DAYTON, Minn. — Shares of Forgent Power Solutions Inc. jumped 10.09% to $31.53 in Tuesday trading, adding $2.89, after the electrical equipment manufacturer reported record fourth-quarter and full-year results that exceeded the high end of its own prior guidance and pushed its order backlog to an all-time high heading into the new fiscal year.

Forgent, which designs and manufactures electrical distribution equipment for data centers, the power grid and energy-intensive industrial facilities, reported fiscal fourth-quarter revenue of $462 million, up 94% from the same period a year earlier, comfortably surpassing the company’s own guidance range of $392 million to $432 million issued back in May. The company said revenue, adjusted EBITDA and adjusted net income all came in above the top end of that prior guidance.

Bookings for the quarter reached $1.503 billion, a 375% increase from a year earlier, producing a book-to-bill ratio of 3.3 times, meaning the company took in more than three dollars of new orders for every dollar of revenue recognized during the period. That surge in bookings pushed Forgent’s total backlog to $3.0 billion by the end of the fiscal year, up 256% from a year earlier, giving the company what it described as an all-time high level of order visibility heading into fiscal 2027.

Profitability improved sharply alongside the revenue growth. Forgent reported net income of $66 million for the quarter, an increase of $71 million from the prior-year period, when the company posted a net loss. Net income margin reached 14.3%, up roughly 800 basis points from the prior quarter. Adjusted EBITDA came in at $113 million, up 163% year-over-year, with an adjusted EBITDA margin of 24.4%, an improvement of roughly 200 basis points from the previous quarter. Cash flow from operations totaled $74 million for the quarter, an increase of $81 million from the same period last year.

The results cap a rapid first full fiscal year as a public company for Forgent, which began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker FPS on February 5, following an initial public offering that raised approximately $1.7 billion including the exercise of underwriters’ over-allotment option. The company has since returned to capital markets multiple times, including an $885 million follow-on equity offering and a separate upsized public offering of 35 million Class A shares, transactions that left the company with a net cash position of roughly $800 million and a share count of approximately 342 million heading into the latest results.

Forgent’s growth throughout fiscal 2026 has been driven by surging demand for the specialized, “engineered-to-order” electrical distribution equipment it supplies to data center operators and other energy-intensive industrial customers, positioning the company as a direct beneficiary of the broader boom in data center construction tied to artificial intelligence infrastructure spending. The company has described itself as one of a small number of manufacturers capable of producing all of the electrical distribution equipment required for a data center or large manufacturing facility’s powertrain, with some of the shortest lead times and highest levels of customization available in the industry.

That positioning showed up clearly in the company’s quarter-over-quarter trajectory throughout the fiscal year. Forgent’s fiscal third-quarter revenue, reported in May, came in at $379 million, up 103% year-over-year, with bookings of $867 million representing a 308% increase and a book-to-bill ratio of 2.3 times at the time, a level the company has now nearly matched again with Tuesday’s fourth-quarter figures. Speaking after the third-quarter results, Forgent Chief Financial Officer Ryan Fiedler said the company’s accelerating revenue growth was helping it absorb the costs associated with its rapid expansion. “We are raising our guidance to reflect the accelerating demand we are seeing across our business, and we are fully booked against our fourth quarter plan,” Fiedler said at the time. “While our margins continue to be impacted by accelerated hiring and one-time costs at our new facilities, the pace of revenue growth is enabling us to absorb investments in headcount and facilities more quickly.” He added that startup-related costs at the company’s new manufacturing campuses had fallen to approximately 1.8% of revenue that quarter, down from about 2.0% the prior quarter, and said the company expected further sequential improvement in adjusted EBITDA margin in the fourth quarter, a prediction Tuesday’s results appear to have borne out.

Forgent’s rapid growth has not been without volatility for shareholders. Despite Tuesday’s sharp gain, the stock had declined nearly 30% since its previous earnings report heading into Tuesday’s release, according to data tracking the stock’s recent performance, and had fallen more than 42% over the trailing 90 days even as its year-to-date return remained positive. That volatility reflects a broader pattern among richly valued industrial suppliers tied to the AI infrastructure buildout, where investor expectations have at times run ahead of even strong underlying operational results, leaving shares vulnerable to sharp swings around each quarterly report.

Forgent has continued to invest heavily in expanding its manufacturing capacity to keep pace with demand, with a stated goal of reaching capacity capable of supporting up to $5 billion in annual revenue. With backlog now standing at $3.0 billion entering fiscal 2027 and demand from data center and energy-intensive industrial customers showing no signs of slowing, investors are likely to watch closely in the coming quarters for further guidance on how quickly the company’s capacity expansion can convert that backlog into recognized revenue, and whether Tuesday’s sharp rally can hold given the stock’s recent volatility heading into the print.

Sebi has proposed changes to the business continuity and disaster recovery framework for market infrastructure institutions, including stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories, as it looks to make market systems more resilient during disruptions.

The market regulator has issued a consultation paper seeking public feedback on three key areas: reducing the time required for mock disaster recovery drills, strengthening the operational resilience of primary data centres and improving data recovery arrangements for stock exchanges.

The move comes against the backdrop of earlier BCP and DR guidelines for market infrastructure institutions, which were first issued in April 2012 and later strengthened in March 2019 and March 2021. Sebi said learnings from mock disaster recovery drills, testing practices and data recovery arrangements have shown the need for additional norms.

At present, market infrastructure institutions are required to conduct disaster recovery drills for one full trading day. They also have to test intraday shifting from the primary data centre to the disaster recovery site during mock trading sessions to show their preparedness for meeting recovery time and recovery point objectives.

Sebi said this can be cumbersome, especially for exchanges with commodity derivatives segments, where trading in some products can continue till 11:55 pm.

To ease this process, Sebi has proposed that disaster recovery drills should be conducted on a non-working day. The drill would begin at the primary data centre and then shift operations to the disaster recovery site.
The overall session time for such a drill should be at least four hours, including the switchover time from the primary site to the disaster recovery site.Sebi has also proposed that market infrastructure institutions should cover all market operation scenarios during these drills and simulate real-life load and participation close to actual market conditions. The regulator said this would help institutions prepare better for system disruptions during live operations.

The list of scenarios to be tested during these drills will have to be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Technology of the concerned market infrastructure institution.

The regulator has also proposed tighter checks at the primary data centre level. Market infrastructure institutions may have to conduct comprehensive stress testing not only for transaction volumes and orders per second, but also for non-transactional components such as master data, table sizes and database records.

They will also have to regularly test whether backup components such as switches, servers and other systems automatically take over when a primary component fails. The aim is to ensure that business continuity is not affected if there is a failure at the component level.

Sebi has proposed that exchanges and other market institutions should proactively identify, document and monitor boundary conditions and upper limits, such as database size, configuration limits, table size and counter limits. This is meant to detect possible system bottlenecks before activity levels rise enough to breach those limits.

The regulator has also called for better logging of application and component-level errors. Market infrastructure institutions will have to prepare a ready reckoner for interpreting such errors, so that troubleshooting can be faster during disruptions.

Another proposal deals with configuration drift. Sebi has said institutions should carry out periodic tests and alerts to verify controls and configurations across the primary data centre, near site and disaster recovery site. This is to ensure that settings remain aligned across systems and that the disaster recovery site is not operating with different or outdated configurations.

For stock exchanges, Sebi has also proposed a separate data recovery framework. At present, if there is a disruption at a stock exchange, the business continuity protocol involves trying to recover trade data from the near site or disaster recovery site.

However, Sebi said there may be cases where the disruption also affects replication at the near site or disaster recovery site. Since the connectivity between a stock exchange and a clearing corporation is different from the exchange’s link with its own backup sites, the regulator has proposed that exchanges should be able to recover lost data from clearing corporations.

Stock exchanges and clearing corporations will have to put standard operating procedures in place for this purpose.

Disclosure: This article has been written by Podishetti Akash, who is not a SEBI-registered Research Analyst or an Investment Adviser. Podishetti Akash and her ‘relative(s)’ (as defined under Section 2(77) of the Companies Act, 2013) do not hold any financial interest in the companies mentioned in this article as of the date of publication. The views/recommendations mentioned in this article, wherever applicable, are those of the respective SEBI-registered Research Analyst/brokerage and have been reproduced/reported with due attribution. They should not be construed as the views or recommendations of The Economic Times Digital or the journalist. Readers are advised to consider the original research report and make their investment decisions based on their own assessment.

ROUND ROCK, Texas — Dell Technologies shares rose 4.68% to $559.26 in midmorning trading Tuesday, up $24.98, recovering most of Monday’s slide after the company last week posted record artificial-intelligence server orders and lifted full-year targets.

The stock had closed Monday at $534.28, down 5.82% from Friday’s $567.29 finish. Friday’s session set a 52-week high of $567.75 after RBC Capital Markets initiated coverage at outperform with a $640 target. Tuesday’s bounce left Dell still below that peak but well above the $110.22 low of the past year. The Class C shares are up more than 300% in 2026.

There was no new Dell filing on Tuesday. The tape was a rebound in AI infrastructure names after a risk-off Monday. The fundamental story is the fiscal second-quarter report released around Sept. 1. Revenue was about $47 billion, up 58% from a year earlier. Adjusted earnings were $7.04 a share, up 203%. AI server orders in the quarter were a record $60.9 billion. The AI server backlog stood at $95 billion.

Dell raised full-year revenue guidance by $25 billion, to $192 billion at the midpoint, about 70% growth. Non-GAAP earnings guidance moved to $25.50 a share, about 150% higher than the prior year and up from $17.90 previously. AI server revenue for the year was lifted by $14 billion, to $74 billion, triple last year’s total. Traditional servers are expected to grow just over 100%, storage in the mid-teens and client PCs in the mid-teens.

For the current quarter, management guided revenue of $49 billion at the midpoint, up about 80%. Infrastructure Solutions Group is seen growing about 145%, with $19 billion of AI server sales. Client revenue is expected up about 15%. Non-GAAP earnings are guided to $6.50 a share.

“We’ve had a strong first half of the year and we expect the second half to be stronger,” the company said in its results commentary. “The momentum we’ve seen continues and we are raising our expectations across every line of business.” Chief Operating Officer Jeff Clarke told analysts Dell raised prices to cover component inflation and still increased the annual outlook. Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Dell posted: “There’s an old Texas saying I may have just made up… If you keep growing EPS 200%+ y/y something good will happen.”

RBC analyst David Paige argued the supply chain is the edge. “Dell’s best-in-class supply chain represents a competitive moat that differentiates the company during periods of supply disruption,” he said when he launched coverage.

The risk is the same one that hit memory stocks this month: if hyperscalers stretch server cycles, a $95 billion backlog can age. Dell’s mix is also heavier in lower-margin AI boxes than in classic storage, which is why the company keeps repeating that gross margin excluding AI mix is holding. Tuesday’s buyers treated Monday as noise around a guide that already assumes $74 billion of AI servers this fiscal year.

Dell pays a $2.52 annual dividend, about 0.45% at Tuesday’s price. The next ex-dividend date is Oct. 20. Until the next print, the stock is a claim on whether $19 billion of AI servers ships this quarter and whether the $95 billion backlog converts without another demand scare. Tuesday’s $559 handle says the market is willing to buy the dip. Friday’s $567 high says it already paid up once this month.

Good day: ChatGPT’s arrival kicked off a surge in artificial intelligence startups scoring their first venture funding. The number of venture-capital first financings for AI startups in the U.S. went from about 2,150 in 2022 to almost 3,400 last year. Call them the ChatGPT generation. 

This cohort seemed, to borrow from the Paul Simon song, to be born at the right time: AI turbocharged revenue growth and attracted deep-pocketed investors.  

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

US government borrowing costs climbed to their highest level since 2007 after a jump in oil prices further fuelled concerns about inflation.

The effective interest rate on US government bonds over 10 years, known as the 10-year Treasury yield, rose as high as 5.04% but has eased back since.

Government bond yields have been rising globally for months, driven by worries that inflation caused by the oil price surge since the start of the US-Israel war with Iran will lead to higher interest rates.

The US has been buying back bonds back in a bid to drive the Treasury yield down, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent calling the intervention “successful”.

The global benchmark wholesale oil price rose to over $109 a barrel on Tuesday, up from around $86 at the end of August, after renewed concerns about Saudi Arabia’s ability to export oil following rising tensions in the region.

Investors are anticipating the US Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh will raise interest rates to combat the inflation caused by higher oil prices.

However, US President Donald Trump opposes a rate hike, having long argued lower rates are great for boosting the economy.

He fell out with Warsh’s predecessor Jerome Powell over his decision not to cut rates.

Higher interest rates and inflation tend to drive up the yields bond investors demand on government borrowing.

Bond yields can also be a sign of how much faith investors have in a given government, with a higher yield reflecting less confidence.

Competition for debt from artificial intelligence (AI) firms is also driving up yields.

Tech giants are borrowing massive piles of cash to build huge data centres. This raises interest rates on tech firm’s debt which increases government bond yields in response.

Carol Schleif, chief market strategist at BMO Wealth Management, said bond markets had been signalling for weeks that higher interest rates may be needed.

While the rise in borrowing costs has been “orderly” this year, rather than sudden, she said rates could remain elevated if geopolitical tensions and high energy prices remain “front and center”.

Skip To Content

Bev Craig says ‘We’ve started planning for what future is possible, and that means going underground’

A ‘mega’ project to create Greater Manchester’s own London Underground-style transport system has been backed by mayor Bev Craig with 2050 eyed as a potential opening date.

The enormous scheme would likely cost tens of billions of pounds and take decades to build with the need for government backing, but a new widescale underground transport system has been described by the mayor as the ‘only option’ for Greater Manchester’s future.

Some have speculated that a future underground metro system could mean millions of journeys a day happening below the surface, speeding up the time it takes to get to Greater Manchester’s busiest destinations and lifting pressure from roads, motorways and existing public transport services.

The idea is separate from demands from city leaders in Manchester for an underground railway station at Manchester Piccadilly, which would play a part in boosting railway travel supporting the £45bn Northern Powerhouse Rail project. But a new underground station at Piccadilly is seen as being an essential ‘first step’ ahead of wider plans for Greater Manchester, including the potential for a future underground tube network.

A new underground metro system in the region is far from being a pipedream, bosses at Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) have already spent more than £300,000 on early feasibility and demand studies over future options after it became a key aim of former mayor Andy Burnham.

Work taking place at the moment includes early geological studies, known as ‘route proving’, such as identifying major obstructions such as the Guardian Underground Telephone Exchange, as well as looking at which parts of Greater Manchester’s existing transport network will come under the greatest pressure by 2050.

TfGM’s own timeline for the project could see detailed plans and a business case ready by 2030, with a push to secure the powers and funding to start building by around 2040, ahead of a 2050 potential opening date.

Bev Craig told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “Greater Manchester is the fastest growing city region in the country. Every year more people are coming here to visit, work and live.

“Too often our congested rail network causes delays for passengers and inconvenience for businesses. We need a transport network that helps us go even further – not one that holds us back.

“In Greater Manchester we’ve started planning for what future is possible, and that means going underground.

“A new, modern underground station at Piccadilly is an essential first step in creating jobs and boosting major regeneration here.

“An underground station at Piccadilly would open the door to a wider underground transport system that, for me, is the only option that’s fit for a world-class city region like ours. Over the last few years, I’ve led the campaign for our underground station and, as mayor, I’m continuing to make the case to government to get the right solution for Greater Manchester.

“We also need to think big when it comes to the decades ahead. Our roads are congested and building new networks above ground will be tough. Major cities around the world have gone underground, why can’t Greater Manchester? Manchester Piccadilly station is the first step in unlocking a bright new future.”

It is understood that any tunnelling for a future underground transport system would initially be focused around central Manchester, but a mix of options for how it could work are actively being looked at.

Underground options being explored for the region include a Metrolink relief tunnel going south-west to north-east aligned with the longest serving and busiest Metrolink lines, Altrincham and Bury.

A National Rail relief tunnel is also being looked at, which would go north-west to south-east, aligned with the Castlefield Corridor and Salford Crescent to Piccadilly. This would focus on high-frequency and high-capacity services using an approach similar to the Munich S-Bahn and London’s Elizabeth line.

The third option being looked at is for a wholly segregated underground metro system going north to south, plugging a gap in an area that currently has no tram or train lines running broadly from the Northern Gateway to the Airport via a number of hospitals, universities and other major facilities.

Business leaders and politicians around Greater Manchester have said that the need for a London Underground-style transport system in Greater Manchester is increasingly becoming a ‘must have’.

But to move forward any future project would require firm government backing and hard cash.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham said in 2024 when he was mayor of Greater Manchester that the region ‘has to go underground’ to continue growing. It was a story featured on the front page of the Manchester Evening News and shared by Mr Burnham himself on social media at the time.

The question is whether his government would be willing to turn the plans into reality.

Many figures in Greater Manchester believe the plans must move forward at pace to take some of the stress away from Bee Network trams and buses, as well as easing congestion on roads and motorways.

“An underground tube system is the only credible option for Greater Manchester going forward,” said Robert Downes, regional business manager at the Federation of Small Businesses in Greater Manchester.

“You ask businesses what’s important to them when it comes to transport, and you soon understand where they’re coming from: any system that can move people around at scale can only be a good thing.

“Whether it’s customers or staff, effective mass transportation by whatever means – road, rail, or tram – is a massive boon for businesses.

“Just look at London. It’s a magnet for commerce and that’s partly because the public transport system there is so well-rounded. London is the only place in all the UK where not owning a car is genuinely doable for the many.

“A GM tube could make that a reality here, but it would cost mega-money and take decades to build.”

Mr Downes said that the region’s tram system, ‘while great, is clunky, and takes up valuable overground infrastructure space’.

He added: “To expand it meaningfully in a city region that’s already desperately short on real estate means tunnelling is the only credible path.

“Underground would take much of the pain out of the planning process but the catch is it doesn’t come cheap.

“Ultimately, Greater Manchester needs and deserves better public transport if we are to achieve our ambitions of becoming a truly world leading, global hub.”

Manchester City Council leader Garry Bridges has also supported the need for better transport options around the region.

He said: “It’s right that we look ahead to the transport challenges of the future to ensure Manchester can continue to flourish.

“In this country it can be frustrating how long it takes to build the infrastructure we need which is why it’s important to get ahead of the curve now.

“The first fight we need to win is securing a new underground station at Manchester Piccadilly. This will ensure that the full benefits of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which the Government is committed to, are maximised.

“An underground Piccadilly Station would sit at the heart of the Northern Powerhouse Rail, allowing through services and scope for further growth.

“An underground rapid transit system is an interesting, and potentially exciting idea, which is worth exploring. But an underground Piccadilly Station really is the vital first step to any wider underground system.”

Manchester city centre would be an obvious starting point for an underground metro system, and could speed up journeys for huge amounts of people who currently rely on buses or car to trek across central Manchester.

Councillor Jon-Connor Lyons, who represents the Piccadilly ward in Manchester, said of the plans: “Manchester can’t keep growing above ground while pretending the answer to our transport needs isn’t below our feet.

“I fully back plans for an underground station at Piccadilly and a tube-like transport network, it will be a genuinely ambitious approach to how we move people around our city.

“Done properly, this could transform accessibility across Manchester and unlock areas across Greater Manchester for new homes and jobs.

“A better-connected Manchester isn’t just about getting from A to B faster, it’s about creating one truly connected city region and giving people access to opportunities wherever they live.”

Others have stressed the need for underground travel to go beyond Manchester city centre to other boroughs.

Jonathan Moore is leader of Salford Lib Dems and a councillor in Salford Quays, an area with big plans to grow with MediaCity set to double in size in future years.

But public transport options in Salford Quays are already under major strain, with reports of passengers ‘struggling’ to get home.

Councillor Moore said: “We’ve already seen a shift away from cars. New flats are built without parking. New houses have less parking. Parts of the city are closed to cars.

“The environmental impact of this is clear and beneficial. However, this only works when new alternatives are put in place to keep up with demand, which in GM is growing far faster than supply.”

The Salford councillor explained that Metrolink trams can be ‘very slow and clunky’, and ‘can only go where there is space to install new lines’.

He added: “In my ward at Salford Quays, the population is set to at least treble to 40k people by 2040. It is inconceivable that the above-ground Metrolink can cope with that growth.

“In London, most people use the underground. A population of circa 9 million across Greater London make 4-5 million journeys on the underground every day.

“In GM we have circa 3 million people, so a similarly comprehensive network could cater for 1-2 million journeys a day. Imagine the benefits to our cities, suburbs and motorways if we saw that here.

“At a meeting I attended with Highways England in July, we were told that the northwest quadrant of the M60 is now the worst performing motorway in the UK if you exclude the M25.

“Roughly half of the journeys on that section are local commuters traveling 1-2 junctions. The distance is too great to walk, and not everyone can or should cycle, but everyone can use an underground. If we had an underground, traffic would flow better on the M60, which would save hundreds of thousands of hours a year and our economy would reap the benefits.

“An underground will only happen if the politicians of today are determined, focussed, and brave in the way that the Victorians were. We have the engineering capability, far more than the Victorians had, and we have the knowledge of the need and the climate imperative.

“All that we don’t have is the cash and the determination. Now is the time for national and local politicians to find these missing ingredients.”

Asked about the plans for underground travel in Greater Manchester, a Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Everyone across the country should have access to good public transport, which is why we are working closely with Greater Manchester to look at improving connectivity across the North.

“As part of this, we’re reviewing the possibility for an underground station at Manchester Piccadilly for Northern Powerhouse Rail.”

Two traders can open accounts with the same brokerage and want completely different things from it.

One may be learning how Forex markets work and want time to build confidence before participating. Another may prefer to analyse the market independently and make every decision personally. A third may be interested in following an existing strategy after reviewing how that trader has performed over time.

Tag Markets has been designing its brokerage around those differences.

Rather than assuming there is one ideal path for every client, Tag Markets has developed an environment in which education, independent trading, copy trading and different account structures can sit alongside one another. The brokerage provides the infrastructure while giving clients greater freedom to decide how they want to participate.

Education can be the starting point for someone still developing their knowledge.

Through its Forex education resources, Tag Markets provides video courses, written learning material and live training sessions at no additional cost. Clients can use these resources to build their understanding before deciding whether they are ready to trade or which approach makes the most sense for them.

Access and readiness are not the same thing. Opening an account may be straightforward, but understanding market behaviour, trading terminology and the choices available through a brokerage can take considerably longer. Giving clients the opportunity to learn first creates a different starting point.

Experienced traders may want something entirely different.

Someone who already understands the markets may prefer to analyse opportunities, develop a strategy and execute every decision independently. Tag Markets continues to support that approach rather than assuming automation or guided participation will suit everyone.

CopyX serves another preference.

Through its proprietary CopyX copy trading technology, clients can review available traders and strategies, examine their results over time and decide whether they want qualifying trading activity replicated automatically in their own accounts.

The technology changes the level of involvement without removing the client’s initial decision. Users still choose whether copy trading suits them and which trader or strategy they want to follow.

Historical results do not guarantee future outcomes, and trading involves risk. Their value lies in providing additional context when clients compare available options and decide whether this form of participation matches their preferences.

Account structure adds another dimension.

Tag Markets offers several trading account structures rather than relying on one standard format. Its offering includes conventional accounts alongside Amplify and the 12X and 24X models, giving eligible clients alternative ways to structure trading capital under the conditions attached to those accounts.

No single account structure needs to suit every trader. Different formats can appeal to different approaches to capital, trading activity and market participation. Providing alternatives gives clients another decision to make based on how they intend to use the brokerage.

Taken together, these products reveal a broader philosophy behind Tag Markets.

Education supports clients who want to learn before participating. Independent trading remains available for those who want direct control. CopyX gives clients another route through strategy following, while different account models create flexibility around how trading activity is structured.

Each responds to the same underlying reality: traders are not one customer type.

Traditional brokerage journeys can easily become standardised. A client registers, selects an account, funds it and begins trading. Tag Markets is moving away from the assumption that what happens after registration should look identical for everyone.

Technology makes that flexibility possible, but more features do not automatically create a better brokerage.

The stronger test is whether every tool has a clear purpose. Clients should be able to understand why an account differs, what CopyX allows them to do, where education fits and whether independent trading remains the better option for their own approach.

Choice becomes useful only when it remains understandable.

A new trader might begin with educational material before considering an account. Someone with greater experience may move directly into independent trading. Another client may investigate CopyX and compare available traders before deciding whether to follow a strategy.

Those journeys are different, yet they remain connected through the same brokerage.

This gives Tag Markets a way to serve a broader audience without defining one ideal type of trader. The company can build products around different levels of knowledge, involvement and preference while keeping those choices within one operating environment.

In a market where access to Forex and CFD products is already widely available, that flexibility creates another form of differentiation.

The question is no longer simply whether a brokerage can give someone access to the market. It is whether it can give different people the tools, knowledge and account structures that make sense for how they individually want to participate.

Tag Markets is building its offering around that distinction.

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of KO, PEP either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.