BEN

Franklin Resources Inc Price

Closed
BEN
$26,82
-$0,67(-%2,43)

*Data last updated: 2026-04-24 00:37 (UTC+8)

As of 2026-04-24 00:37, Franklin Resources Inc (BEN) is priced at $26,82, with a total market cap of $14,31B, a P/E ratio of 22,67, and a dividend yield of %2,40. Today, the stock price fluctuated between $26,46 and $27,48. The current price is %1,36 above the day's low and %2,40 below the day's high, with a trading volume of 3,12M. Over the past 52 weeks, BEN has traded between $22,62 to $28,27, and the current price is -%5,12 away from the 52-week high.

BEN Key Stats

Yesterday's Close$27,24
Market Cap$14,31B
Volume3,12M
P/E Ratio22,67
Dividend Yield (TTM)%2,40
Dividend Amount$0,33
Diluted EPS (TTM)1,19
Net Income (FY)$524,90M
Revenue (FY)$8,77B
Earnings Date2026-04-28
EPS Estimate0,56
Revenue Estimate$1,70B
Shares Outstanding525,54M
Beta (1Y)1.473
Ex-Dividend Date2026-03-31
Dividend Payment Date2026-04-10

About BEN

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and partnerships. It launches equity, fixed income, balanced, and multi-asset mutual funds through its subsidiaries. The firm invests in the public equity, fixed income, and alternative markets. Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in Hyderabad, India.
SectorFinancial Services
IndustryAsset Management
CEOJennifer Johnson
HeadquartersSan Mateo,CA,US
Employees (FY)9,80K
Average Revenue (1Y)$894,96K
Net Income per Employee$53,56K

Learn More about Franklin Resources Inc (BEN)

Franklin Resources Inc (BEN) FAQ

What's the stock price of Franklin Resources Inc (BEN) today?

x
Franklin Resources Inc (BEN) is currently trading at $26,82, with a 24h change of -%2,43. The 52-week trading range is $22,62–$28,27.

What are the 52-week high and low prices for Franklin Resources Inc (BEN)?

x

What is the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of Franklin Resources Inc (BEN)? What does it indicate?

x

What is the market cap of Franklin Resources Inc (BEN)?

x

What is the most recent quarterly earnings per share (EPS) for Franklin Resources Inc (BEN)?

x

Should you buy or sell Franklin Resources Inc (BEN) now?

x

What factors can affect the stock price of Franklin Resources Inc (BEN)?

x

How to buy Franklin Resources Inc (BEN) stock?

x

Risk Warning

The stock market involves a high level of risk and price volatility. The value of your investment may increase or decrease, and you may not recover the full amount invested. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Before making any investment decisions, you should carefully assess your investment experience, financial situation, investment objectives, and risk tolerance, and conduct your own research. Where appropriate, consult an independent financial adviser.

Disclaimer

The content on this page is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, or trading recommendations. Gate shall not be held liable for any loss or damage resulting from such financial decisions. Further, take note that Gate may not be able to provide full service in certain markets and jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United States of America, Canada, Iran, and Cuba. For more information on Restricted Locations, please refer to the User Agreement.

Other Trading Markets

Franklin Resources Inc (BEN) Latest News

2026-04-23 22:01

Bitcoin ETF Inflows Turn Positive for Year, All Flow Metrics Green for First Time in Months

Gate News message, April 23 — Bitcoin spot ETFs are gaining momentum as all flow metrics tracked by Bloomberg turned positive for the first time in months, according to Bloomberg Senior ETF Analyst Eric Balchunas. Ben Slavin, global head of ETFs at BNY Asset Servicing (which services 80% of the crypto ETF market), confirmed the shift: "Flows have turned positive for the year. That's modestly so. But they're in the green, not in the red." Cumulative one-day inflows across all 12 spot bitcoin funds exceeded $335 million as of Thursday morning, while monthly flows topped $2.1 billion. Year-to-date and three-month flows reached approximately $1.8 billion. BlackRock's IBIT, the largest spot bitcoin ETF by valuation, accounted for $246 million of single-day inflows and $1.9 billion over the past month. Most funds posted positive flows, with the notable exception of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which recorded $16 million in one-day outflows and $960 million in year-to-date net outflows. Total spot bitcoin ETF assets under management stand at approximately $125 billion, below the all-time high of $162 billion set in October 2025 when BTC traded above $120,000. Slavin attributed crypto ETF investors' resilience to their structural use in asset allocation and buy-and-hold strategies rather than tactical trading, noting that outflows during March's geopolitical tensions and inflation concerns were modest compared to inflows. Bitcoin has since resumed an uptrend after trading sideways in late January.

2026-04-14 15:52

Believe Founder Faces Rug Pull Charges as DOJ Opens $40M OneCoin Victim Compensation

Gate News message, April 14 — Ben Pasternak, the 26-year-old Australian founder of Solana-based platform Believe, is facing indictment in New York federal court over an alleged rug pull scheme, while the U.S. Department of Justice has opened a compensation process for victims of the OneCoin fraud with over $40 million in forfeited assets now available. Prosecutors allege that Pasternak's platform, previously called Clout, engaged in a deceptive cycle of rug pulling by launching a series of tokens: $PASTERNAK, later rebranded as $LAUNCHCOIN, and then $BELIEVE. Civil lawsuits claim the platform processed over $6 billion in trades and extracted approximately $54 million in fees while investors suffered massive losses. The case is under review in the Southern District of New York. The DOJ's compensation program targets victims of OneCoin, a fraudulent cryptocurrency marketed as a "Bitcoin killer" that operated from Sofia, Bulgaria, between 2014 and 2019. The scheme defrauded an estimated 3.5 million people out of over $4 billion. Victims who purchased OneCoin during those years may file for compensation by the June 30, 2026 deadline. OneCoin co-founder Karl Sebastian Greenwood was sentenced to 20 years in prison, while the other co-founder, Ruja Ignatova, known as the "Cryptoqueen," remains on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted list. Both cases are being handled by the Southern District of New York.

2026-04-09 10:47

A CEX co-founder donates $5.4 million to the UK’s Reform UK party

Gate News message: On April 9, a CEX co-founder, Ben Delo, disclosed that he had donated $5.4 million (about £4 million) to the Reform UK Party, led by Nigel Farage. The donation took place before new regulations were introduced in the UK setting a £100k cap on donations from overseas expats. Delo previously pleaded guilty in the United States in 2022 for the exchange violating anti-money-laundering compliance rules, paid a $10 million fine, and was later pardoned by Trump. Reform UK previously received a £11.4 million donation from Christopher Harborne, a Thai national and a Tether investor. The party positions itself as the most crypto-friendly political party in the UK, but the UK government has issued a suspension order on cryptocurrencies in political donations. Delo said he plans to move to the UK, at which point he will not be subject to donation limits.

2026-03-25 12:01

StarkWare CEO: Current Crypto Bear Market Has Shifted from "Fraud Winter" to "Traditional Finance Bear Hug"

Gate News, March 25 — StarkWare CEO and former Zcash co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson posted on X reflecting on the evolution of the crypto cycle. He pointed out that compared to the previous "crypto winter," which was driven by the Terra collapse, Three Arrows Capital, FTX, and filled with fraud and excessive speculation, the current bear market exhibits very different characteristics. This cycle is more like a "Traditional Finance (TradFi) Bear Hug," where, amid warmer regulation and the accelerated entry of mainstream financial institutions, the crypto industry was once seen as a new financial infrastructure. However, it has also, to some extent, squeezed the original spirit of "economic freedom and experimental innovation." Eli Ben-Sasson stated that although the crypto industry is currently in a phase of limited short-term innovation and leadership gaps, in the long run, freedom and innovation will return and drive the next wave of development.

2026-03-25 05:31

StarkWare CEO: The Nature of Crypto Bear Market Has Shifted, From "Fraud Winter" to "TradFi Bear Hug"

Gate News, March 25 — StarkWare CEO and former Zcash co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson posted on X reflecting on the evolution of the crypto cycle. He pointed out that compared to the previous "crypto winter," which was triggered by the Terra collapse, Three Arrows Capital, FTX, and filled with fraud and excessive speculation, the current bear market cycle exhibits very different characteristics. This cycle is more like a "Traditional Financial Bear Hug (TradFi Bear Hug)." Against the backdrop of warming regulation and accelerated entry of mainstream financial institutions, the crypto industry was once seen as new financial infrastructure, but at the same time, it has also somewhat squeezed the original spirit of "economic freedom and experimental innovation." Eli Ben-Sasson stated that although the crypto industry is currently in a phase of limited short-term innovation and leadership vacuum, in the long run, freedom and innovation will return and drive the next wave of development.

Hot Posts About Franklin Resources Inc (BEN)

GateNews

GateNews

2 hours ago
Gate News message, April 23 — Bitcoin spot ETFs are gaining momentum as all flow metrics tracked by Bloomberg turned positive for the first time in months, according to Bloomberg Senior ETF Analyst Eric Balchunas. Ben Slavin, global head of ETFs at BNY Asset Servicing (which services 80% of the crypto ETF market), confirmed the shift: "Flows have turned positive for the year. That's modestly so. But they're in the green, not in the red." Cumulative one-day inflows across all 12 spot bitcoin funds exceeded $335 million as of Thursday morning, while monthly flows topped $2.1 billion. Year-to-date and three-month flows reached approximately $1.8 billion. BlackRock's IBIT, the largest spot bitcoin ETF by valuation, accounted for $246 million of single-day inflows and $1.9 billion over the past month. Most funds posted positive flows, with the notable exception of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which recorded $16 million in one-day outflows and $960 million in year-to-date net outflows. Total spot bitcoin ETF assets under management stand at approximately $125 billion, below the all-time high of $162 billion set in October 2025 when BTC traded above $120,000. Slavin attributed crypto ETF investors' resilience to their structural use in asset allocation and buy-and-hold strategies rather than tactical trading, noting that outflows during March's geopolitical tensions and inflation concerns were modest compared to inflows. Bitcoin has since resumed an uptrend after trading sideways in late January.
1
0
0
0
PanicSeller69

PanicSeller69

5 hours ago
I just found out the details of this lawsuit against Ben Pasternak in the New York Federal Court, and honestly, it’s pretty dense. The guy founded Believe, that social token platform on Solana that had its moment in 2025, and now faces serious allegations of deceptive business practices. What catches my attention the most is the pattern they describe: Ben Pasternak launched his personal token PASTERNAK in January, publicly stating he had zero ownership over it. The value jumped to an $80 million market cap on the first day but collapsed 95% within a week. That already sounds suspicious in itself. Then the platform changed its name from Clout to Believe in April, and in May, the token’s metadata was modified to LAUNCHCOIN but without redeploying the contract. The market cap reached $240 million temporarily. Here’s the juicy part: Pasternak and the team publicly promised at least twelve times that they would implement a buyback mechanism like a “ripple wheel” using platform fees. It never happened. In October, they announced an obligatory migration to the new BELIEVE token. All holders had to do a 1:1 swap before October 29 or their tokens would be destroyed. But here’s the twist: the total supply increased from one billion to 1.33B. That’s a 33% dilution, even though Believe said it was 25%. Basically, the original LAUNCHCOIN holders absorbed the dilution without any additional compensation. The distribution of new tokens is interesting: 17% for contributors with four-year vesting, 5% for early investors with a one-year lock-up, and 3% for the foundation with no restrictions. That 3% was released immediately. But Ben Pasternak publicly declared on the same day that no individual would receive tokens for at least a year. Clearly a contradiction. According to the lawsuit, Believe processed around $6 billion in total volume, generating $54 million in platform fees. Ben Pasternak, as the creator of the three tokens, continued receiving commissions. Interestingly, in October, when the migration was announced, on-chain data showed large sales from main addresses. Ben Pasternak’s last original tweet was on October 16, where he admitted he had never bought Solana tokens before launching his first token. He then retweeted something about Believe v2 on January 14, and since then, both accounts went completely silent. Believe v2 tried to pivot toward an “emotion market” allowing bets on public figures, but it didn’t take off. Now, the BELIEVE token is at a $1.2 million market cap. It’s disappeared completely from its peak. The lawsuit is based on New York and California laws against deceptive trade practices, seeking damages for losses, reimbursement of costs, and potentially a trust over digital assets. What I find fascinating is how Ben Pasternak went from being the “next Zuckerberg” at 14 when he launched Impossible Rush, to selling Monkey in 2018, raising $50 million with NUGGS in 2021 backed by Alexis Ohanian and Jay-Z, to this. Each of his transformations coincided with a wave of opportunity but also major controversies. Now he’s facing litigation in New York while his personal life is also falling apart. Until early April, it was known that he ended his relationship with influencer Evelyn Ha. The crypto community made memes about it, saying at least now they could reinvest budgets. It’s an interesting case of how even entrepreneurs with a successful track record can fall into problematic patterns. The question now is how long this litigation will take and what happens to the funds Ben Pasternak possibly obtained from the Believe project. So far, he hasn’t issued any public response to the lawsuit nor revealed his specific personal gains.
0
0
0
0
SmartContractAuditor

SmartContractAuditor

9 hours ago
Source: Ben Felix Podcast Editor: Felix, PANews Editor's note: Recently, Elon Musk's SpaceX has secretly submitted IPO registration documents to the U.S. SEC, aiming for a potential listing as early as June. The company plans to raise $50-75 billion, with an estimated valuation of about $1.75 trillion, potentially becoming the largest IPO in history. But amid market euphoria, some have pointed out that such super IPOs are a “disaster” for retail investors, especially those in index funds. PWL Capital Chief Investment Officer Ben Felix recently stated on the podcast that super IPOs like SpaceX and OpenAI are carefully crafted “scams,” and shared what these upcoming super IPOs mean for retail investors and their portfolios. **PANews has summarized the key points from the podcast; below are the details.** If private companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic go public, they will rank among the world's largest companies. For index fund investors, this means that regardless of whether you believe in these companies, your funds will be forced to buy their stocks. The original purpose of index funds is to perfectly replicate the performance of the public stock market. To closely match the market, many index rules require companies to be included as soon as possible after listing. From a macro-representative perspective, this makes sense, but from an investment return standpoint, historical data shows that blindly buying IPO stocks often yields poor results. Today, index funds control trillions of dollars. When a newly listed stock is included in major indices, it means huge amounts of capital will flow into that stock. Because index funds are compelled to buy, this provides ample liquidity for sellers and pushes up the stock price. This is extremely favorable for early shareholders of the new company (such as insiders and early investors), but not for the “bagholders”—the index fund investors who are forced to buy in. Companies typically prefer to go public when they believe they can sell at a high price. This means that when ordinary investors finally get a chance to buy the stock on the secondary market, insiders are already considering the stock overvalued or highly priced. Investors generally don’t want to buy overvalued stocks, but index funds lack this discretion. Regardless of the stock price, they must buy any stocks included in the index. **Different indices have varying rules for IPO inclusion.** For example, the current S&P 500 requires stocks to be traded on an exchange for at least 12 months before inclusion; whereas the S&P Total Market Index allows stocks meeting certain criteria to be included just 5 days after listing, known as “fast entry.” According to Bloomberg, S&P is considering revising the S&P 500 rules to accelerate the inclusion of super IPOs like SpaceX; Nasdaq is also contemplating similar adjustments for the Nasdaq 100. A 2025 paper studied the impact of “fast entry” on the CRSP US Total Market Index (tracked by ETFs like VTI), which can be included within as little as 5 days. The authors found that, **because index investors are expected to be forced to buy, IPOs that go through “fast entry” tend to perform over 5 percentage points better in their first year than those not in the fast lane. However, this excess performance peaks on the inclusion date and sharply declines over the following two weeks.** Essentially, index funds are being front-run by intermediaries like hedge funds, who know that once a stock qualifies for index inclusion, index funds will buy it, and then hold onto the stock as its price falls back toward its IPO price. The authors call this a “hidden tax” paid by index fund investors, with these intermediaries acting like scalpers reselling concert tickets. **Another key concept related to super IPOs is “free float,”** i.e., the proportion of a company's shares available for trading on the open market. Most major indices have minimum float requirements and weight stocks based on free float. Some companies release only a tiny fraction of their total market cap at IPO, known as “low float IPOs.” According to the Financial Times, SpaceX plans to have less than 5% of its shares in free float, well below the average. Even with a valuation of $1.75 trillion, with only 5% float, most indices would assign it a weight of only about $880 billion, and many indices might exclude it altogether. Nasdaq originally required a minimum float of 10%, but after recent consultations, they approved a rule change that not only accelerates IPO inclusion but also removes the lower float threshold. A pessimistic view is that Nasdaq’s change to the Nasdaq 100 index rules is aimed at attracting SpaceX to list on its exchange. If SpaceX is included in the Nasdaq index, it will force index funds to buy heavily. This is good news for SpaceX, early investors, and Nasdaq itself, but the cost will likely be borne by the index fund investors. Despite differences in index methodologies, it’s undeniable that these super IPOs will reshape the public market landscape. A blog post from S&P Global notes that just SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic could account for 2.9% of the S&P Global index, nearly equivalent to the entire Canadian market’s weight. MSCI, another index provider, estimated in a February 2026 blog that the impact of the top 10 private companies going public (at that time, SpaceX was valued at only $800 billion, but the overall view remains relevant): with 5% float, only four companies could be included; with 10% float, seven could. MSCI found that even at 25% float, the forced capital flows due to index rebalancing are enormous: new listings will attract billions of dollars in inflows, while the largest existing companies will see billions flowing out. These forced buy and sell flows ultimately harm index fund investors. The core fact to understand is: investing in IPOs is one of the worst strategies. Although IPOs often surge on their first day, most investors cannot buy at the offering price and are left holding the stock after the price jumps, with subsequent performance often disastrous. This poor IPO performance even has a name: the “IPO puzzle,” first identified in a 1995 paper. It found that, from 1970 to 1990, the average annual return of IPOs was only 5%, compared to 12% for comparable established companies. To achieve the same return over five years, investors would need to invest 44% more capital in IPOs. Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) analyzed over 6,000 IPOs from 1991 to 2018 and found that IPO portfolios underperformed the broad market and small-cap indices by about 2% annually in the first year. The only exception was during the internet bubble of 1992-2000, when small tech IPOs soared, but the subsequent crash was well known. The study notes that IPO stocks tend to exhibit characteristics of “small, high-growth expectations, low profitability, and aggressive expansion,” often called “junk growth stocks,” which are highly volatile and tend to lag the market over the long term. This is also reflected in IPO-focused ETFs. The Renaissance IPO ETF, which invests specifically in large U.S. IPOs since its inception in October 2013, has lagged the total U.S. stock market ETF (VTI) by over 6 percentage points annually. IPO expert Jay Ritter’s database shows that, from 1980 to 2023, buying and holding IPO stocks for three years on the secondary market has historically underperformed the market by an average of 19 percentage points. Low-float IPOs perform even worse, as limited supply of tradable shares causes demand concentration and amplifies price swings. This is precisely the approach expected of OpenAI and SpaceX. Ritter’s data shows that since 1980, only 11 low-float IPOs (less than 5% float) have occurred, and these companies had annual sales of at least $10 million in the past 12 months. Of these, 10 underperformed the market over three years, with an average decline of about 50% from the IPO price and a drop of over 60% on the first day’s close. This indicates that **supply constraints do indeed drive early price surges, but are often followed by significant underperformance.** Additionally, these IPOs tend to have extremely high price-to-sales ratios at listing. If SpaceX were to go public at a $1.75 trillion valuation, its P/S ratio would exceed 100. In comparison, the highest P/S ratio in the S&P 500 is Palantir at 73, with the index average around 3.1. Overall, high valuations are generally associated with lower expected future returns. For index fund investors, this issue is even more complex. When large private companies go public at high valuations, they alter the broader market landscape. In response, indices must rebalance to reflect these changes. Market-cap weighted indices need to be rebalanced to account for shifts in market composition, which means index funds are implicitly engaging in “market timing.” The problem is, this is often very poor market timing. Companies tend to issue shares at high valuations and buy back shares when valuations are low. As a result, index funds trying to track the index end up buying high and selling low. A 2025 paper estimates that this passive timing caused by index rebalancing drags annual performance by 47 to 70 basis points (0.47% - 0.70%). Given that companies are staying private longer, should ordinary investors try to get in before IPOs by investing in private equity? Several serious issues arise: **Survivor bias:** For every SpaceX or OpenAI you hear about, there are thousands of failed or stagnant private companies. The survivor bias in private markets is far more brutal than in public markets. **Extremely high implicit costs:** Private equity investments often involve high fees and costs that can eat into returns. The Wall Street Journal reported that a special purpose vehicle (SPV) set up to buy SpaceX shares charged up to 4% upfront, plus 25% of future profits. There are also risks of complex structures, unclear ownership, and outright fraud. **Liquidity crunch and abnormal losses:** Unless you are an insider, financial intermediaries controlling private shares will not give you “free lunches.” For example, ERS Shares’ Private-Public Crossover ETF (XOVR) bought SpaceX via an SPV in December 2024. Despite SpaceX’s valuation soaring afterward, the ETF faced liquidity issues because the SPV held illiquid assets. As a result, the fund suffered losses and significantly underperformed the market. As Jeff Ptak of Morningstar pointed out: “In investing, the more you desire something, the more you should question whether you really want it.” Investors’ eagerness to get a piece of the pie can backfire, as in this case. For index fund investors, super IPOs will inevitably impact market indices and the funds tracking them, especially when these companies are “fast-tracked.” Due to their mechanics, index funds will blindly buy these IPO stocks at any price, and the large buying pressure can push prices even higher. If you are an index fund investor, this is an implicit cost you’ve been paying—or a part of life in passive investing that you must accept. You can choose to continue enduring it or seek alternative products that do not automatically buy IPO stocks. Ultimately, ordinary investors are almost never able to buy these scarce private shares before IPO; when everyone rushes to buy, the high prices and barriers will likely wipe out most of the gains you hoped to make.
0
0
0
0