>>> US After Hours Summary: VRNT -16.6%, AI -16.1%, CRDO -12.6%, CHPT -10.1%, AV

After Hours Summary: VRNT -16.6%, AI -16.1%, CRDO -12.6%, CHPT -10.1%, AVAV -4.1%, CXM -3.7%, HPE -3.1% lower on earnings; MODG +2.7% to seek to split in two

After Hours Gainers:

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: YEXT +2.6%, PHR +2.4%

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news: MODG +2.7% (to pursue separation into two independent companies: Callaway and TopGolf), BNED +2.3% (files $40 mln mixed shelf securities offering), LQDT +1.9% (selected to sell more than 30 drilling rigs), PSTX +1.8% (presents new case study for CAR-T Therapy), AMCR +1.1% (names new CEO), QGEN +0.8% (QGEN enters into collaboration with LLY to support development of QIAstat-Dx in-vitro diagnostic), NVDA +0.7% (co did not receive a DOJ subpoena, according to Reuters), ASML +0.5% (CEO says US export restrictions to China are economically motivated, according to Reuters), JNJ +0.1% (to secure more votes in favor of talc settlement plan after increasing offer, according to WSJ), RLGT +0.1% (acquires Foundation Logistics & Services), LLY +0.1% (QGEN enters into collaboration with LLY to support development of QIAstat-Dx in-vitro diagnostic), RTX +0.1% (awarded $405 mln U.S. Navy contract modification), VZ +0.1% (increases dividend)

After Hours Losers:

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: VRNT -16.6%, AI -16.1%, CRDO -12.6%, CHPT -10.1% (also to reduce workforce by approximately 15%), BASE -8.6%, BBCP -7.7%, CPRT -5.4%, DSGX -5.1%, AVAV -4.1%, CXM -3.7%, HPE -3.1%, CASY -0.3%, T -0.1%

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news: VVX -8.1% (2 mln share offering), XPO -6.7% (reports LTL data for August), CSWI -5.3% (commences 1 mln share offering; also files mixed shelf securities offering), ZETA -4.5% (commences 11 mln share offering with Zeta offering 8.8 mln shares and selling stockholder offering 2.2 mln shares; also raises its Q3 revenue guidance), ODFL -3.4% (reports LTL operating metrics for August), TRVI -1.1% (to present data from Ph2a CANAL Trial), HUYA -0.3% (names Raymond Peng Lei as Acting Co-CEO and CFO)

WSJ :

Kamala Harris Pares Back Biden’s Capital-Gains Tax Proposal
Advisers believe a more modest increase would balance taxing wealthy households and encouraging investment

WASHINGTON—Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris proposed a less drastic increase in the top capital-gains tax rate on Wednesday, breaking with a plan President Biden outlined in his budget blueprint earlier this year.

“We will tax capital gains at a rate that rewards investment in America’s innovators, founders and small businesses,” she said in a speech at a New Hampshire brewery, detailing her plan to promote small businesses.

The all-in top rate would be 33%, which would include a new 28% capital rate cited by Harris on Wednesday as well as Biden’s proposal to raise a 3.8% investment income tax to 5%, people familiar with the plan said. Biden, by contrast, wanted a near-doubling of today’s 23.8% top rate to 44.6%, taxing capital gains at roughly the same rate as ordinary income.

The break from Biden on the capital-gains tax rate—the clearest effort yet from her campaign to distance herself from the president—comes days before her debate with former President Donald Trump, who has tried to tie her to Biden’s economic policies and attacked her for being too far to the left.

Her advisers believe the Biden proposal puts the rate too high and a more modest rate increase could better encourage investment in entrepreneurship and access to capital for small businesses, the people said. Harris’s allies argue the latest proposal still aligns with Harris’s plan for the wealthy and corporations to pay more in taxes, with her advisers viewing it as a more appropriate balance, the people said.

Even at 33%, the all-in top capital-gains rate would be the highest since 1978. Any plan would require congressional approval, and that could be difficult, even if the Democrats control the House, Senate and White House next year.

Earlier in the campaign, Harris aides had signaled that she was in favor of the full $5 trillion of tax increases outlined in Biden’s most recent budget. Dialing back the capital-gains tax rate increase would mean less money available to pay for her agenda.

Under current law, the top long-term capital-gains rate is 23.8%—20% plus a 3.8% tax on investment income. It’s owed only when taxpayers sell assets, or realize gains, and unrealized gains escape the income tax if passed to heirs.

The Biden budget would make several changes to those rules. It would tax unrealized gains at death above a $5 million per person exclusion and tax unrealized gains during life for people with a net worth over $100 million. Harris’s rate change doesn’t necessarily alter her approach to those structural changes or break with Biden on those policies.

The Biden budget would tax capital gains at ordinary income rates—which Democrats want to raise to 39.6% from 37%—for households with taxable income over $1 million. The Biden budget also would increase that 3.8% investment income tax to 5%, making the all-in rate 44.6%—and the top rate would have been over 50% in some states.

In recent weeks, Harris has focused on explaining her economic vision for the country, pitching herself to voters as an advocate for the middle class and small businesses. Harris has repeatedly acknowledged that prices under the current administration have remained too high and centered her message on lowering costs for families.

Harris also proposed in her speech Wednesday a 10-fold expansion of a tax deduction for new small businesses and announced a goal of 25 million new small-business applications in her first term if elected president.

“I believe America’s small businesses are an essential foundation to our entire economy,” Harris said, adding that if elected, strengthening small businesses would be one of her “highest priorities.”

As part of her new proposal, Harris said she would expand the startup-expense deduction for small businesses to $50,000. Currently, business owners can deduct up to $5,000 in startup expenses—costs they incur for items such as market surveys, advertisements and salaries for workers in training even before the business officially begins operating.

Harris has been criticized for changing her policy views on issues like fracking for political expediency. Those close to the vice president argue she is a pragmatic politician who is open to changing policy specifics as long as she agrees with the end goal.

“My values have not changed,” Harris said in a recent interview with CNN when asked about her shifting policy views.

The U.S. has usually set capital-gains tax rates below ordinary-income rates for several reasons—to encourage investment and to adjust for the fact that some taxed gains are due to inflation over relatively long holding periods.

And, because taxpayers can escape the income tax by holding assets until death, higher capital-gains rates can just discourage people from selling—for the rest of their lifetimes or until a new Congress comes along and cuts the rate. Without structural changes, just raising the capital-gains rate by more than a few points could actually reduce federal revenue.

But in recent years, Democrats have pushed to raise the capital-gains tax and to change the basic rules, as part of their push to impose higher taxes on the wealthiest households. The idea of taxing wealth the same as work carries significant weight in Democratic circles and led to Biden’s proposals, which officials have refined.

Capital gains are particularly concentrated at the top of the income scale. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 0.1% of households receive more than half of long-term capital gains.

The Biden changes are designed to work together. By changing the tax treatment of capital gains at death, the rate can go higher and still raise revenue.

FT : Canada’s government under threat as Trudeau coalition partner exits

Canada’s government under threat as Trudeau coalition partner exits
Move by New Democrat party leader raises chance of snap election

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s critical coalition partner has torn up a deal to support his Liberal government, throwing Canada into new political uncertainty and raising the chance of a snap election.

Jagmeet Singh, leader of the left-leaning New Democratic party, said in a social media post on Wednesday that he had ended a 2022 deal with Trudeau to prop up the minority Liberal party. 

“Today I notified the PM that I have ripped up the supply and confidence agreement,” he said on X, using the term for co-operation in a parliamentary coalition.

The NDP leader’s announcement means Trudeau can no longer automatically command a majority in Canada’s 338-member parliament, leaving it vulnerable to a vote of no confidence that could end the Liberals’ nine years of power in Ottawa.

Trudeau sought to brush aside the threat on Wednesday.

“An election will come in the coming year, hopefully not until next fall, because in the meantime, we’re going to deliver for Canadians,” he told reporters.

While the NDP’s 24 members will in future decide on a vote-by-vote basis whether to support the Liberals, the move does not automatically trigger a snap election or a vote of no confidence.

However, it will deepen doubts over the future of Trudeau, who has faced calls to end his reign as Liberal leader just as his party gears up for a federal election that must be held by October 2025. The Liberals have ruled Canada since 2015.

Trudeau’s popularity has plummeted in recent months amid a cost of living crisis triggered by skyrocketing housing and widespread inflation. On Wednesday the Bank of Canada cut interest rates for the third time since June.

Singh described the coming election as “a battle for the middle class” and warned that Trudeau was poised to lose to the Conservative party and its leader Pierre Poilievre, who has opened a 17-point polling lead.

While Singh criticised Trudeau, he also warned voters about a Conservative government.

“The Liberals have let people down, they don’t deserve another chance,” he said. “But there is an even bigger battle ahead. The threat of the Pierre Poilievre and Conservatives cuts.”

Canada’s federal parliament in Ottawa is divided between four parties, with the Liberals holding 154 seats, the Conservatives on 119 and the Bloc Québécois, the third-largest party, on 32. The NDP’s 24 seats make it the fourth party.

The NDP has used the arrangement to push its main priorities, such as a national dental care plan, while a bill to lower drug costs has passed the House of Commons and is being reviewed in the Senate.

Trudeau said after Singh’s announcement that he hoped the “NDP stays focused on how we can deliver for Canadians, as we have over the past years, rather than focusing on politics”.

Poilievre, who wrote to Singh last week urging him to pull out of the coalition, on Wednesday described the NDP leader’s announcement as a “media stunt”.

WSJ : Verizon Nearing Deal for Frontier Communications

Verizon Nearing Deal for Frontier Communications
Deal for Dallas-based fiber provider could be announced this week

Verizon VZ -1.19%decrease; red down pointing triangle is in advanced talks to acquire Frontier Communications FYBR 8.38%increase; green up pointing triangle in a deal that would bolster the company’s fiber network to compete with rivals including AT&T, according to people familiar with the matter.

An announcement could come this week, granted the talks don’t hit any last-minute snags, the people said.

A deal would be sizable, given Frontier’s market value of over $7 billion.

WSJ : Kamala Harris to Pare Back Biden’s Capital-Gains Tax Proposal

Kamala Harris to Pare Back Biden’s Capital-Gains Tax Proposal
Advisers believe a more-modest increase would balance taxing wealthy households and encouraging investment

WASHINGTON—Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris is planning to propose a less drastic increase in the top capital-gains tax rate, breaking with a plan President Biden outlined in his budget blueprint earlier this year, according to people familiar with the matter.

Harris’s advisers have been discussing the move behind the scenes in recent days, the people said. The vice president is set to speak Wednesday afternoon in New Hampshire about promoting small businesses, but it’s unclear if she will discuss the capital-gains proposal in those remarks.

A Harris campaign spokesman declined to comment.

Harris’s advisers believe the Biden proposal puts the rate too high and a more modest rate increase could better encourage investment in entrepreneurship and access to capital for small businesses, the people said. Harris’s allies argue the latest proposal still aligns with Harris’s plan for the wealthy and corporations to pay more in taxes, with her advisers viewing it as a more appropriate balance, the people said.

FT : Non-doms in London ask: ‘Should I stay or should I go?’

Non-doms in London ask: ‘Should I stay or should I go?’
UK government plans to end the beneficial tax treatment of riches overseas is causing millionaires to look elsewhere

Guillaume Rambourg was an ambitious graduate when he left his native France in 1994 to live in London in pursuit of a career in finance.

Three decades later, and — although Rambourg has retired from working in financial services and moved abroad for a period — he once again lives in London with his family.

“I feel very good living here in London, it’s a melting pot, people come from many different countries — it’s a multicultural city,” says Rambourg, now 53. “Five of my children were educated in London, most of my friends are here. We complain about the weather, but the city has so many attractive things to offer.”

Rambourg is one of the 74,000 people in the UK who claim “non-domiciled” tax status: residents whose permanent home is overseas for tax purposes. As such, non-doms pay UK tax only on money that they earn in the UK, and their overseas money is tax-free for up to 15 years, as long as it is not remitted back into the country.

For years, this regime has allowed individuals to reap the benefits of a lower tax bill. It can be traced back to 1799, when it was introduced to protect those with foreign property from the UK’s new wartime taxes.

However, the regime was kept in place after that time, and has continued to allow residents to cite another country as their tax domicile. UK non-doms are thought to have at least £10.9bn in offshore income and gains that is free from tax in the UK, according to a research paper by Warwick University and LSE.

But, from next April, this whole regime is set to be abolished — marking one of the biggest ever tax upheavals for the ultra-wealthy in Britain. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is expected to announce further details in her autumn budget.

As a result, some non-doms have left the country, and others are considering doing so. “A lot of people I know are using this as an excuse or reason to leave the UK,” reports Rambourg. “Some have already left.”

Rambourg is not deterred by the non-dom regime change, though. “It’s not going to be a reason for me to leave the UK — this is where my children live, my family, my friends, my business,” he argues.

Ending non-dom status was first proposed by the UK’s former Conservative government, but will be enacted under the manifesto proposals of the newly elected Labour government and take effect next year. Labour has said the changes it introduces will make the tax system fairer and raise revenue to improve state education and the NHS.

Under the current rules, the regime grants non-doms, who have been UK residents for less than 15 years, full tax relief on income and gains earned and kept overseas. This regime costs nothing for the first seven years before an annual fee kicks in. After 15 years, assets become subject to the three main UK taxes — income, capital gains and inheritance — unless the money is placed in a trust before this time. Removing non-dom status could raise £2.7bn a year by 2028-2029, according to figures put forward by the outgoing Conservative chancellor Jeremy Hunt.



To Nimesh Shah, chief executive of accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg, it represents a historic change. “We’ve had the non-dom regime in pretty much the same form since the 1800s,” he says. “It’s been around a long time. If you earn money abroad and leave it there, you’re not taxed on it. But that old-world regime where you get tax relief on overseas earnings is going.”

Some financial services professionals expressed shock when the changes were put forward by the former Conservative government, as it was the then opposition Labour party that had first proposed abolishing non-dom status.

“To our real surprise, the Conservatives decided to substantially dismantle [the non-dom regime],” says David Denton, a technical specialist at wealth manager Quilter Cheviot. “That started the rumours that lots of non-doms would leave. I know a few wealthy non-doms with property overseas who have said, ‘Enough is enough, I’m going.’”

Under the proposed overhaul of the regime, people arriving in the UK would be allowed tax relief on their foreign earnings for the first four years of residence, before they become liable to UK income and capital gains taxes.

And, in a further blow to wealthy non-doms, the Labour government has said trusts will no longer offer permanent protection from UK inheritance tax, which is levied at 40 per cent.

“Trusts have been around for centuries; many non-doms have them,” points out Shah at Blick Rothenberg. “So this will be a big cliff edge.”

Nick Ritchie, senior director of wealth planning at RBC Wealth Management, says the lack of protection from inheritance tax has made the non-dom regime overhaul “a bit more shocking”.

Some of his clients have already decided to leave the UK as a consequence, although he notes these have been the ultra-wealthy who “don’t have as many ties to the UK, have multiple properties and are able to change at short notice”.

The bulk of Ritchie’s clients, however, are still in a holding pattern. Part of the problem for non-doms is that the full details of the new regime change have yet to be announced. Although the budget could provide more clarity, the government has not said whether this will result in draft legislation.

“They recognise these changes will be drastic in terms of how they will be taxed on their global asset base but, in the absence of specific policy, they’re more scenario planning,” says Ritchie of his concerned clients.

Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, explains that the government has to manage a delicate balancing act between “not taxing people so much that they leave — or don’t come to — the UK, taking their tax payments with them . . . and getting more revenue from those who do stay”.

He suggests much of the policy debate has been around whether Labour’s plans “push the balance too far in one direction and risk an exodus, or the next generation not coming”. There are also issues of fairness at stake, such as whether UK inheritance tax should be levied on people who build up their wealth abroad and then die in the UK.

Adam also believes that there are “oddities” in the new approach. For example, allowing people in their first four years to live in the UK free of tax on foreign assets, but not free of tax on their UK wealth, could discourage them from bring money in and investing in the UK.

The four-year timeframe could also mean that non-doms stay in the UK only for a short period of time, to the detriment of economic activity. “At the moment, [the regime] encourages people to stay for 15 years,” says Shah at Blick Rothenberg, “but four years could make the UK more transient.”

He warns that such a regime could deter people from settling. “I think this would cost the economy a lot more because of the wealth, investment and businesses not coming here,” he explains. “Four years is too short, and the IHT cliff edge is a deterrent as the rate, at 40 per cent, is so high.”

Ritchie at RBC says that, while certain non-doms are likely to stay, such as those with a family and children in schools, there is a cohort of tech entrepreneurs that “Labour needs to be thoughtful about”. He believes the government needs to be encouraging “these people to come in, people who create jobs and wealth”.

For those who have already decided to leave, a number of countries across Europe and the Middle East are emerging as popular destinations. Ritchie cites Italy, Switzerland, France, Portugal and the UAE. “It’s countries that cater for safety and security, climate, lifestyle and tax,” he says. “If you get it right, you can prove attractive to high-net-worth individuals.”

Nevertheless, even some of these jurisdictions have recently tightened their tax regimes. Italy, for example, decided to double the annual flat tax on the foreign income of new residents to €200,000 in August. Portugal, meanwhile, closed its non-residents programme last year and launched a new system that is no longer available to individuals deriving an income from pensions.

Philippe Amarante, head of Middle East at Henley & Partners, a residence and citizenship advisory firm, says that “Dubai is really shooting the lights out” in attracting non-doms. He notes that this is largely because of its “attractive” tax regime, whereby individuals do not incur income or capital gains taxes, as well as the lifestyle and the “pro-business sentiment”.

In all, these UK non-dom departures could contribute to an “unprecedented” net loss of 9,500 millionaires from Britain this year, according to Henley & Partners — more than double the number who left the country last year and second only to the number leaving China. Part of this overall exodus can been ascribed to “unwelcome policy decisions”, such as the ending of the non-dom tax regime, calculates Dr Hannah White, chief executive of the Institute for Government think-tank.

Rambourg makes clear that he will not be among the millionaires fleeing Britain this year — but he has left the door open for a future exit. “I’m still a French national and, maybe, I will eventually go back,” he muses.

“But I think it’s a duty to pay tax — I don’t choose the country I’m going to live in just because of the tax set-up. There are real non-doms out there, who are not obsessed by tax, and who plan to remain in the UK in spite of the disappearance of a tax perk.”