second-class post wound down from May and thousands of part-time posties asked to take on full-time hours.

The pledge marks the first substantive operational reset under Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky, whose EP Group completed its £3.5 billion take-private of parent group International Distributions Services last year, lifting Britain’s letters monopoly off the London Stock Exchange after more than a decade as a quoted company.

Under the blueprint, the 510-year-old postal operator will spend £100 million a year creating the equivalent of 3,000 full-time delivery roles, achieved largely by persuading roughly 6,000 part-timers to lift their average week to 35 hours. The company has secured trade union backing for the package, no small feat in a business that has weathered some of the most bruising industrial disputes in recent British corporate history.

The numbers behind the overhaul lay bare just how far standards have slipped. Against a regulatory benchmark of delivering 93 per cent of first-class mail the next day, Royal Mail is currently managing 77 per cent, leaving nearly one letter in four arriving late. Second-class performance is little better, with 91 per cent landing on doormats within three days against a target of 98.5 per cent.

Ofcom has already softened the rulebook in the wake of the Kretinsky takeover, easing the universal service obligation to permit non-first-class items to be delivered on alternate days and trimming the regulatory targets to 90 per cent for next-day first-class and 95 per cent for three-day second-class. Royal Mail says it will hit those revised thresholds within twelve months of the new regime bedding in.

For SME owners and finance directors who have long complained that unreliable post is gumming up invoicing, contract delivery and customer correspondence, the proof will be in the doormat. The company’s own diagnosis pinpoints “completion rates of delivery routes” as the central failure, with an estimated 8 per cent of rounds either under-resourced or too unwieldy to be finished within the working day. A targeted shake-up of working practices is planned at the weakest performers among Royal Mail’s 1,200 delivery offices, with fresh recruitment focused on Oxford, Cambridge and London, where staff shortages have been most acute.

The pay backdrop is also instructive. Posties hired since 2022 are on the equivalent of £27,200 a year, around £1,800 below the £29,000 paid to longer-serving colleagues, a two-tier structure that has fuelled retention difficulties and which the move to fuller hours is designed, in part, to mitigate.

Alistair Cochrane, chief executive of Royal Mail, struck a contrite note. “We recognise our service hasn’t always been the standard our customers rightly expect and we’re determined to do better,” he said. His chairman went further when grilled by MPs in recent weeks, with Mr Kretinsky telling a parliamentary inquiry: “We are sorry for every letter that has arrived late,” before describing operations as “not perfect but not catastrophic”.

The political optics matter. The universal service obligation, baked in when David Cameron’s coalition floated Royal Mail in 2013, has been the convenient scapegoat for years of underperformance. With Ofcom now having loosened that corset, the excuses are wearing thin. Of Royal Mail’s 130,000-strong workforce, 80,000 are front-line delivery staff, and it is on their rounds that Mr Kretinsky’s £500 million bet will ultimately stand or fall.

For Britain’s small businesses, many of which still rely on the post for everything from cheques to compliance documents, the message from Mount Pleasant is one of cautious optimism. Whether the new owners can succeed where successive management teams have stumbled remains the open question.

---

LOS ANGELES — With less than two months until the 2026 FIFA World Cup kicks off on American soil, organizers are grappling with unexpectedly sluggish ticket sales for the host nation’s opening match, as high prices appear to be deterring fans from snapping up seats for the United States men’s national team’s June 12 clash against Paraguay at SoFi Stadium.

An internal document dated April 10 and distributed to local organizers showed only 40,934 tickets purchased for the marquee Group D opener, according to a report by The Athletic. That figure lags behind other matches at the same venue, including 50,661 tickets sold for Iran versus New Zealand three days later. SoFi Stadium has a listed World Cup capacity of 69,650, leaving a significant number of seats potentially available just weeks before the tournament begins.

FIFA has not publicly disputed the sales numbers but has declined to provide detailed clarification on whether the figures include hospitality packages or other non-general admission tickets. The governing body announced Tuesday a fresh round of ticket inventory for all 104 matches would go on sale starting Wednesday at 8 a.m. PDT, signaling an effort to boost demand across the board.

When tickets first went on general sale in October following the draw, the U.S.-Paraguay match was priced as the third-most expensive fixture of the entire tournament, behind only the final and one semifinal. Category 1 tickets carried a price tag of $2,730, Category 2 tickets $1,940 and Category 3 tickets $1,120. Those premium prices have remained frozen even as other matches saw adjustments or stronger uptake.

Fans and analysts have pointed to the steep costs as the primary culprit. Many supporters expressed sticker shock on social media and forums, with some opting instead for resale markets where secondary prices have also softened in recent weeks. American Outlaws, the largest U.S. supporters group, voiced frustration over pricing that they say prices out average families and dedicated fans.

The slow sales contrast sharply with the excitement surrounding the expanded 48-team tournament co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico. The U.S. opener was billed as a glamorous curtain-raiser in the glittering SoFi Stadium, home to the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams and Chargers. Yet demand has not matched the hype, raising questions about FIFA’s pricing strategy and a possible miscalculation of the USMNT’s domestic drawing power for a group-stage game against a relatively modest opponent like Paraguay.

Paraguay, ranked outside the top 20 by FIFA, does not bring a large traveling fan base to Los Angeles, further limiting organic demand. In contrast, matches featuring larger diaspora communities or more attractive matchups have moved tickets faster in some host cities.

Broader ticket sales for the 2026 World Cup have shown uneven patterns. While high-profile later-stage games and certain group fixtures with strong international interest have performed well, several opening-round matches — including some not involving host nations — have also lagged. FIFA has responded by launching additional sales phases and introducing new inventory, but critics argue the organization has been reluctant to lower prices on premium categories for high-visibility U.S. games.

The situation highlights ongoing challenges for soccer in the United States. Despite growing popularity of Major League Soccer, the English Premier League and domestic interest in the USMNT during major tournaments, filling massive NFL-caliber venues for every match remains difficult. The USMNT has historically drawn strong crowds for friendlies and Gold Cup games in smaller or mid-sized stadiums, but scaling that enthusiasm to 70,000-seat arenas at premium pricing has proven tougher.

U.S. Soccer Federation officials have expressed confidence that sales will accelerate as the tournament nears and excitement builds. “We’re focused on delivering an unforgettable experience for fans,” a spokesperson said, noting that hospitality and corporate packages may account for some of the discrepancy in reported general sales figures.

Still, the optics are not ideal for a host nation less than 60 days from its opening match. Resale platforms show thousands of tickets listed for the U.S.-Paraguay game, with some Category 1 seats trading below face value in recent days. That secondary market activity suggests FIFA may need to consider further incentives or adjustments to avoid a half-empty stadium for one of the most anticipated games of the group stage.

The pricing controversy is not isolated. Earlier sales phases were marred by website glitches, long virtual queues and frustration over dynamic pricing elements. FIFA has defended its approach by noting that average ticket prices across the tournament remain comparable to or lower than recent World Cups when adjusted for inflation and venue scale. However, the premium positioning of the U.S. opener has drawn particular backlash.

Local organizers in Los Angeles, including representatives from SoFi Stadium and regional tourism bodies, are monitoring the situation closely. A strong turnout for the opener could set a positive tone for the dozens of matches scheduled across California and other U.S. venues. Conversely, visible empty seats could dampen the atmosphere and generate unfavorable headlines as the tournament launches.

The USMNT, under coach Mauricio Pochettino, enters the World Cup with rising expectations after solid performances in recent qualifying and friendlies. Players and staff have avoided commenting directly on ticket sales, focusing instead on on-field preparations. Captain Tyler Adams emphasized the importance of fan support, saying, “Having the home crowd behind us from the first whistle will be massive.”

Paraguay coach has downplayed any advantage from potential lower attendance, calling the match a historic opportunity regardless of the crowd size.

As FIFA pushes the new sales phase, attention turns to whether lower-category tickets or promotional bundles can move the needle. Some analysts suggest that bundling with other group-stage matches or offering family packages could help, though FIFA has given no indication of major price reductions on the flagship U.S. game.

The broader 2026 World Cup ticketing picture remains mixed. Matches in cities with large immigrant communities from participating nations have generally sold better, while neutral or less glamorous fixtures have faced similar headwinds. Overall sales have reached millions of tickets, but the flagship U.S. opener’s performance has stood out as a concern.

With the tournament fast approaching, FIFA faces pressure to fill venues and create the electric atmosphere expected of soccer’s biggest event on home soil for the United States. The coming weeks will reveal whether pent-up demand or last-minute buying surges can close the gap, or if pricing strategy will leave a notable void in SoFi Stadium on June 12.

For now, the slow movement of tickets for the USMNT’s World Cup debut serves as an early test of how effectively the world’s most popular sport can captivate American audiences when ticket costs reach thousands of dollars per seat.

British businesses racing to embed artificial intelligence into their products risk leaving millions of disabled consumers behind unless they bring them into the design process from the outset, according to fresh research from the Business Disability Forum (BDF).

A poll of 1,032 disabled UK adults, conducted with Opinium, found that two in five (40%) believe designing, developing and testing AI products with disabled people is the single most effective way to make the technology genuinely accessible. The same survey identified more user-friendly interfaces (38%), better information about how AI can support disabled users (37%) and stronger onboarding support (36%) as further priorities.

For SMEs in particular, many of whom are weighing how, and how quickly, to integrate AI into customer-facing tools, the findings carry a clear commercial message. Roughly one in four people in the UK will experience disability at some point in their lifetime, representing a significant share of the consumer base and the workforce. Building products that fail to accommodate that audience is, increasingly, a competitive liability as well as an ethical one.

The research suggests considerable optimism about what the technology can deliver. More than a third of disabled adults said AI tools could help by improving communications (38%) and online experiences (34%). Other anticipated benefits included better access to healthcare information (33%), education (32%), digital content (32%), support for independent living (31%), improved customer experience (25%) and better access to employment (24%).

That optimism, however, is tempered by significant scepticism. One in five disabled UK adults (20%) said they did not believe AI products would help them at all, while a further 18% said they simply did not know, a sizeable trust gap that businesses will need to close if they want adoption to follow investment.

A parallel Opinium poll of 2,000 UK adults found broadly similar attitudes across the wider population, with 34% agreeing that co-designing AI products with disabled users would improve accessibility, evidence that inclusive design is increasingly viewed as a mainstream expectation rather than a niche concern.

Lara Davis, communications director at Business Disability Forum, said the stakes were considerable. “There is the potential for AI products and tools to make a radical and positive difference to disabled people’s lives, but there is also the risk that disabled people could be left behind,” she said. “With AI developing at pace and one in four people experiencing disability at some point in their lives, this is not an issue that we can afford to overlook.”

Davis urged firms to “actively consult with their disabled consumers to make sure they are involved in the design, development and testing of AI products”, alongside providing better access to information and advice about the technology more generally.

Lucy Ruck, who leads BDF’s Tech Taskforce, was equally direct. “AI has the capacity to transform lives, but only if we get inclusion right from the start,” she said. “Making sure that disabled people are active participants in shaping this technology isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s how we build AI that genuinely serves everyone.”

The forum has set out four recommendations for businesses and developers. They are urged to involve disabled people throughout the AI lifecycle, on the basis that inclusive design removes barriers for everyone, not only disabled consumers. They should publish clear information about the accessibility features of their AI products, in formats tailored to differing communication needs. Compatibility with assistive technology, on which many disabled users rely daily, must be tested rather than assumed. And ethical judgement and meaningful human oversight should be built into both the tools themselves and the content they generate, with inclusive training data used to reduce bias and stereotype.

For SME founders and product leaders, the message is one that has been heard before in other waves of digital transformation: retrofitting accessibility is invariably more expensive, and less effective, than designing it in from the start.

---