Skip to main content

The Fed Could Be This Stock's Best Friend in 2025

Motley Fool - Tue Sep 3, 5:41AM CDT

Real estate technology company Redfin(NASDAQ: RDFN) isn't profitable right now, but management is certainly doing a good job of focusing on efficiency and setting the company up for success once the agonizingly slow real estate market picks up. In this video, Fool.com contributors Matt Frankel and Tyler Crowe discuss why Redfin could be a major winner as the Federal Reserve starts to lower interest rates.

*Stock prices used were the morning prices of Aug. 22, 2024. The video was published on Aug. 24, 2024.

Should you invest $1,000 in Redfin right now?

Before you buy stock in Redfin, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Redfin wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $731,449!*

Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. TheStock Advisorservice has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of August 26, 2024

Matt Frankel has positions in Redfin. Tyler Crowe has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Redfin. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: short August 2024 $11 calls on Redfin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Matthew Frankel is an affiliate of The Motley Fool and may be compensated for promoting its services. If you choose to subscribe through their link, they will earn some extra money that supports their channel. Their opinions remain their own and are unaffected by The Motley Fool.

Paid Post: Content produced by Motley Fool. The Globe and Mail was not involved, and material was not reviewed prior to publication.