Le Monde : Gabriel Attal relance l’idée d’un « impôt participatif »

Gabriel Attal relance l’idée d’un « impôt participatif »
Le premier ministre démissionnaire suggère que chaque contribuable puisse déterminer l’usage d’une partie de son impôt. Un vieux projet rejeté jusqu’ici par les macronistes.


Comment réconcilier les Français avec l’impôt ? Peut-être en instaurant une forme d’« impôt participatif », qui permettrait à chaque contribuable de déterminer l’usage d’une partie de ce qu’il verse à l’Etat. Telle est du moins l’idée de Gabriel Attal. Le premier ministre démissionnaire mentionne cette proposition dans le « pacte d’action pour les Français » qu’il a transmis le 12 août aux présidents des groupes parlementaires comme base de discussion pour « bâtir des compromis législatifs » et surmonter l’absence de toute majorité dans la nouvelle Assemblée nationale.

Désormais patron des députés macronistes, Gabriel Attal y suggère de donner à chaque contribuable la « possibilité de flécher une partie de son impôt sur le revenu ou une contribution additionnelle sur une mission du budget de l’Etat librement choisie ». L’ancien ministre délégué chargé des comptes publics dans le gouvernement Borne relance ainsi un projet évoqué de longue date, mais rejeté jusqu’ici par son parti.

 C’est une vieille idée libérale, celle de l’impôt volontaire », explique Philippe Juvin, député (Droite républicaine) des Hauts-de-Seine, qui l’avait défendue avec vigueur lors de sa candidature aux primaires de la droite, en 2021. Pour certains libéraux, sceptiques par principe à l’égard des contraintes fixées par l’Etat, l’impôt pourrait être versé de façon volontaire, comme un don, une contribution justifiée pour chacun par son propre intérêt à l’existence de services publics, au maintien de l’ordre, etc. En 1789, la première « contribution patriotique » des révolutionnaires n’était-elle pas censée être versée à titre volontaire ? Son rendement fut très médiocre.

Redonner du sens à la fiscalité
Le philosophe allemand Peter Sloterdijk a ranimé la piste de l’impôt volontaire dans son livre Repenser l’impôt, Pour une éthique du don démocratique (Libella/Maren Sell, 2012). Pour redonner du sens à la fiscalité, il recommandait que les citoyens puissent choisir non pas le montant qu’ils versent, mais au moins à quoi une fraction de cet argent est employée. Exactement ce qu’évoque Gabriel Attal.

Le dispositif n’est techniquement pas impossible. Il existe déjà en Italie avec le « huit pour mille ». Depuis 1986, chaque Italien peut indiquer sur sa déclaration de revenus à quoi il souhaite voir consacré 0,8 % de son impôt : soit à des actions sociales ou humanitaires menées par les pouvoirs publics, soit à l’une des religions qui ont conclu un accord avec l’Etat. Ce système est devenu la principale source de financement des cultes et des activités humanitaires dans la Péninsule.

En France, « le fléchage de l’impôt existe aussi, mais de façon indirecte », relève Pierre Boyer, professeur à Polytechnique et auteur de Peut-on être heureux de payer des impôts ? (PUF). Les contribuables peuvent en effet orienter vers les causes de leur choix une partie de ce qu’ils versent en effectuant des dons partiellement déductibles de l’impôt sur le revenu ou de celui sur la fortune immobilière. Quelque 5,9 milliards d’euros de dons ont ainsi été déclarés à l’administration fiscale par les particuliers et les entreprises pour obtenir une réduction d’impôt en 2021. Le Loto du patrimoine, créé par Stéphane Bern en 2018, constitue aussi une forme d’impôt volontaire, dont les recettes sont affectées à l’entretien de monuments en péril.

L’idée d’un fléchage de l’impôt sur le revenu va plus loin, en permettant à chacun de choisir où va une part de ce qu’il donne directement à l’Etat. A droite, cette piste a séduit des élus comme Eric Woerth, député (Ensemble) de l’Oise, qui évoquait en 2019 l’hypothèse que les contribuables puissent orienter 5 % de leur impôt sur le revenu vers la politique publique de leur choix ou le remboursement de la dette. « Les prélèvements obligatoires ont tant augmenté qu’un jour les gens vont refuser de payer, appuie Philippe Juvin. Donc, soit on baisse les impôts, soit on trouve des innovations de ce type. » Au passage, ajoute-t-il, ce système peut pousser les élus à mieux tenir compte du point de vue des contribuables : « Imaginez que tout le monde veuille financer une action A, personne une action B. Quelle sera la légitimité de l’action B ? »

« Faire de la pédagogie »
A gauche, ce fléchage a aussi trouvé des défenseurs, dont les socialistes André Urban et Christine Pirès Beaune. Députée (PS) du Puy-de-Dôme, celle-ci a tenté en 2023 de faire voter par l’Assemblée ce qu’elle appelle un « budget participatif », donnant à chacun la possibilité de choisir l’affectation de 5 % de ce dont il s’acquitte. « Le but est de faire de la pédagogie et, surtout, de renforcer le consentement à l’impôt, qui s’est malheureusement beaucoup étiolé ces dernières années », plaidait-elle.

Un amendement alors balayé par la majorité, en particulier par les élus macronistes. Leurs arguments ? D’abord, c’est au Parlement, et non à tout un chacun, de décider ce que l’Etat doit faire de l’argent public. « Si l’on introduit le principe selon lequel 5 % d’un impôt a vocation à financer des projets selon le bon vouloir de nos concitoyens, on mettra à mal la démocratie représentative », avait déclaré Mathieu Lefèvre, député (Ensemble) du Val-de-Marne, « très défavorable à cette mesure ».

Certains redoutaient ensuite que ce mécanisme ne favorise les missions de l’Etat à l’image la plus positive, au détriment d’autres, indispensables mais moins cotées. « Je crains que la possibilité de choisir telle ou telle cause n’en vienne à porter atteinte aux politiques publiques », s’était alarmé Jean-René Cazeneuve (Ensemble), alors rapporteur général du budget.

Autre problème, un tel schéma permettrait à ceux qui gagnent assez d’argent pour payer l’impôt de peser sur les actions de l’Etat, en écartant les plus pauvres. Une sorte de suffrage censitaire, donc.

Jusqu’à présent, ces obstacles avaient suffi à bloquer toute tentative de fléchage de l’impôt. Mais Gabriel Attal, qui, lorsqu’il était au budget, avait lancé une consultation sans lendemain appelée « En avoir pour mes impôts », n’a visiblement pas oublié que cette idée avait des soutiens à droite comme à gauche. Une condition inévitable alors que l’Assemblée est fragmentée comme jamais.

The information : The Rise of Crypto’s Shadow Bankers

The Rise of Crypto’s Shadow Bankers

The Takeaway
The collapse of two major crypto-friendly banks has created an opportunity for crypto brokerages to front money to hedge funds and other investors who need to complete trades faster than banks can transfer money.

Last year’s collapse of major crypto-friendly banks threw a wrench in the works of crypto markets, making it harder for hedge funds and other crypto investors to transfer money as fast as most of their trades require. Increasingly, though, crypto brokerages such as FalconX and crypto trading firms including GSR and B2C2 are stepping in to provide short-term financing to ensure their clients’ trades can settle immediately, generating big payoffs in the process.

The opportunity arises from a quirk of the crypto markets. Investors can trade 24 hours a day, all year round, and transactions happen instantly. But it can take several days to move cash used to buy and sell crypto to a crypto trading account. Crypto-friendly banks such as Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank had arrangements to ensure cash was immediately available. After they shut down, several crypto brokers—acting like shadow banks by extending credits—are making short-term loans that bridge the timing mismatch, charging annualized interest rates of up to 25%.

This shift shows how the bank collapses have reshaped the structure of crypto markets. Some firms that survived the crash in crypto prices have now emerged with a bigger role. It also highlights how the crypto industry still relies heavily on the movement of traditional cash behind the scenes, leaving an opening for intermediaries to make money.

“It was not a big thing until Silvergate and Signature Bank went away,” said Austin Campbell, a former executive in banking and stablecoin sectors who is now an adjunct assistant professor at Columbia Business School. “This is a regulatory bottleneck that’s been created, and you have shadow bank participants stepping up to fulfill the demand.”

Before they shuttered, Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank opened accounts for many crypto exchanges, trading firms, stablecoin issuers and funds. Since most of the crypto industry used the same banks, crypto companies could easily move cash to each other seven days a week in real time.

Some banks, such as Cross River Bank, are still processing transactions for crypto clients. Another such bank, Customers Bank, is operating under a Federal Reserve enforcement action barring the Pennsylvania-based bank from taking on new crypto clients without regulatory signoff. Meanwhile, brokers have jumped into the sector to provide a workaround.

One such firm is FalconX, a crypto prime brokerage backed by investors including Tiger Global Management and Singapore’s GIC. It allows clients to place bets on bitcoin before their money arrives at the brokerage’s bank account, using a credit line secured by the clients’ other investments, also handled through FalconX.

While FalconX has offered the service for years, the demise of crypto-friendly banks has been a “catalyst for growth in our business,” because clients are looking for alternative ways to finance and settle their trades, especially outside banking hours, said Austin Reid, the firm’s global head of revenue and business.

For example, if a hedge fund wants to buy bitcoin on a Saturday using money in its bank account, it can use its credit line with FalconX to lock in the price. The client will pay FalconX cash for the bitcoin, plus interest for each day it takes the cash to reach FalconX’s bank account, and then FalconX releases the bitcoin to the client once it’s paid.

“The dollar they will send us includes both the costs of the bitcoin itself, plus the interest rate to keep that position open over that time period,” said Reid. A FalconX representative said the amount of credit it extends to clients has tripled so far this year over last year.

B2C2 also finances clients’ crypto trades done outside banking hours. “Some crypto participants aren’t able to get a bank account at either Cross River Bank or Customers Bank, so they will have to rely on us to fund their trading over the weekend,” said Thomas Restout, CEO of B2C2.

The interest rates FalconX, B2C2 and others charge fluctuate daily based on borrower demand and crypto market volatility. They typically range between 9% and 15% on an annualized basis, though they can rise as high as 25% when bitcoin prices soar, because borrowers expect to cover the interest costs through their trading strategies.

These loans are short-term in nature—a hedge fund’s cash typically arrives in a trading firm’s account a few days after the trade. That limits the risk, compared with the types of crypto lending that caused the failures of BlockFi, Celsius Network and Voyager Digital in 2022. In those cases, crypto lending platforms funneled consumers’ money to crypto hedge funds like Three Arrows Capital and Sam Bankman-Fried’s Alameda Research, which were making speculative bets in a myriad of tokens and crypto projects.

“You are lending to large, more creditworthy institutions, who have a need for cash because of settlement timing issues,” said Campbell.

Short-Term Financing

Crypto trading firms are also fronting money to investors jumping into digital tokens— tied to traditional assets such as stocks and bonds— that trade on blockchains.

One example is tokenized money market funds, blockchain-traded tokens that represent shares in an underlying traditional money market fund. Asset management giant BlackRock, for example, has partnered with startup Securitize on a tokenized version of a money market fund that has gathered more than $500 million in assets since it launched in March.

These tokenized funds are similar to stablecoins, except they pay a yield that comes from their underlying portfolio of Treasurys and other short-term debt. That’s made them attractive for investors including crypto protocols and foundations that support blockchain projects.

But cashing in and out of the tokenized fund still comes with delays. If an investor wants to sell a tokenized money market fund holdings on a Friday night, it could be four days before they see the cash in their bank account, because banks are closed over the weekend and money market funds take another two business days to settle.

Market-making firms including GSR and B2C2, whose main business is buying and selling crypto to provide market liquidity, have seized on a new short-term financing business that speeds up the process.

“This is the point where the crypto markets and traditional markets are trying to clash. Weekends are closed here [in traditional banking], and weekends are not closed there [in crypto markets],” Ruchir Gupta, head of treasury and options trading at GSR, said. “The moment you bring them together, you have all these frictions in the market.”

The Information : The Saga of Snowflake: Can AI and a New CEO Save the Company?

The Saga of Snowflake: Can AI and a New CEO Save the Company?
Snowflake shone bright in the last tech epoch. Keeping up with the AI boom falls to Sridhar Ramaswamy, an exacting ex-Googler.

Sridhar Ramaswamy seldom takes a day off. He prefers to work seven days a week, putting in a “non-small number of hours” on the weekend, he said, usually in the morning before his wife, a dentist, wakes up and then again in the afternoon.

“Listen, I’m from India: We’re always very insecure. I can’t sit around and not do anything,” he said. “I like to work.”

As the new CEO of Snowflake, a struggling data and software company that epitomized the last tech era’s cloud boom, he has sought to shake up the place and has dispensed with some parts of the looser management style favored by his predecessor, Frank Slootman. One basic change: Slootman preferred to operate from his Montana house. Ramaswamy has a fourth-floor desk next to other engineers in the company’s San Mateo, Calif., office.

Another difference between the two: Whereas Slootman might’ve tasked an executive with a project and anticipated a summary several months later, Ramaswamy expects his reports to keep him in the loop. “I don’t want to dampen creativity,” he said. “But I also don’t want it to be the case that I disagree with a premise, someone works on it for three weeks and then on slide one, I go, ‘This is a disaster!’”

Ramaswamy’s reply to someone who chafes under the expectations? “For the really recalcitrant ones: Trust is earned,” he said as we hiked through the hills near his South Bay home. “Nobody deserves independence. They earn independence.”

We’d ended up there—on a sunny day that felt hotter than the mid-80s outside—because I’d asked him where he goes to relax and unwind. Quickly, we came to an uncomfortably vertical climb up a few hundred feet involving several dozen wooden steps. In the past, Ramaswamy’s friends, like Sequoia Capital’s Jim Goetz, have joined him on this route; in other moments, Ramaswamy, 57, has enjoyed testing his fitness by doing the climb while breathing only through his nose.

“Just a fun little exercise of ‘Can you be zen?’” he said as we reached the stairs’ end. Still, he conceded, “some friends call it cardiac hill.”

Come to think of it, Snowflake itself is in a bit of an uphill battle at the moment. Lately, its stock has, well, melted. The shares have lost nearly half their
value since the company named Ramaswamy, a former top Google executive, as CEO in February just as it was forecasting disappointing sales growth.

Snowflake was an early pioneer in selling data-warehousing services, where companies store mass amounts of data from multiple sources in the cloud. But, increasingly, it faces stiff competition from rivals like Databricks, Amazon and Google, and it has lagged behind in adding artificial intelligence to its products.

What happens next at Snowflake might serve as a fair bellwether for what’ll happen across Silicon Valley in the immediate future. Many companies find themselves in the same uncomfortable position: needing to satisfy investor—and customer—demands to seize this moment in AI and do so faster than competitors.

The contrast between Snowflake’s present and past adds some dramatic complexity to the situation. This is the first real struggle for Snowflake, which enjoyed a charmed early life and investment from Silicon Valley’s top names, including Sequoia. Sure, Snowflake sells nothing sexy, but the startup had an honest-to-goodness mystique, especially after Slootman led it in a gusher of an IPO just four years ago, the largest ever for a software company. On the stock’s debut, it began trading at $245, more than double its $120 IPO price.

Some further irony to the scenario: Ramaswamy certainly didn’t expect to find himself in the position of leading Snowflake’s comeback. When he sold his AI search startup, Neeva, to Snowflake in 2023, he’d planned to exit Snowflake at the end of six months.

Ramaswamy would’ve been a hot free agent. He’s not a mass-market name like, say, a Benioff, but he did have a long tenure at Google, which ended with running its all-important ads business. The experience put him in good stead with Silicon Valley insiders. Elon Musk, for instance, tried to woo him to join Twitter as CEO before the Neeva sale to Snowflake.

Once at Snowflake, Slootman talked him into its top job, hoping Ramaswamy’s AI background would accelerate Snowflake’s own AI plans.

So Ramaswamy finds himself currently leading perhaps the most interesting turnaround story unfolding in Silicon Valley. If the exacting Ramaswamy can’t steady Snowflake, his efforts will underscore how daunting it’ll be for other businesses with less experienced leaders to navigate AI, which remains a hugely costly and ultimately unproven technology.

Even if Ramaswamy hasn’t convinced the public markets, billionaire venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, who helped talk Ramaswamy into joining Greylock Partners when he left Google, has plenty of confidence in him. “Sridhar plays to win,” Hoffman told me. “He’ll either change for the game he’s playing—or he’ll change the game he’s playing and win. He doesn’t delude himself.”

While at Google, Ramaswamy had a reputation among his colleagues: He enjoyed challenging their ideas, even ones from then-CEO Eric Schmidt or co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

“I saw him have heated debates with Larry, with Sergey, with Eric, and he’d say, ‘You’re wrong—here’s the six reasons you’re wrong,’” recalled Patrick Pichette, who served as Google’s chief financial officer. (Said Ramaswamy: “I’ve never been shy about my opinions.”)

Ramaswamy, who was born in southern India and later earned a doctorate in computer science at Brown University, joined Google in April 2003. (Previously, he’d worked at Bell Labs and at Epiphany, a dot-com–era software startup.) As Google went public and started to form into the megagiant we know today, Ramaswamy became a valuable engineer and manager within the company’s drive to bolster its digital ads business.

At Google, Ramaswamy impressed co-workers and his staff with his detached, calculating manner. “He’s like Data from ‘Star Trek’: Compute, compute, compute,” recalled one former Google executive who worked with him. And he excelled at leading during stressful moments—in what Ramaswamy called a “war room” setting, when small groups of engineers would need to fix a problem, including the issue of what to call their efforts.

“Funny thing is, there was a colleague at Google who was offended that I called something a war room: ‘What’s with this martial metaphor shit?’ So to make him happy, I started calling them our ‘basket-weaving efforts,’” Ramaswamy told me. “Look, it’s all about working together: weaving baskets, war rooms—same thing.”

He took over running Google’s ads and commerce team in 2014 with Susan Wojcicki when the ads business totaled around $50 billion in sales. (After an internal fight with Wojcicki, he assumed solo control of the team a year later.) When Ramaswamy left Google in 2018, ads had grown to nearly $120 billion.

His departure came amid personal disillusionment over the economic pressure from online advertising. To reach $100 billion–plus in sales, Ramaswamy had needed to relentlessly push Google ads at users. And he felt the company had gone too far: A breaking point for Ramaswamy, a father of two, came in 2017 when a Times of London investigation revealed Google had sold ads against YouTube videos of children that appealed to pedophiles.

For a time, he joined Hoffman at Greylock, but almost immediately he started working on Neeva, a search startup that would charge users a $5 monthly subscription rather than rely on ads for revenue. “We were going to build a search engine with 40 people that was powered by AI and had no ads in it,” recalled Vivek Raghunathan, who worked with Ramaswamy at Google and left to co-found Neeva with him. They brainstormed their initial plans on walks through Google’s campus. “The mission was audacious,” Raghunathan said.

As Ramaswamy and Raghunathan set out on Neeva, Frank Slootman was settling into Snowflake’s CEO role, then the third person to have the job.

A pair of technology wonks—two Frenchmen, Benoît Dageville and Thierry Cruanes—had founded the company in 2012. They quickly realized they would need help running the company. (“I’m an engineer. I’m not a business guy,” Dageville told me. “I’m not a manager either—I hate managing people.”)

Snowflake’s first CEO was also one of the startup’s major investors, Sutter Hill’s Mike Speiser. He helped Dageville and Cruanes commercialize their idea: data warehouses in the cloud rather than ones held within internal servers. Since a data warehouse is exactly what it sounds like—a digital repository of large amounts of data from various sources—it can overflow with too much stuff and become unruly, just like a physical warehouse with real-life goods. Snowflake’s software made it easier for customers like Rent the Runway and Capital One to study and analyze their company’s data.

In 2014, Speiser turned over the CEO spot to Bob Muglia, a 23-year Microsoft veteran. That went well, and Snowflake’s valuation shot up from $75 million the year Muglia joined to nearly $4 billion four years later. But as Snowflake’s investors began eyeing a possible IPO, the company’s board recruited Slootman to take Muglia’s place.

Slootman’s speciality was IPOs—readying a company for a listing and guiding it through its initial years as a public firm. He’d enjoyed great success at this while running two other software companies, Data Domain and ServiceNow.

Slootman had expected to retire after ServiceNow but got coaxed into a final run with Snowflake. He made some straightforward changes, like hiring a new CFO, and by the time he set out to create a pandemic-era virtual road show for the IPO, he had impressive figures to wow investors. In fact, Snowflake’s revenue climbed to over $260 million in the company’s fiscal year ending in January 2020, nearly triple from a year earlier.

When Snowflake’s board initially persuaded Slootman to take the position, he’d told the directors to expect him to keep the job for no more than five years. So who could take his spot?

Just as Slootman’s fifth year at Snowflake neared, Ramaswamy sensed he and Raghunathan had largely taken their audacious mission as far as it could go. They’d made an excellent product, Ramaswamy felt, but found limited consumer demand for a subscription-based search engine.

“We weren’t quite seeing hockey-stick growth at that point,” he admitted. “And a lot of folks on my team I had recruited from pretty plum jobs at Google and other places. They’d been living on just a salary.” He wanted them to share in the rewards of an exit sooner than later.

When Ramaswamy began to shop Neeva around, he weighed several acquirers before settling on Snowflake, sensing he and his team would fit in best there. Slootman initially spoke to Ramaswamy about acquiring Neeva on a Thursday. By Monday, they had signed terms.

If Slootman had one eye on the door at Snowflake, so did Ramaswamy. During the negotiations, Ramaswamy made it clear to Slootman that he intended to leave by the end of the year.

As Slootman crunched the numbers for Neeva, his CFO, Mike Scarpelli, encouraged him to think about whether he could convince Ramaswamy to stay. “I told Frank at the time, ‘Sridhar could be your successor—you need to spend some time with him,’” Scarpelli recalled.

Before officially joining Snowflake, Ramaswamy and Raghunathan shut down Neeva entirely: Snowflake had no interest in a consumer search engine. They wanted Ramaswamy and his team for their “technical chops,” as Ramaswamy put it. Snowflake wanted the new team to build AI tools.

In his first few months, Ramaswamy operated with no direct reports but nonetheless hoped to ignite Snowflake’s AI efforts. “I’ve joked to friends: It was an exercise in soft power to try to persuade a company of 7,500 people that change was needed,” he said.

As the six-month mark neared, Ramaswamy went on a weeklong trip to Europe with Slootman. Mostly, they went to meet with customers, whose loyalty to Snowflake's products impressed Ramaswamy. “Honestly, that’s what convinced me there was a future here,” he said.

At a dinner in London overlooking the Thames, Slootman, who by then had come to realize how much AI would matter to Snowflake’s next CEO, pitched Ramaswamy on stepping in to replace him.

Later, Ramaswamy called his mother in India to tell her the news. She was thrilled. “I come from a pretty humble family,” he said, “so absolutely I think my mom was more excited about me becoming CEO than, honestly, I was.”

In February, Slootman announced the change. (Slootman, who wouldn’t comment for this story, remains chair.) With the CEO swap coming on top of a lackluster sales forecast, Wall Street panicked. Snowflake shares slid nearly 20% in a day to under $190. And they’ve continued to slide for the last several months, recently down to around $110.

Ramaswamy believes the changes he’s made at Snowflake can eventually restore investor confidence—“It’s nothing where we can wave a magic wand and have things get better instantly,” he said—and over the past year, Snowflake has released a raft of AI features.

Those features probably aren’t extraordinary enough to change the world—or destroy it. (“I don’t feel I’m qualified to comment on how fast the technology can get to where it’s scary,” Ramaswamy said.) Rather, many are AI basics.

Snowflake, for example, has introduced a chatbot for data search and has released proprietary large language models so customers can build their own AI apps. A more complex feature can convert what’s called unstructured data (prose, images, video) into structured data (spreadsheets, databases, Excel-type files). A chatbot can parse the latter much more easily.

Eventually, someone using Snowflake software might see nothing more than a single text field: Plug in a query involving the data, and the answer appears below. “It’ll be a way for users to talk to their data using natural language,” said Raghunathan, who is now a Snowflake vice president. “People will talk to their structured data and say, ‘Why are same-store sales in Texas down today?’”

Within the sales department, Ramaswamy has pushed staff away from “the whale-hunting game,” he said, eschewing Snowflake’s past prioritization for landing big deals over amassing a significant bedrock of clients that bring in $100,000 to $2 million in annual revenue.

Ramaswamy has urged staff across the company to adopt “a spirit of urgency and continuous self-improvement,” he said. “Snowflake had that in part, but it was not running through the entire company as a way of living.” This has involved, for instance, asking engineers to consider how they can cut down on the time required for tasks that would take “tens of minutes to minutes.”

As Snowflake continues on its turnaround, Ramaswamy has made it clear to his direct reports that they should expect him to deeply examine their proposals. “One thing that was somewhat surprising—and still is—to internal folks is my demand and desire to understand,” he said.

It’s a change from the Slootman days. “Frank probably made faster decisions and shot more from the hip,” said Scarpelli, the CFO. “Sridhar’s a little bit more data driven—that’s probably the engineer in him—and doesn’t mind getting into the details. I cannot believe the volume of information that he reads and can retain. It’s mind boggling.”

I heard much the same from Denise Persson, the chief marketing officer. “He’s very hands-on: I don’t think anyone else on the planet would have this commitment to being hands-on,” Persson said. “He’s relentless.”

“Frank’s obviously a legendary CEO—I’m much more in the thick of it,” Ramaswamy explained. “I want to look at steps along the way and not wait for a month or a quarter.”

Even with all that planning, Ramaswamy has hit some notable speed bumps. In May, Snowflake had to scrap plans to buy Reka AI, a startup that makes LLMs. (Ramaswamy wouldn’t comment on exactly why the deal fell through.) Around the same time, it had to publicly announce that hackers had accessed some Snowflake customer accounts; Ramaswamy says those accounts weren’t using safety features like two-factor authentication correctly.

As much as Ramaswamy evangelizes about AI, he also seemed compelled to assure me that “it’s not as if everybody now works on AI” at Snowflake. It seemed like a rare admission from a CEO at this moment—that other parts of the business matter as much as AI, and that eventually Silicon Valley’s obsession with AI will ebb.

Ramaswamy expects many of the changes he has made—the greater rigor, the improved speed—to serve the company well no matter what era dawns next. “There’s a permeation process going on,” he said.

When Ramaswamy has made time on his calendar for leisure recently, he has been preparing for a mile-plus swim from Alcatraz Island to San Francisco that he hopes to do this fall.

To train, he previously had a coach critique his form and study it by swimming under Ramaswamy as he swam. Recently, he joined a Pacific Heights swim club. “The first time I went, they gave me some helpful advice: ‘You’ll be in a little bit of a shock, but in five minutes, your face will be numb. You won’t feel a thing. You’ll be fine,’” he recalled.

Ramaswamy only learned to swim as an adult, and only after wearing out his knees as an obsessive marathoner. “I was a huge runner: Zen for me was a 20-mile run,” he said. “There’s nothing like running in 34-degree rain that can make you feel what cold is like.”

TechCrunch : Rimac squeezes more power into its new all-electric hypercar Nevera

Rimac squeezes more power into its new all-electric hypercar Nevera R. And it only starts at $2.5 million
Image Credits: Rimac

Rimac, the Croatian EV upstart that ascended from a garage to become a supercar and technology powerhouse merged with Bugatti, has upgraded its Nevera hypercar. And along the way, Rimac managed to squeeze more power into it.

Rimac revealed Friday during The Quail, A Motorsports Gathering at Monterey Car Week the Nevera R, an all-electric hypercar that’s meant to push the performance bounds of its predecessor. The upshot: a hyper sports car that produces 2,107 horsepower, can reach a top speed of 217 miles per hour — or even 256 mph under Rimac’s oversight — and travel from zero to 60 mph in 1.74 seconds. The company hasn’t released an estimated range for the vehicle.

Those specs appear to support Rimac’s goal for the R in the new Nevera R’s name, which stands for radical, rebellious and relentless. The Nevera R’s larger wheels in the rear, extremely low nose, high rear-fixed-wing and carbon fiber structure completes the “hey-if-it-wasn’t-clear-this-is-a-gnarly-performance-hypercar” package.

The Rimac Nevera R, which debuted in Nebula green, puts the spotlight back on Rimac — and the ever-evolving and growing company.
Image Credits: Rimac

The new EV is designed to do more than punch it off the line, however. Rimac Automobili founder Mate Rimac explained in a call prior to the reveal that the Nevera R, which is equipped with four electric motors, advanced ceramic brakes, a new 108 kilowatt-hour battery pack, new Michelin Pilot Cup tires and all-wheel torque vectoring, is designed for cornering.

“Nobody missed power in the Nevera,” CEO Mate Rimac said. “But we decided to, you know, squeeze a little bit more out that we knew we could still get out of the car. And, of course, give it a more aggressive, even more interesting design than before.”
Rimac will only produce 40 Nevera R units, which has a base price of €2.3 million ($2.5 million in today’s exchange rate).


For comparison, the original two-seater Nevera produces 1,914-horsepower, can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 1.85 seconds and has a top speed of 258 mph. When Rimac Automobili began production of the original $2.5 million Nevera in 2022, those specs made it faster than any other production car.
Image Credits: Rimac

Rimac Automobili brand was founded in 2009 by Mate Rimac, then a 21-year-old student. By 2011, he launched its first all-electric hypercar, the Concept One. The Concept Two would follow and eventually morph into the Nevera.

By the time the Rimac Nevera was revealed in 2021, Rimac was a unicorn startup that had also launched a technology subsidiary to supply other automakers such as backers Hyundai and Porsche with advanced EV components. That same year, Rimac would announce a merger with Bugatti, the iconic French supercar maker.

The company has a far more complex structure than its early days in Mate Rimac’s hobby garage. Bugatti-Rimac, which makes combustion, electric and hybrid hypercars, is majority owned by the Rimac Group and 45% owned by Porsche. Under Bugatti-Rimac is Rimac Automobili, which is the EV hypercar brand. The Rimac Group, of which Mate Rimac still holds a majority stake, also includes the Rimac Technology subsidiary and Verne, a newly launched robotaxi business.
Image Credits: Rimac

“As you can see it’s quite a wide spectrum,” Mate Rimac said when explaining the company’s structure. “So the days are not very boring here. There is so much stuff happening.”

The Nevera R’s reveal also comes amid a topsy-turvy EV market. While EV sales continue to grow globally, U.S. and European automakers have struggled to deliver an affordable electric vehicle to customers, who have eschewed the costlier luxury models. A bevy of EV startups that charged into the industry several years ago in a bid to match Tesla’s success has dwindled to just a few.

Rimac, which has a different mission than those seeking to sell volumes of cheap EVs, has been one of the few success stories. “Just taking a normal car, making it electric, that’s not enough,” Mate Rimac said. “It has to be better; it has to offer something unique. And in our case, you know, the customer group that we are talking to, basically is collectors.”

WSJ : Apple’s Hold on the App Store Is Loosening, at Least in Europe

Apple’s Hold on the App Store Is Loosening, at Least in Europe
Epic Games, Spotify among the developers taking advantage of European rule changes

BRUSSELS—Apple AAPL 0.55%increase; green up pointing triangle has long kept a tight grip on its iPhone ecosystem. In Europe, its hold is starting to weaken.

“Fortnite” maker Epic Games on Friday launched an alternative app store for iPhone users in Europe. Spotify this week began directing Europeans on its iOS music-streaming app to the company’s website to sign up for subscriptions, something it wasn’t previously permitted to do.

Apple separately said Wednesday that it plans to make it possible for developers in the U.S. and several other countries to offer secure contactless payments through their own apps on iPhones. Apple had previously committed to opening contactless payment technology in Europe to settle a European Union antitrust case.

The changes are opening up Apple’s devices to outside developers in new ways, allowing third parties to bypass elements of its control and, in some cases, its fees. They show how a wave of new regulations, antitrust enforcement and rulings, many in Europe, are chipping away at Apple’s “walled garden” of devices and software.

Apple has long argued that its approach supports users’ privacy and security. It has also become a lucrative part of the company’s business model. Apple’s services unit, which includes the App Store, generated $85.2 billion in sales during the 2023 fiscal year, accounting for about 22% of overall revenue.

Epic Games said Friday that its new app store for iPhone users in Europe will initially offer three games: “Fortnite,” “Fall Guys” and “Rocket League Sideswipe.” Those games will also be made available through other alternative app stores in Europe beginning with one called AltStore, Epic said.

The move takes advantage of a recent EU law called the Digital Markets Act, which requires some of the world’s biggest technology companies to comply with rules meant to boost competition in digital advertising, online search and app ecosystems.

Epic said it can’t offer the store for iPhone users outside Europe because Apple doesn’t allow alternative app stores in other regions. The developer has also expressed frustration at the number of steps European users must follow to access its new app store.

Apple said Friday that the DMA required it to enable new capabilities for developers in the EU, and that it had worked to make the changes “as easy as possible for users” while also trying to protect them from risks.

The company has previously said that it wasn’t applying the same changes outside the bloc because it is concerned about the impact on users’ privacy and security.

Epic and Spotify have both been engaged in a long-running feud with Apple. They say the iPhone maker imposes unfair rules through its App Store and takes too large a cut of developers’ revenue.

“Fortnite” was kicked off Apple and Google’s app stores in 2020 after Epic attempted to bypass the tech companies’ standard 30% concession for in-app purchases. The game could still be downloaded on Android devices through Epic’s website.

Earlier this year, Apple revoked Epic’s developer account after Tim Sweeney, the game developer’s chief executive, publicly criticized its new European App Store rules. It later reinstated the account.

Sweeney said Europe’s approach to setting and enforcing new rules for big tech companies showed that “regulation can have teeth and can succeed.”

“It also provides a road map for every other country’s regulators,” Sweeney added.

Apple is facing pressure in the U.S. too. The company is already being forced to allow developers to process purchases outside of the App Store following the verdict of a U.S. lawsuit brought by Epic.

But Apple’s plan to comply with the 2021 ruling has stirred outrage among developers because of its high fees. Apple collects a 27% commission on app transactions that go through an alternative payment system, compared with the company’s standard 30% fee.

A U.S. federal judge is currently examining Apple’s compliance with the ruling in the Epic case. In hearings, the judge has questioned Apple executives on its fees and the array of warnings that now precede a user’s choice of a non-Apple form of payment.

“Other than to stifle competition, I see no other answer,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers told an Apple executive in court about the company’s system. In court, Apple said that it believes it is complying with the court’s order and not trying to stifle options for its users. Instead, it is trying to maintain the privacy and security of its users while also running a business, a company executive said.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Justice Department also sued Apple, alleging that the company had violated the country’s antitrust laws by making it difficult for third-party developers to integrate with the iPhone. Apple, the lawsuit alleges, does this to keep users locked into its ecosystem.

Apple said it would defend itself against the government’s lawsuit and filed a motion to dismiss the case earlier this month.

While Apple has made concessions in Europe to allay regulatory scrutiny, some app developers have said those changes don’t go far enough.

Spotify began posting subscription pricing information in its iOS app on Wednesday after the company said it opted into a new program that allows music-streaming apps to inform European users about alternative ways to make purchases.

However, users still can’t directly subscribe to Spotify through the company’s iOS app or click on an in-app link to purchase a subscription because Spotify doesn’t want to pay a commission to Apple that it views as unreasonable.

The Spotify move follows an EU antitrust ruling earlier this year, in which Apple was fined roughly $2 billion for allegedly setting unfair rules for developers of music-streaming apps. Apple has appealed the ruling.

Spotify said it wasn’t satisfied with the changes Apple has made so far. It said music-streaming services should be allowed to give users a link for purchasing subscriptions without being charged a fee if a user subscribes after clicking the link.

Apple has previously said that Spotify gets significant benefits from its presence on the App Store and doesn’t pay Apple any commission.

The EU has in recent years passed a raft of rules affecting tech companies, at times prompting complaints from business groups about the difficulty of operating in the market of roughly 450 million consumers.

Meta Platforms and Apple both said earlier this year that they would delay the launch of new artificial-intelligence products and features because of concerns over the EU’s regulatory environment.

The European Commission in June alleged that Apple wasn’t doing enough to comply with its digital-competition law, including rules related to the App Store. Apple could be fined as much as 10% of its worldwide revenue if regulators ultimately determine that it broke the rules.

Apple said at the time that it had made changes in response to feedback from app developers and the Commission and was confident that its plan complies with the law. It added it would continue to listen and engage with regulators.

CrunchBase : The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: Cybersecurity Leads With Kite

The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: Cybersecurity Leads With Kiteworks’ Nearly Half-Billion-Dollar Deal

This week definitely saw a slowdown in big rounds, with only three deals breaking the $100 million mark. However, healthcare and medical device makers did well. Perhaps announcements are slowing as summer is coming to a close, but the week certainly seemed to lack the big money of so many this year.

1. Kiteworks, $456M, cybersecurity: Investors seem to be digging cybersecurity yet again. A week after Abnormal Security closed a $250 million Series D that valued the startup at $5.1 billion, secure content company Kiteworks raised a $456 million round from Insight Partners (which also participated in the Abnormal round) and Sixth Street. The San Mateo, California-based company described the new round as “growth equity,” but also said it was a “partial liquidity event,” meaning some investors were able to cash out. While the company did not specify a valuation, it did state it was a minority investment, meaning its valuation is greater than $1 billion. Kiteworks’ platform allows customers to share sensitive data with other trusted parties via communication channels such as email and file sharing. In 2020 the company raised $120 million in a funding round led by Bregal Sagemount. Founded in 1999, Kiteworks has raised $592 million. The company was formerly known as Accellion and suffered a major data breach in 2021.

2. Halda Therapeutics, $126M, biotech: The big biotech round of the week came from New Haven, Connecticut-based Halda Therapeutics, a biotech startup developing therapies for prostate cancer and breast cancer, which raised a $126 million Series B extension from investors including Deep Track Capital and RA Capital Management. Founded in 2018, Halda has raised $202 million to date, per the company.

3. HistoSonics, $102M, healthcare: Usually we talk a lot about biotechs in this column, but this week was a good week for healthcare and medical device companies like HistoSonics. The Minneapolis company raised a $102 million Series D led by Alpha Wave Ventures. The startup’s Edison Histotripsy System uses ultrasound to create a “bubble cloud” designed to destroy and liquefy targeted liver tumors. Founded in 2009, the company has raised nearly $329 million, per Crunchbase.

4. Neptune Medical, $97M, medical device: Like we said, a good week for medical device makers as Neptune Medical raised big, too. The Burlingame, California-based medical device maker locked up a $97 million Series D. The company said Olympus and Sonder Capital were significant participants in this round. Neptune Medical is focused on using robotics to combat gastrointestinal disease. Founded in 2016, this is the company’s first disclosed funding amount, per Crunchbase.

5. Caresyntax, $80M, healthcare: We stay on healthcare, with Caresyntax’s $180 million raise through a series C extension and growth debt expansion round. The money breakdown is $80 million in equity and a $100 million growth debt facility from a variety of investors. The San Francisco-based startup has developed software and an AI platform for surgery — allowing for the use of data and applications to enhance surgical precision and patient safety. Founded in 2013, the company has raised nearly $388 million, per Crunchbase.

6. EliseAI, $75M, artificial intelligence: Conversational AI platform EliseAI was minted one of the newest unicorns in the AI world. The New York-based company raised a $75 million Series D at a valuation in excess of $1 billion led by Sapphire Ventures. EliseAI currently focuses its AI platform on the housing industry, but is also expanding into healthcare. Founded in 2017, the company has raised nearly $142 million, per Crunchbase.

7. Chaos Labs, $55M, blockchain: New York-based Chaos Labs, a blockchain risk management startup, raised a $55 million Series A led by Haun Ventures. Founded in 2022, the company has raised $75 million, per Crunchbase.

8. Moximed, $61M, medical device: Fremont, California-based Moximed, a developer of medical devices for people with knee osteoarthritis, closed a $61 million Series D, which also includes an option to close on up to an additional $30 million. The round was led by Elevage Medical Technologies. Founded in 2006, the company has raised $244 million, per Crunchbase.

9. Sahara AI, $43M, artificial intelligence: Los Angeles-based Sahara AI, a decentralized AI network, raised a $43 million funding round led by venture capital investors Binance Labs, Pantera Capital and Polychain. Founded in 2023, the company has raised $49 million, per Crunchbase.

10. PayZen, $32M, fintech: San Francisco-based PayZen, a fintech startup for the healthcare industry, raised $32 million in equity led by NEA. The company also raised a $200 million credit facility. Founded in 2019, the company has raised $472 million, per Crunchbase.

FT : Secret superyacht trips and fake documents: how H2O tried to cover up a sca

Secret superyacht trips and fake documents: how H2O tried to cover up a scandal
UK watchdog accused firm of misleading it over ties to financier Lars Windhorst

In the summer of 2019, H2O Asset Management faced a dilemma.

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority had just asked the firm to hand over documents relating to a series of controversial investments it had made that were linked to a racy financier with a criminal past.

The regulator’s demand capped a torrid month for the asset manager. An investigation by the Financial Times had recently revealed that it had poured substantial amounts of investor money into these illiquid securities, which led nervous clients to withdraw €8bn from the €34bn of funds it managed.

While the investor exodus had slowed, the request for evidence of the research and valuation work H2O had carried out posed a major problem: the firm had often performed little or no due diligence before buying the bonds and stocks, the FCA later found, while a valuation committee that was supposed to scrutinise the investments had not met for months.

Rather than owning up to these lax checks and balances, however, certain H2O employees falsified documents and even fabricated minutes of meetings that had never taken place, according to findings the British regulator published last week after a five-year investigation.

At the same time, H2O tried to hide from the regulator that its senior managers had for years been wined and dined by Lars Windhorst — the notorious financier behind its illiquid investments — who had lavished the firm’s top brass with trips around the world on his private jet and superyacht.

When the FCA initially probed its dealings with the financier, H2O indicated that it had received no gifts and entertainment from Windhorst, the regulator revealed last week.

The alleged cover-up burst into public view when H2O last week agreed to pay €250mn to investors to help avoid a fine from the FCA, which described its regulatory breaches as “extremely serious”. The FCA accused H2O of attempting to “conceal certain matters” in order to “hide the severity of its due diligence and systems and controls failings”.

While H2O said last week that it has since overhauled its “risk management and compliance teams, governance and internal procedures”, the FCA’s findings, along with further internal correspondence and other documents seen by the FT, paint a stark picture of the lengths H2O went to conceal its risky dealings from both the authorities and its investors.

Blurred lines
On a spring day in 2018, Bruno Crastes sat down to enjoy a birthday meal like no other.

The then 53-year-old Frenchman’s buccaneering approach to trading government bonds and currencies had made H2O — which he had co-founded with backing from French bank Natixis at the start of the decade — one of the most revered investment firms in Europe.

That evening, according to people familiar with the event, Crastes celebrated his birthday aboard a superyacht moored in Monaco belonging to the man who would ultimately prove central to his downfall: Windhorst.

The German financier possessed an uncanny ability to attract deep-pocketed backers despite a career defined by scandal. Yet H2O handed Windhorst unprecedented financial firepower, providing him with funding to buy everything from luxury lingerie maker La Perla to German football club Hertha Berlin. 

These hard-to-value private debt deals were a major departure for H2O, whose name alluded to the liquidity and transparency it was supposed to offer clients. By the time French and British regulators restricted H2O from investing more with Windhorst in 2020, it had well over €2bn of exposure to his businesses.

Over the years, Crastes’ professional and personal relationship with Windhorst became increasingly blurred. In addition to his 2018 birthday meal, Crastes took numerous trips on the financier’s 240ft-long superyacht, Global, even bringing his family along for the ride on sojourns to the Mediterranean and Caribbean.

Then, in February 2019, Windhorst announced to executives at La Perla that Crastes’ wife would become general manager of a new flagship store in Monaco. That same day, according to correspondence seen by the FT, Windhorst emailed Crastes to let him know he had purchased 32 bottles of 1982 vintage Château Latour wine, which the H2O chief replied they needed “to celebrate La Perla Monaco”.

Crastes’ wife did not end up taking a job at La Perla, however, which ultimately shelved plans for the Monaco store.

At the time, few people at H2O knew the full extent of Crastes’ personal entanglements with the financier, with the FCA noting that several members of H2O’s risk and compliance committee had “never heard of Mr Windhorst” before the FT’s reporting. 

That was all about to change. 

‘Purely business’
In June 2019, the FT published an investigation detailing the extent of H2O’s illiquid investments linked to Windhorst, sparking a market panic that led investors to withdraw billions of euros from its funds.

In video messages to clients following publication, Crastes described H2O’s relationship with Windhorst as “purely business”, while the firm’s chief investment officer Vincent Chailley assured investors that the firm applied “strict internal limits” to illiquid assets. 

Just two weeks earlier, however, Chailley had emailed Windhorst complaining that H2O had been “breaching [risk limits] for more than six months on a number of funds” due to their exposure to his debt, adding that two of its funds were now “struggling with liquidity”.

While H2O’s calming words assuaged many concerned clients, the following month the FCA began requesting various documents from H2O relating to its due diligence and valuation processes.

While H2O’s funds had several different portfolio managers, the FCA later found that Crastes and Chailley in practice “made all the decisions” to invest in the Windhorst-linked deals.

They often agreed to invest with little of the documentation investors usually require for high-risk bonds. Some of the underlying businesses were little more than shell companies when H2O funded them, with few restrictions on how Windhorst spent the proceeds.

H2O had already started to backfill some of these gaps before the regulator’s request, according to both correspondence seen by the FT and the FCA findings. One of its portfolio managers emailed Windhorst’s investment company, Tennor, in late June to request prior financial statements and corporate presentations “following the FT article”.

Then in the second half of 2019, H2O provided the FCA with due diligence reports and other documents that it said had been prepared when it invested. However, the FCA later identified that all of these documents had been “prepared retrospectively”, either directly in response to its requests or during what it called a “repapering exercise” after the FT story. 

The FCA said that these efforts were led by an unnamed member of H2O’s senior management — dubbed “Senior Manager A” in the regulatory findings — who “knowingly made the false statements and provided the falsified documents”. 

The executive in question was in charge of H2O’s risk and compliance function, according to people familiar with the matter, and left the firm in 2021 after being suspended following an internal investigation into the matter.

The FCA said that Senior Manager A also provided the regulator with retrospectively created minutes for meetings of H2O’s valuation and risk and compliance committees, in some instances when meetings had never taken place.

The FCA noted that there was “extensive discussion” at H2O “regarding the retrospective creation of documents”, with one former employee even suggesting the use of “specialist software to amend metadata” on files. However, the FCA noted that H2O did not ultimately make use of this software.

Another employee warned others about the danger of backdating documents, writing: “If the FCA has a way of finding out that we have changed these dates, the risk is obviously considerable.” 

H2O also tried to stonewall the regulator as it probed the extensive hospitality Windhorst had bestowed upon its staff.

H2O initially told the FCA in October 2019 that its gifts and entertainment register showed that “nothing was given or received” from entities linked to Windhorst. 

When the FCA then asked H2O to provide details of any trips taken with Windhorst — specifically requesting details of “meetings on yachts, airplanes and private properties” — H2O only listed business meetings mostly in Windhorst’s London offices and “two specific overseas trips” more junior staff took to visit some of his companies.

After a third-party review mandated by the FCA began to uncover details of many of the trips senior staff took aboard Windhorst’s superyacht and private jet, the regulator instructed H2O to carry out another targeted search. 

This returned over 50 instances of H2O staff “receiving hospitality (and occasionally gifts)” from the financier — such as “Mr Crastes being flown to Barbados to play golf with Mr Windhorst” — and 18 more times where Windhorst had offered hospitality but there was “no confirmation of its acceptance or receipt.”

H2O also initially denied to the FCA that “any personal relationships (such as friendships)” existed between its staff and Windhorst. 

But the regulator later uncovered a January 2019 email in which Crastes thanked Windhorst for arranging a family holiday in the Caribbean, describing the financier as “my friend” and akin to a “new family” member.

Windhorst declined to comment for this article.

H2O said that “the lessons from the 2015-2019 period are fully embedded in our corporate culture and organisation”

It added: “The FCA has distinctly acknowledged H2O’s significant enhancements in its governance, systems, and controls. These improvements include adoption and implementation of a new governance model with changes to senior management roles and responsibilities and undertaking a culture review and change programme, as well as enhancements to policies and procedures.”

As part of its settlement with the FCA, H2O will apply to cancel its UK regulatory authorisation, although it still intends to maintain a London office with staff in non-regulated functions.

While the UK capital was once H2O’s main base, it has restructured in recent years and shifted staff to Paris and Monaco.

French regulators last year struck off Crastes from managing funds for half a decade. Monaco-based Crastes is no longer chief executive of the firm but he has continued to play an active role at the firm as its “corporate and market strategy director”. H2O also received a record €75mn fine from the Autorité des Marchés Financiers. Both Crastes and H2O are appealing against their AMF sanctions.

Meanwhile, Windhorst has only repaid a fraction of his debts to H2O, which has heavily written down the rest. He recently unveiled a new high-profile backer: British financier Nathaniel Rothschild last month agreed to take a minority stake in his investment firm and become its executive chair.

“I’ve never seen anyone who works quite as hard as Lars,” Rothschild told an audience at Windhorst’s Mayfair offices. “It’s quite remarkable.”

>>> Europe : Brokers Upgrades & Downgrades - 16th of August 2024 V3(++)

>>> Up
* Administer Raised to Accumulate at Inderes; PT 3.20 euros
* Big Yellow Group Raised to Buy at Citi; PT 1,525 pence
* Campari Raised to Buy at HSBC; PT 10 euros
* Cisco Raised to Buy at HSBC; PT $58
* Entain Raised to Neutral at Goldman; PT 710 pence
* Fastned GDRs Raised to Buy at Kempen & Co; PT 21 euros (++)
* Marimekko Raised to Accumulate at Inderes; PT 13 euros
* Millicom Raised to Buy at UBS; PT $33
* RING NO Raised to Buy at Pareto Securities; PT 330 kroner (++)
* Roche PT Raised from CHF 248 to CHF 274 at Vontobel
* SpareBank 1 Helgeland Raised to Buy at Arctic Securities (+)
* Tamtron Group Raised to Accumulate at Inderes; PT 6 euros
* Vopak PT Raised to 51 euros from 46 euros at ING (++)
* Walmart PT Raised to $82 from $75 at Morgan Stanley

>>> Down
* Alm Brand Cut to Hold at Nordea (+)
* Autostore PT Cut to 10 kroner from 11 kroner at Morgan Stanley
* Bioretec Cut to Reduce at Inderes; PT 3 euros
* Cancom Cut to Underperform at BNPP Exane; PT 26 euros
* Crest Nicholson Cut to Equal-Weight at Barclays; PT 220 pence
* Estee Lauder Cut to Neutral at BofA; PT $100 (++)
* Fortum Cut to Reduce at Inderes; PT 14.50 euros
* Kojamo Cut to Neutral at JPMorgan; PT 10.50 euros
* Kojamo Cut to Accumulate at OP Corporate Bank; PT 10.50 euros (++)
* Nel Cut to Hold at Berenberg; PT 7 kroner
* Relais Group Cut to Accumulate at Inderes; PT 16.50 euros
* Scout24 SE Cut to Hold at M.M. Warburg; PT 75 euros (+)
* Siegfried Cut to Hold at Research Partners; PT 990 Swiss francs
* Thyssenkrupp Nucera Cut to Hold at Berenberg; PT 12 euros

>>> Initiation


>>> Call
* Building-Materials Sector Metamorphosis Sets Scene for Robust 2H
* Big Yellow Group Upgraded at Citi, PT Boosted to Street-High
* Campari Plays Catch-Up; HSBC Upgrades on Scope to Outperform (++)
* Credit Agricole's Shares to Remain Under Pressure, Berenberg Says -- Market Talk (+)
* Deutsche Bank CIO Urges Tail-Risk Hedging Despite Market Calm
* Inditex Worth Premium, H&M Waiting for Signs of Inflection: Citi
* Nel, Thyssenkrupp Nucera Cut at Berenberg on Regulatory Delays
* European Airlines Need Demand Floor as Fares Hit, EPS at Risk

>>> US Gapping down

Gapping down
In reaction to earnings/guidance
:
  • AMCR -3.4%, AMAT -2%, RNW -1.5%
Other news:
  • SNDA -15.9% (prices 4.3 mln shares of common stock at $27.00 per share)
  • EVEX -4.7% (files to delay 10-Q)
  • ADSK -1.7% (using controversial sales practice despite pledging to stop, according to Bloomberg)
  • MASI -1.1% (provides update on potential separation of consumer business)
  • RIVN -0.7% (pauses production of Amazon (AMZN) delivery truck amid part shortages, according to Bloomberg)