Kraft Heinz announced plans to split into two separately traded companies, reversing its 2015 megamerger, which was orchestrated by billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
As both consumers and regulators push back against ultra-processed foods, the companies that make them have been splitting up or divesting iconic brands. Last year, Unilever spun off its ice cream business into The Magnum Ice Cream Company. Kraft Heinz is preparing to break up later this year, undoing much of the merger forged more than a decade ago by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and private equity firm 3G Capital. And Keurig Dr Pepper is planning a similar split after it finishes its acquisition of JDE Peet’s.
In 2024, nearly half of mergers and acquisitions activity in the consumer products industry came from divestitures, according to consulting firm Bain. Over the next three years, 42% of M&A executives in the consumer products industry are preparing an asset for sale, a Bain survey found.
Of course, the trend isn’t confined to just the consumer packaged goods industry. Industrial companies like GE and Honeywell have pursued their own breakups in recent years. It’s happening too in legacy media; Comcast spun off many of its cable assets into CNBC owner Versant, while Warner Bros. Discovery is planning to spin off its cable networks later this year as Netflix acquires its streaming and studios division.
“In many of the spaces that we’re seeing this type of activity, there are many very fierce competitive pressures that are making it harder to operate,” said Emilie Feldman, a professor at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Advertisement
The squeeze on packaged food and beverage companies comes from lower demand, which has led to shrinking volume for many of their products. To turn around their businesses and win back investors, they are counting on dumping underperforming brands.
February will bring both quarterly earnings reports and presentations at the annual CAGNY Conference, offering investors more opportunities to hear about food executives’ plans for their portfolios. Companies to watch include Kraft Heinz, which could share more details on its upcoming split, and Nestle, which is considering selling off multiple brands in its portfolio.
Cases of Dr. Pepper are displayed at a Costco Wholesale store on April 27, 2025 in San Diego, California.
Kevin Carter | Getty Images
Advertisement
Shrinking sales
For more than a decade, consumers have been buying fewer groceries from the inner aisles of the grocery store, instead focusing on the outer aisles with fresh produce and protein. The pandemic served as the exception, as many consumers returned to the brands that they knew. However, price hikes and “shrinkflation” as life eased back to normal largely erased that shift in behavior.
More recently, regulators, emboldened by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda espoused by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have put both more pressure and a bigger spotlight on processed foods. And the rise of GLP-1 drugs to combat diabetes and obesity have meant some of food companies’ key consumers have lost their appetite for the sweet and salty snacks that they used to eat.
As a percentage of overall spending, the consumer packaged goods industry has held onto its market share. But the biggest companies are losing customers to upstart brands or private-label products, according to Bain partner Peter Horsley.
On average, about 35% of large consumer products companies’ portfolios are in categories with more than 7% growth, Horsley said. For comparison, over half of private-label brands are in high-growth categories, like yogurt and functional beverages, and for insurgent brands, it’s even higher.
Advertisement
For Big Food, the result has been slowing — or even declining — sales, followed by stock declines. In some cases, activist investors push for companies to focus more on their core offerings and to offload so-called distractions.
“You’re seeing a lot of pressure from a valuation standpoint, especially for these publicly traded companies,” said Raj Konanahalli, partner and managing director of AlixPartners. “One way to reset expectations is to really kind of focus more on the core offerings and dispose or divest the slower, capital-intensive or non-core businesses.”
While getting bigger helped food companies develop scale, enter new markets and grow their sales, it also made their businesses much more complex, according to Konanahalli. Become too big, and it becomes too difficult to make decisions quickly or to decide how and where to invest back into the business.
To be sure, some of these divestitures and breakups follow deals that seem to have been ill-advised from the start. Look no further than the merger of Keurig Green Mountain and Dr Pepper Snapple Group in 2018, to form Keurig Dr Pepper.
Advertisement
“Frankly the surprise to us was the decision back in 2018 when Keurig Green Mountain acquired the Dr Pepper Snapple Group in an $18.7 billion deal to create Keurig Dr Pepper in the first place,” Barclays analysts Patrick Folan and Lauren Lieberman wrote in a note to clients in August when the breakup was announced. “At the time, it was seen as both odd and a very left field deal with the questionable logic of combining coffee and [carbonated soft drinks].”
(When the merger was announced in 2018, Lieberman said on a conference call with executives from both companies that she was still “scratching my head” about the logic of the deal for both players).
Shares of Keurig Dr Pepper have risen 37% since the merger. The S&P 500 has climbed 150% over the same period.
To sell or not to sell
Like many industries, the packaged food industry has gone through cycles of expansion and contraction, according to Feldman. For example, Kraft spun off a snacking business that includes Oreos into Mondelez in 2012, just three years before it merged with Heinz.
Advertisement
However, in recent years, expanding through acquisitions has required more sophisticated thinking and execution.
“If you go back to those glory years of pre-2015, the rules of the game in consumer products felt fairly simple, at least if you’re a global company,” Bain’s Horsley said. “You bought another company that was relatively similar to you. You integrated it together, you pulled out the cost synergies … and then that gave you good top-line and bottom-line growth. But the rules of the game have changed.”
Around 2015, upstarts like Chobani or BodyArmor began stealing market share from legacy brands. As a result, food giants needed to become more thoughtful about what they were acquiring and how they were managing their portfolios, according to Horsley.
For a cautionary tale, look no further than Kraft Heinz, formed by a mega-merger in 2015. Investors initially cheered the deal, but their enthusiasm waned as the combined company’s U.S. sales began lagging. Then came write-downs of many of its iconic brands, like Kraft, Oscar Mayer, Maxwell House and Velveeta, in addition to a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission related to its accounting policies and internal controls.
Advertisement
With the benefit of hindsight, analysts and investors have blamed much of Kraft Heinz’s downward spiral on the brutal cost-cutting strategy imposed after the merger. The company’s leadership was too focused on slashing costs and not enough on investing back into its brands, particularly at a time when consumer tastes were changing.
Since Kraft Heinz began trading as one company, shares have tumbled 73%.
But not everyone is sold that getting rid of underperforming brands will benefit shareholders.
“If you don’t fix the underlying capability, it doesn’t matter how many brands you sell or don’t sell,” RBC Capital Markets analyst Nik Modi said. “They’re not addressing the root problem. It’s just something to make investors happy because it seems like they’re making a change.”
Advertisement
One breakup that Modi agrees with is that of Kellogg, which split into the snacks-focused Kellanova and cereal-centric WK Kellogg in 2023. Last year, chocolatier Ferrero snapped up WK Kellogg for $3.1 billion, while Mars closed its $36 billion acquisition of Kellanova.
From Modi’s perspective, the breakup created more value for shareholders than the combined business did. Kellogg’s high-growth snack business was much more viable as an acquisition target without the sluggish cereal division attached. Plus, the two strategic buyers are both privately held companies that don’t have to worry about sharing quarterly earnings with the public.
Some investors are hoping for the same outcome with Kraft Heinz.
“The view that many have had is the best way to create value is split the companies and hope that you can create a Kellanova 2.0 where both entities get acquired at some point down the line, and that’s where value creation happens,” said Peter Galbo, analyst at Bank of America Securities.
Advertisement
Kraft Heinz hired Steve Cahillane, the former CEO of Kellogg and then Kellanova, as its chief executive. Once the company separates, Cahillane will serve as chief executive of Global Taste Elevation, the placeholder name for the spinoff with high-growth brands like Heinz and Philadelphia.
Steve Cahillane, President and CEO, Kellogg Company accepts Salute To Greatness Corporate Award during 2020 Salute to Greatness Awards Gala at Hyatt Regency Atlanta on January 18, 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia.
Paras Griffin | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images
But acquiring either company resulting from the Kraft Heinz split would be a pretty big acquisition, making it less likely that either is snapped up, according to Galbo. And the resulting uncertainty about the value creation from the breakup is maybe why Berkshire Hathaway, the company’s largest shareholder, is preparing to exit its 27.5% stake in Kraft Heinz.
Advertisement
Food divestitures pick up
A month into the new year, it’s unlikely that the divestiture trend will slow down.
On Tuesday, General Millsannounced that it is selling its Muir Glen brand of organic tomatoes to focus on its core brands. And last week, Bloomberg reported that Nestle is preparing the sale of its water unit; the Swiss giant is also reportedly considering offloading upscale coffee brand Blue Bottle and its underperforming vitamin brands.
And if Big Food is making any acquisitions, the deals are more likely to involve “insurgent brands,” according to Bain. Over the last five years, acquisitions with a value of less than $2 billion represented 38% of total consumer products deals, up from 16% in the period from 2014 to 2019, the firm said. For example, last year, PepsiCo bought prebiotic soda brand Poppi for $1.95 billion and Hershey snapped up LesserEvil popcorn for $750 million.
Bigger deals are harder to come by because of the current regulatory environment, Konanahalli said. Buyers might not be strategic players, but instead private equity firms with plenty of cash on hand. For example, in January, L Catterton bought a majority stake in cottage cheese upstart Good Culture.
Advertisement
But a flashy divestiture or acquisition might not be the solution to a food conglomerate’s woes — or a surefire way to lift the stock price. Sometimes, good old-fashioned elbow grease can work even better.
“Just because it seems like the wind is blowing your way, it doesn’t mean that you can’t put in some hard work and turn things around,” AlixPartners’ Konanahalli said.
Dozens of apartments could be created within Preston’s Miller Arcade as part of a major redevelopment of the historic city shopping precinct.
Advertisement
Plans have been unveiled which would see the vacant upper floors of the 19th-century premises brought back into use after years of standing empty.
A total of 46 properties are proposed across the top three storeys of the Grade II-listed building – bound by Church Street, Lancaster Road, Birley Street and the Flag Market – along with communal facilities for residents.
If the blueprint is approved, the retail units on the ground floor of the arcade – which became the first indoor shopping area in the city when it opened in 1899 – would continue to trade as normal.
The conversion proposal – by Darwen-based Icon Heritage Limited – comes 11 years after a similar vision put forward by a different company was given the nod by city planners. That scheme, unlike the current one, also featured a new restaurant and a roof garden – but was ultimately never delivered.
Advertisement
The plans now on the table are for 24 one-bed, 18 two-bed and four ‘studio’ flats whose occupiers would have shared access to a cinema, gym, library, workspace, meeting room, kitchen and lounge. Access would come via an existing doorway on Lancaster Road, beneath the existing gold-plated ‘Miller House’ sign.
The much-loved landmark is renowned for its Victorian Baroque architecture and was modelled on the larger Burlington Arcade in London.
The floors now earmarked for apartments once housed hotels, a Turkish Baths, a wine lodge and, most recently, offices.
According to documents lodged with Preston City Council, the only external alterations that would be required by the proposed conversion would be repairs to the building’s fabric and the refurbishment of its windows – which would also be upgraded with ‘secondary glazing’ to help block out noise and retain heat.
Advertisement
The necessary internal reconfiguration will take “a sensitive design approach that prioritises the retention of existing architectural features…which are considered heritage assets”, a planning statement explains.
It adds: “Introducing residential spaces into the building brings a new life – and the new use will help bring Miller Arcade back to becoming [of] even greater importance in Preston.”
The applicant sought advice from the city council before submitting their plans and was advised that the principle of the proposal was “wholly acceptable”.
To find all the planning applications, traffic diversions, road layout changes, alcohol licence applications and more in your community, visit the Public Notices Portal.
Ford is recalling more than 450,000 vehicles in the U.S. in two separate actions over safety issues that federal regulators say could increase the risk of a crash.
The largest recall covers 412,774 model year 2017-2019 Ford Explorer SUVs due to a rear suspension toe link that can fracture, potentially affecting steering control.
Advertisement
Toe links help maintain rear wheel alignment. If one breaks, it can cause changes in vehicle handling and raise the risk of a crash, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
A 2017 Ford Explorer equipped with the XLT Sport Appearance Package. (Ford Motor Co.)
NHTSA said dealers will replace the rear suspension toe links with a revised, stronger design, free of charge for affected vehicles.
Ford told FOX Business that it is not aware of any injuries related to this issue.
Advertisement
The automaker said notification to dealers is expected to begin on Feb. 25, and owner notification letters are expected to be mailed starting March 9.
Ford sign at a dealership in Richmond, California, June 21, 2024. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
In a separate action, Ford is also recalling 40,655 vehicles to address battery failures and brake pedal defects, which regulators said could increase crash risk.
A Ford logo is seen against the backdrop of a city skyline. (Jeff Kowalsky/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The latest recalls follow a record year for the automaker. In 2025, Ford issued 103 safety recalls, surpassing its previous annual high with months still remaining in the calendar year, according to a Kelley Blue Book report previously cited by FOX Business.
Ford has said its recall activity reflects efforts to identify and fix potential defects quickly and that it has expanded its team of safety and technical experts in recent years to improve quality and compliance.
Meta Platforms Inc.’s stock has pulled back in February 2026, trading around $636 to $639 after shedding about 2-3% in recent sessions amid investor concerns over the company’s massive $115 billion to $135 billion capital expenditure guidance for the year, even as core advertising revenue surges and new AI infrastructure deals signal long-term momentum.
Meta Platforms
As of February 24, 2026, Meta (NASDAQ: META) closed at approximately $636.07, down modestly from recent highs near $655-$660 earlier in the month. The shares have retreated from an all-time peak of around $788-$796 in mid-2025, reflecting a roughly 18-20% decline from that level. Year-to-date performance remains positive but tempered by volatility tied to AI spending fears and broader market dynamics.
The pressure intensified following Meta’s blockbuster Q4 and full-year 2025 earnings released January 28, 2026. The company reported record revenue of $59.89 billion for the quarter, up 24% year-over-year (23% on constant currency), surpassing analyst expectations. Full-year revenue reached $200.97 billion, a 22% increase from 2024. Diluted earnings per share hit $8.88 in Q4, beating estimates, while full-year net income stood at $60.46 billion despite a one-time tax impact from legislative changes.
Advertising, the core driver, delivered $58.14 billion in Q4, up significantly, fueled by 18% growth in ad impressions and 6% higher average price per ad. Family of Apps revenue climbed 25% to $58.94 billion, with daily active people averaging 3.58 billion in December 2025, up 7% year-over-year. Reality Labs, encompassing metaverse and wearables, posted $955 million in revenue but a $6.02 billion operating loss in Q4, though management indicated losses would peak in 2026 before declining.
Meta guided aggressively on investments, forecasting 2026 capex of $115 billion to $135 billion—roughly double 2025’s $72.22 billion—to build out AI infrastructure, data centers, and compute capacity. CEO Mark Zuckerberg emphasized advancing “personal superintelligence” through agentic AI models that personalize feeds, ads, commerce, and messaging. The spending aims to close the gap in generative AI capabilities, with internal AI tools already flattening teams and boosting productivity.
Advertisement
A major validation arrived February 24, 2026, when Meta announced a multi-year, multi-generation partnership with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. to deploy up to 6 gigawatts of AMD Instinct GPUs starting in the second half of 2026. The deal, powered by custom MI450-based chips and Helios rack-scale architecture, represents “double-digit billions” per gigawatt and includes Meta gaining warrants for up to 160 million AMD shares. Shipments for the initial gigawatt begin soon, diversifying Meta beyond Nvidia dominance while supporting next-gen AI workloads.
The AMD pact sparked gains in AMD shares but offered mixed relief for Meta investors wary of execution risks and margin pressure from elevated spending. Free cash flow remains robust at $43.59 billion for 2025, with operating cash flow near $116 billion and cash reserves of $81.59 billion, providing flexibility for dividends, buybacks, and investments.
Meta continues pushing AI across products. Llama models advance open-source efforts, while Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses see explosive demand—sales tripled in recent periods, with waitlists extending into 2026 and international rollout paused due to supply constraints. Updates include enhanced Meta AI features like live translation and detailed visual responses. The company teases further wearables, including a potential smartwatch launch in 2026.
Wall Street leans bullish despite near-term headwinds. Consensus among 43-49 analysts rates Meta a Moderate to Strong Buy, with average 12-month price targets ranging from $835 to $864, implying 31-36% upside from current levels. High targets reach $1,144, low ends around $605-$700. Recent updates include Wells Fargo raising to $856 and others maintaining overweight stances, citing advertising resilience, AI monetization potential, and strong cash generation.
Advertisement
Critics highlight risks: heavy capex could compress margins if AI returns lag, competition from OpenAI, Google, and others intensifies, and regulatory pressures persist. Yet proponents argue Meta’s scale—over 3.5 billion users—and proven ad efficiency position it to capture AI-driven growth. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman recently disclosed a stake, calling the stock undervalued compared to peers.
The next catalyst arrives with Q1 2026 earnings in late April, where updates on capex deployment, AI traction, and guidance revisions will be scrutinized. Positive signs of monetization from agentic features and wearables could fuel a rebound; delays might prolong volatility.
Meta stands at a transformative juncture. Its advertising dominance and user base provide a sturdy foundation, while aggressive AI bets—including partnerships, open models, and wearables—aim to secure future leadership. Investors betting on execution see current levels as an attractive entry amid the AI infrastructure buildout.
Ford Motor Co.’s stock has traded in a narrow range around $13.60 to $14.00 in late February 2026, reflecting investor focus on the automaker’s improved profitability outlook for the year despite a disappointing fourth-quarter earnings miss and ongoing challenges in its electric vehicle segment.
A logo of Ford
As of February 23, 2026, Ford (NYSE: F) closed at $13.64, down 2.64% on the day amid broader market pressures, with shares hovering near the upper end of its recent trading band. The stock has shown resilience year-to-date, climbing modestly from late-2025 levels, supported by a 49% gain over the prior 12 months driven by the company’s strategic shift toward hybrids and away from aggressive EV expansion. The 52-week high stands at $14.50, while the low is around $8.44.
The recent dip followed a February 10 earnings report where Ford posted mixed results for Q4 and full-year 2025. The company reported adjusted earnings per share of $0.13 for the quarter, beating some low expectations but missing consensus forecasts of around $0.19. Revenue came in at approximately $45.89 billion for Q4, above estimates, though full-year adjusted EBIT landed at $6.8 billion—near the company’s guided range but below some analyst projections.
Special items weighed heavily, including a massive $19.5 billion writedown tied to restructuring its Model e EV unit, supplier disruptions from a Novelis plant fire impacting aluminum supply for F-Series trucks, and tariff-related costs. These factors contributed to a reported net loss for the quarter and year. Ford Model e posted a $4.8 billion operating loss in 2025, an improvement from prior years but still significant. EV sales declined 14% annually and plunged 52% in Q4 following the loss of federal tax credits.
Investors, however, latched onto Ford’s forward-looking guidance, which painted a brighter picture for 2026. The company projected adjusted EBIT of $8 billion to $10 billion—up from $6.8 billion in 2025—with adjusted free cash flow expected at $5 billion to $6 billion. Capital expenditures are forecasted at $9.5 billion to $10.5 billion, including investments in a new Ford Energy business for battery storage systems. Ford Pro, the commercial vehicles segment, is targeted for $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion in EBIT, while Model e anticipates another $4 billion to $4.5 billion loss but with improvements in Gen 1 products.
Advertisement
Management highlighted a “hybrid-first” strategy to align with customer demand. Hybrids set records in 2025, with U.S. sales exceeding 228,000 units—a 22% increase—and models like the F-150 hybrid maintaining dominance as America’s top-selling full-size hybrid pickup. Ford expects hybrids to play a central role in reaching approximately 50% of global volume from hybrids, extended-range EVs, and full EVs by 2030, up from 17% in 2025. The company plans to offer hybrid options across its North American lineup and introduce affordable EVs on a new Universal EV Platform, with a midsize electric pickup targeted for 2027.
Ford Blue, encompassing ICE and hybrid vehicles, generated $3 billion in operating profit in 2025 despite margin compression. Executives emphasized prioritizing high-demand, profitable products like Maverick hybrids and premium F-150 trims, including V-8, Lariat, and Raptor variants.
Broader initiatives include affordability measures such as entry-level trims for Explorer and Bronco, extended financing, and targeted incentives for former Escape owners following the model’s discontinuation. Ford also plans five new vehicles under $40,000 by decade’s end to address market challenges.
Analysts remain cautiously optimistic, with a consensus “Hold” rating from 15-17 firms. Average 12-month price targets range from $13.02 to $13.09, implying modest downside or flat performance from current levels, though some targets reach $16.00. Bullish views cite hybrid momentum, cost discipline, and potential margin expansion toward an 8% adjusted EBIT target by 2029. Critics point to execution risks in EV restructuring, potential sales softness from limited 2026 launches, and industry headwinds like affordability pressures and flat U.S. volumes.
Advertisement
Recent developments include a dividend declaration of 15 cents per share for Q1 2026, payable March 2 to shareholders of record February 13. Insider activity featured gifts of Class B shares from a voting trust, while the company showcased its UEV platform for efficiency in electric commercial vehicles.
Ford’s trajectory reflects a pragmatic reset in a transitional auto market. With hybrids driving near-term profits and EVs repositioned for longer-term viability, the Dearborn-based automaker aims to balance innovation with financial discipline. Investors will watch Q1 results in late April for updates on hybrid ramp-up, EV cost reductions, and any guidance tweaks amid evolving trade policies and consumer trends.
As legacy automakers navigate electrification, Ford’s hybrid emphasis and profitability focus position it to weather near-term volatility while building toward sustained gains.
Novo Nordisk executive vice president of U.S. operations Dave Moore discusses the drugmaker’s newly launched once-daily oral weight-loss pill on ‘The Claman Countdown.’
Novo Nordisk on Tuesday announced plans to cut the list price of its popular diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy by as much as 50% in the U.S. next year.
The Danish drugmaker indicated the price cuts will be effective on Jan. 1, 2027, and the timing will coincide with new, lower prices for Ozempic and Wegovy under Medicare plans for older Americans.
Advertisement
The company’s announcement indicated the list price for various doses of its Ozempic and Wegovy medicines will be lowered to $675, which represents a 50% price cut for Wegovy and 35% for Ozempic from the current level. The price cuts also apply to Wegovy and Rybelsus pills.
“Lowering the list price of Wegovy and Ozempic is the best approach to address the unprecedented opportunity to help more than 100 million people living with obesity and over 35 million people with type 2 diabetes in the United States,” said Jamey Millar, executive VP of U.S. operations for Novo Nordisk.
Novo Nordisk announced it will cut Wegovy and Ozempic list prices by up to 50% starting next year. (Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“Our actions today answer that call and remove cost barriers so the value of Wegovy and Ozempic can be realized by more patients,” he explained.
Advertisement
“The lower list price is intended to connect more people with our innovative medicines, specifically those whose out-of-pocket costs are linked to list price, such as individuals with high-deductible health plans or co-insurance benefit designs,” Millar added.
Novo Nordisk’s GLP-1 drugs have semaglutide as the active ingredient, which has received FDA approval as a medicine for adults with obesity in the case of Wegovy, while Ozempic is approved for type 2 diabetes.
Additionally, Ozempic injections are FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, while both Wegovy and Ozempic are approved for comorbid cardiovascular disease.
Advertisement
The pricing changes don’t impact direct-to-patient or self-pay prices for consumers.
Wegovy and other GLP-1 drugs are being used for weight-loss as well as treating diabetes. (Shelby Knowles/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The market for so-called GLP-1 drugs has become increasingly competitive and a shift to consumer-driven, cash-pay channels is making price points more sensitive. Novo Nordisk is selling Wegovy on its direct-to-consumer website for $349, which is about one-third of its official list price.
Both Novo Nordisk and a leading rival, Eli Lilly, signed deals with the U.S. government to cut prices this year and sell products through TrumpRx.gov – a website that directs consumers to the companies’ direct-to-consumer websites.
The two companies are facing competition from cheaper compounded versions of the drugs offered by telehealth platforms like Hims & Hers, which are permitted to make and sell the drugs in personalized doses or composition.
| Revenue of $291.60M (-11.34% Y/Y) misses by $28.85M
This article was written by
Seeking Alpha’s transcripts team is responsible for the development of all of our transcript-related projects. We currently publish thousands of quarterly earnings calls per quarter on our site and are continuing to grow and expand our coverage. The purpose of this profile is to allow us to share with our readers new transcript-related developments. Thanks, SA Transcripts Team
ImmunityBio Inc.’s stock has skyrocketed in early 2026, surging more than 500% year-to-date and hitting new 52-week highs above $11 as explosive sales growth for its flagship immunotherapy ANKTIVA, coupled with rapid international regulatory approvals and partnerships, fuels investor enthusiasm for the cancer-focused biotech.
ImmunityBio
As of February 24, 2026, ImmunityBio (NASDAQ: IBRX) shares traded around $11.00 to $11.38 in heavy volume, up sharply from levels near $2 earlier in the year. The rally accelerated dramatically following the company’s February 23 release of full-year 2025 financial results, which highlighted ANKTIVA net product revenue of approximately $113 million—a staggering 700% increase from 2024. Fourth-quarter revenue reached about $38.3 million, up 20% sequentially and reflecting a 431% year-over-year jump in product sales. The company reported a narrowed quarterly net loss of around $62 million, with per-share losses improving to $0.06 from prior periods.
Trading volume spiked to over 85 million shares on February 23—more than double the three-month average—amid the post-earnings momentum. Shares touched a new 52-week high of $11.00 intraday on February 24, with the market capitalization approaching $10 billion to $11 billion, a dramatic valuation expansion for the once-struggling developer of NK cell-activating therapies.
The primary catalyst remains ANKTIVA (nogapendekin alfa inbakicept), an IL-15 superagonist approved by the FDA in April 2024 for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with carcinoma in situ (CIS), with or without papillary tumors. The drug’s mechanism—activating natural killer cells, T cells, and memory T cells—has driven strong uptake, with unit sales volume soaring 750% in 2025.
Global expansion has supercharged the narrative. In January 2026, Saudi Arabia’s SFDA granted accelerated approval for ANKTIVA in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC CIS and, crucially, conditional approval in combination with checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)—the first regulatory nod for ANKTIVA beyond bladder cancer anywhere in the world. Commercial launch in Saudi Arabia is targeted within 60 days, supported by partnerships with Biopharma and Cigalah Healthcare for distribution across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
Advertisement
The European milestone arrived in February 2026 when the European Commission issued conditional marketing authorization for ANKTIVA plus BCG in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC CIS across 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein—covering 30 countries total. This follows the UK MHRA’s July 2025 authorization and makes ANKTIVA the first immunotherapy option in Europe for this high-risk patient population, where alternatives often include radical cystectomy. ImmunityBio highlighted a 71% complete response rate and median duration of 26.6 months from supporting trials, with some responses ongoing beyond 54 months.
These developments have expanded ANKTIVA’s regulatory footprint to 33 countries across four jurisdictions in under two years since initial FDA approval. Management outlined plans for further submissions in 2026, including accelerated pathways ex-U.S. and discussions with the FDA for lung cancer indications. Additional label expansions target multiple tumor types and chemotherapy-induced lymphopenia, backed by ongoing trials like QUILT-3.055 for second-line-plus NSCLC.
In bladder cancer, ImmunityBio advanced discussions with the FDA on resubmitting a supplemental BLA for BCG-unresponsive papillary NMIBC. After a 2025 refuse-to-file letter, the agency requested additional information—no new trials required—which the company submitted within 30 days in January 2026. Enrollment in a BCG-naïve randomized trial exceeds 85% and targets a BLA filing by Q4 2026.
Despite the revenue momentum, challenges persist. Full-year 2025 net losses totaled around $351 million, driven by R&D investments of roughly $64 million in Q4 alone. The company continues to burn cash while scaling commercialization, though improving profitability trends—three consecutive quarters of loss reduction—offer encouragement.
Advertisement
Analysts have grown more bullish amid the catalysts. Some firms highlight the stock’s rapid ascent as reflective of ANKTIVA’s potential to become a cornerstone immunotherapy, with partnerships accelerating international rollout. Consensus leans toward Buy ratings, though volatility remains high given the biotech’s history and execution risks in new markets.
The next major updates include progress on lung cancer submissions, Saudi launch details, and any FDA feedback on papillary bladder cancer resubmission. Positive execution could sustain the rally; delays or financing needs might introduce pullbacks.
ImmunityBio, led by Chairman Patrick Soon-Shiong, has transformed from a development-stage entity into a commercial player with a broadening global presence. ANKTIVA’s rapid revenue ramp and first-in-class approvals position it to address unmet needs in bladder and lung cancers, where durable responses could reshape treatment paradigms. Investors betting on continued momentum see the current valuation as justified by the growth trajectory, even as the company navigates profitability and expansion hurdles in 2026.
