The Key States to Watch for Data Center Developers
It’s Election Day, and in more than 20 states, voters are deciding the fate of the data center build-out for their region.
For now, governors’ races will shape the issue the most. As we reported Sunday, candidates calling for data center pauses could win in up to 15 states, including Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Oregon. Plenty more candidates have promised other restrictions on the industry, such as protections for household electric bills and the environment.
Such restrictions will slow down the dizzying build-out of data centers and make constructing them more expensive, introducing even more uncertainty for investors about the payoff on the large AI investments of big tech firms.
One of the most heated races is in Texas, home to some of the largest data center projects in the world. In the governor’s race, Democratic challenger Gina Hinojosa says she will enact a stricter moratorium than incumbent Greg Abbott has in place, at least until lawmakers set permanent standards.
In Georgia, where the race is neck-and-neck, Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms is calling for a pause on construction to evaluate economic and environmental impacts. The Atlanta metro area is now the biggest market for data center construction, according to CBRE, so a statewide pause would hit the industry where it’s growing fastest.
In Florida, where political action committees affiliated with Anthropic and OpenAI’s Greg Brockman have spent more than $4 million backing Republican Byron Donalds, it’s also a tight race. Democrat David Jolly is calling for a moratorium.
None of these three states has elected a Democrat for governor since the 1990s, so any flip would be historic.
The same is true for the Alaska governor’s race, where three Republicans and a Democrat are facing off against each other. Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, who has pitched for a data center pause and a host of AI regulations that would hold companies accountable for harm, seems poised to win.
Regardless of what happens, these elections are going to close some doors for the data center industry. We’ll see soon.
Salesforce’s M&A Blitz Reflects Broader Deal Rush
Anyone with an interest in tech will be glued to the TV or social media tonight, monitoring the midterm elections. As my colleague Shane Burke writes below, more than 20 candidates in state governor races support a moratorium on data center development. There’s also the California billionaire tax, Proposition 40, to track. But for those in tech fretting about the results, remember this: Nothing that happens tonight will change the relaxed antitrust regime we’ve got right now. That’s thanks to the Trump administration, not Congress.
And that means companies have got two more years to get deals done before the antitrust climate could change. That's why the tech deal scene lately has resembled that old “Supermarket Sweep” TV game show where contestants have a limited amount of time to grab stuff off the shelves in a supermarket. We’ve seen deals such as Marvell and Lumentum on Monday, DoorDash and Instacart last week, Fox and Roku in June and many others. It’s not just tech, either (think Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery). Overall, deals worth $2.6 trillion have been announced so far this year, according to Dealogic, 66% more than at this time last year.
One particularly aggressive acquirer has been Salesforce, which has been striking a multibillion-dollar acquisition seemingly every other week lately. On Monday, Salesforce announced its purchase of Cresta, which sells AI-powered contact center automation software, for a price we reported to be $2.7 billion. Also on Monday, Salesforce completed the purchase of Listen Labs, a deal the companies announced in September without disclosing a price.
Last month, Salesforce unveiled the purchase of Braze, which helps marketers improve customer engagement, for $5.7 billion. In September, it completed the $3.6 billion purchase of Fin, a customer agent firm. All up in the past 12 months, Salesforce has spent or committed to spend at least $25 billion on eight acquisitions, almost all of which were worth at least a billion dollars.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is a deal junkie, of course. In the 2010s, he kept the company growing by making deal after deal of ever-larger size, culminating in the $27.7 billion purchase of Slack in 2021. But those deals depressed Salesforce’s profit margins and free cash flow, hurting its stock and eventually triggering activist investor pressure that led to Benioff pulling back from M&A and focusing on efficiency. That had a big impact: Salesforce’s free cash flow as a percentage of revenue has jumped to 35% in fiscal 2026 from 20% in fiscal 2023. That means the company lately has been throwing off more than $14 billion a year, which has allowed vastly expanded stock buybacks and generated cash for acquisitions.
Notably, Salesforce has paid for its recent spate of acquisitions almost entirely with cash, a switch from its reliance on stock in the years before 2020. Benioff appears to have recognized the dilutive impact of doing deals with stock: Earlier this year, he said, “We have a much better understanding of how to do acquisitions that are accretive to the business but not dilutive to investors.” Of course, whether the payment is made in cash or stock, the deals still have to generate a return. On that point, the jury is out.
Trump Says U.S. Plans to Cut Off Military Aid to Israel by End of Year
U.S. and Israel have discussed phasing out grants, but president’s comments suggest it could occur much faster than expected
- President Trump said the U.S. would cut off military aid to Israel by the end of the year.
- Israeli officials were surprised by Trump’s comments, according to a person familiar with the matter.
- Any move to eliminate U.S. grant funding to Israel would require cooperation from Congress.
WASHINGTON—President Trump said Tuesday that the U.S. would cut off military aid to Israel by the end of the year, suggesting the phaseout of grants to the U.S. ally could occur much faster than expected.
“We won’t be paying anymore to Israel,” Trump said during an interview with Fox News. “We’ve already agreed that by the end of this year, we won’t be paying Israel.”
Israeli officials, including from the security establishment, were surprised by Trump’s comments, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The phasing out of direct U.S. military aid to Israel has been under discussion for months, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly saying the country should eventually wean itself off U.S. assistance. Netanyahu had previously proposed eliminating direct military aid over the next decade.
The White House and an Israeli government spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment.
“As far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping and they’re fine with it,” Trump said. “They’ve become a very successful country. They don’t need it.”
According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. has provided Israel with about $174 billion in military assistance and funding through May 2025.
Trump cast the decision as a political calculation, arguing that ending the aid would deprive Democrats and other critics of Israel of a political talking point.
“Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like El-Sayed when they don’t need it? It’s a bad talking point,” he said, referring to Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee. “The left uses the $4 billion payment…as a signal of unfairness. It’s almost too easy a target.”
El-Sayed has campaigned on ending unconditional grant payments to Israel. “Even a broken clock can be right twice a day,” he said of the Trump announcement.
Any move to eliminate U.S. grant funding to Israel would require cooperation from Congress, which has authorized and appropriated billions in annual assistance through 2028. Lawmakers have drafted legislation that would shift funding from foreign financing to defense investments and co-production on military technologies between the U.S. and Israel, including on missile defense and counterdrone technology.
Advocates of this legislation said it would make it easier for the Pentagon to cooperate with Israel on procuring cutting-edge military technologies. Critics say it would embed Israel deeper into Pentagon supply chains and programs in a way that makes it difficult to uproot should lawmakers reassess U.S.-Israeli defense cooperation in the future. That proposal could be a part of the new annual U.S. defense policy package, called the National Defense Authorization Act, expected to be completed by the end of the year.
Netanyahu this year said publicly that he wanted to completely phase out U.S. military aid to Israel within 10 years, while maintaining close defense cooperation. His proposal reflects growing concern in Israel about waning political support in Washington and the risks of relying too heavily on a supply of American weapons. He has also argued that the country’s growing economy and defense industry allow it to be more self-sufficient.
There is growing understanding inside Israel that it can no longer rely on U.S. military aid in the future, but Israel’s powerful security establishment still sees the assistance as critical. Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot, who is trying to form a government that kicks Netanyahu out of power, told Time magazine there should be a gradual phaseout of U.S. assistance over five to 10 years.
On Tuesday, Eisenkot criticized Netanyahu for allowing such a significant change in the country’s security policy to be announced abruptly through the media and called on the prime minister to immediately provide explanations about the move.
“The special relationship with the U.S. is a central component of Israel’s national security,” Eisenkot said.
Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national-security adviser and a fellow at the U.S.-based Middle East Institute, said ending assistance immediately would mean walking back multiyear contracts with the American defense industry, which would trickle down to the U.S. economy.
Beyond that, Israel couldn’t afford an abrupt halt because it has a rising wartime defense budget with no clear way to plug a huge budget, Freilich said. He said most of the aid goes to the country’s strategically important air force, which relies on U.S.-developed F-35s and F-16s.
“There’s no way that Israel can allow those contracts not to continue,” he said. “You could argue, at least for the next few years, that Israel needs even more American aid than in the past.”
Trump said the U.S. would help Israel if the country needed assistance. When asked to clarify whether the U.S. was no longer giving Israel $4 billion to purchase U.S. weapons, Trump replied: “We have total control of the Hormuz Strait.”
Silicon Valley Promises AI Will Cure Disease. Drugmaker CEOs Aren’t Buying It.
No drug designed by artificial intelligence has won FDA clearance, and pharma leaders say biology is the obstacle
- No drug designed by artificial intelligence has won FDA clearance, and pharmaceutical leaders say human biology is too complicated for AI alone.
- Venture capital and private-equity firms invested $8.4 billion globally into AI drug discovery in 2025, up from about $4 billion in 2023.
- Vertex Pharmaceuticals used roughly 50 AI companies to comb through its data set of 10,000 drug compounds, but none generated a working drug.
The promises are grandiose: Anthropic’s chief executive said artificial intelligence could cure most human diseases within a decade. Another tech exec joked that AI researchers have started smoking cigarettes because they are so confident AI will cure lung cancer.
Pharma executives don’t buy it.
“That’s complete BS,” said Jeff Leiden, executive chairman of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, recalling a recent conversation with a tech leader who claimed AI would cure 90% of human disease in the next seven years.
Vertex has used roughly 50 AI companies to comb through its data set of 10,000 drug compounds, Leiden said. Not one managed to generate a working drug.
“It just doesn’t work by itself,” Leiden said, “and any company that says they can do that—at least in our experience, we’ve looked at most of them—it’s not true.”
Executives leading the companies that discover new drugs say AI isn’t going to cure cancer anytime soon. They are dimming the hype around the technology’s use in drug research, saying human biology is too complicated even for superintelligence.
Drugmakers are certainly using AI—even to create new drugs. It is helping researchers pick targets, fine-tune experimental medicines and identify which patients would be good candidates for the treatments. Leiden says it is useful as a scientist’s co-pilot.
Yet in the race to integrate AI into medicine, a sharp divide has emerged between Silicon Valley’s promises and what pharma executives say are the harsh realities of drugmaking. There are still so many unknowns with biology that data analysis can’t fix.
“If we are in the industry long enough, we quickly learn to be humble,” said AstraZeneca Chief Executive Pascal Soriot. “Disease is complicated, biology is complicated. To say AI is going to cure cancer is maybe a little bit of a jump.”
The British drugmaker recently signed a deal with AI biotech Insitro worth $40 million up front to discover new heart and weight-loss drugs, and signed an agreement with Oracle to help streamline the process for recruiting patients to clinical trials. A recently opened research and development site in Cambridge, Mass., uses AI to help speed up experiments.
McKinsey senior partner Alex Devereson, who focuses on AI in drug development, said the technology can design new experimental medicines quicker than before, but that doesn’t mean it is coming up with workable drugs. Around a quarter of mid-stage to late-stage failures in drug development can be traced to safety problems because drugs have “off-target” issues, he said, meaning they do unintended things within the body that lead to unwanted or even harmful side effects. Current AI models struggle to predict this.
“Investment is flowing to the problems that are easiest to solve, not the problems that are most important,” Devereson said.
Venture capital and private-equity firms invested $8.4 billion globally into AI drug discovery in 2025 alone, up from roughly $4 billion two years prior, according to data from McKinsey. Yet only a few AI-native biotechs—such as Insilico Medicine and Generate Biomedicines—have gotten drugs into late-stage patient testing and the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t cleared any of them yet.
Still, Silicon Valley’s largest players see drug development as a lucrative opportunity prime for disruption. “I think it will actually be possible to cure most human disease in ~5-10 years, as crazy as it may sound,” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei posted on X in September.
Anthropic bought a stealth-mode biotech earlier this year and recently bought a one-person biotech running an almost completely AI-enabled operation. OpenAI announced it bought an AI drug-discovery biotech last month.
Most pharma companies have partnerships with AI developers, too. Eli Lilly and Nvidia said in January they would invest up to $1 billion over five years to research AI’s role in such things as drug discovery and robotics. Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi have all announced partnerships with OpenAI or Anthropic.
Research chiefs including George Yancopoulos—Regeneron’s chief scientific officer and holder of more than 1,000 patents—see the potential for AI to assist in the lab but don’t see it as a revolution.
“AI is not going to just miraculously come in and tell us how to do things and cut things from 15 years to five years,” Yancopoulos said.
Regulators have recently proposed new frameworks to govern AI use in regulatory submissions and trial data analysis, but that doesn’t help accelerate some of the thornier parts of the process such as finding enough of the right patients and monitoring them throughout studies.
As the technology evolves, it is likely to become a more useful and potentially more powerful tool in drug development.
A team at Germany-based Bayer’s gene therapy unit recently used AI to comb through 100 million patient records in a matter of days, looking at genetic markers and patient histories to find the five best diseases prime for their gene-editing technology.
“Is that AI as such curing a disease? It isn’t,” said Sebastian Guth, Bayer’s chief operating officer. “The magic happens when you marry the brilliance of human scientists with AI.”
CVS Health moves to dismantle $117bn healthcare empire
Potential spin-off of drugstore business comes as political pressure mounts on pharmacy benefit managers and health insurers
CVS Health is plotting a break-up of its $117bn healthcare empire, separating its retail pharmacy chain from its insurance business in what would be one of the largest corporate splits of all time.
The move would unwind CVS’s $78bn acquisition of health insurance company Aetna in 2018, which created a vertically integrated healthcare conglomerate spanning an insurer, a pharmacy benefit manager and a retail pharmacy.
Under plans being discussed, CVS would spin off its retail pharmacy division, whose 9,000 drugstores are projected to generate a third of the group’s $417bn in revenue this year, as a separate listed company, according to people familiar with the matter.
The break-up would come as the industry faces intense political pressure challenging combined ownership of pharmacies and PBMs, which manage drug prescription benefits on behalf of insurers and employers.
The company could announce the move as early as its third-quarter results this week, the people said. Insurer Aetna and Caremark, CVS’s PBM, would remain together under one corporate entity as part of the plans under consideration, they added.
The structure and timeline of the break-up were still in flux and could yet change, the people warned. CVS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Shares in CVS have bounced back under the leadership of David Joyner, who started as chief executive in October 2024, driven by a turnaround at its Aetna insurance unit. Its stock sank to a 10-year low in December 2024. CVS’s market value stood at $116.9bn at Tuesday’s close, more than double where it was trading at its nadir.
CVS’s shares rose as much as 3.7 per cent in post-market trading on Tuesday following the FT report.
CVS is fighting states’ legislation to ban companies from owning PBMs and pharmacies. Lawmakers in Arkansas and Tennessee were the first two states to introduce such measures.
Earlier this year, Tennessee’s state legislature passed the Fair Rx Act banning ownership of pharmacies by companies which run both a PBM and insurer. CVS and its rival Cigna have sued to try to block the measure, which is set to take effect in 2028. In Arkansas, a judge blocked the law, introduced in April last year, pending further review.
These changes have gained widescale support from both sides of the aisle in Washington. In the US Senate, Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Republican Josh Hawley recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation to prohibit PBM and pharmacy co-ownership.
CVS has led the charge as the wider health insurance industry emerges from a period of financial strain. Cost controls have boosted margins at the health insurance unit just as the US government also increased payment rates for Medicare insurance plans. Even CVS’s name-brand drugstores, a laggard of the wider business, benefited from a jump in profits and revenues in the first half of the year.
In September 2024, CVS’s struggles drew the attention of activist hedge fund Glenview Capital, which took a 1 per cent stake in the business, prompting the removal of Karen Lynch as chief executive and the addition of four directors to the board.
Glenview’s founder Larry Robbins left CVS’s board this August after the hedge fund began trimming its stake. Joyner praised Robbins’ contribution to the company during a “period of transition for the business” upon his stepping down.
Under Lynch, CVS went on acquisition spree, striking an $8bn deal to buy care service provider Signify Health and a $10.6bn takeover of primary care clinic Oak Street Health in 2023. These brands would be housed under the same corporate entity as Caremark and Aetna, the people added.
Qatar set to become world’s biggest buyer of US LNG
Once the world’s top producer, the Gulf nation will control largest share of US output by 2033
Qatar’s state-owned energy company is on track to become the world’s biggest buyer of US liquefied natural gas by early next decade, as war in the Middle East curtails the Gulf nation’s exports and pushes it to hunt for new sources of supply.
QatarEnergy signed two agreements in late October that increase the amount of US LNG it will have available to sell to its international customers by 7mn tonnes a year.
Combined with its share of production from the Golden Pass project in Texas, in which it holds a 70 per cent stake, QatarEnergy is on track to control 23.7mn tonnes per year from the US by 2033, making it the biggest US LNG buyer according to research firm Wood Mackenzie.
None of the LNG will end up in Qatar, where the cost of producing gas remains among the cheapest in the world. Instead, it will be resold and shipped to countries that buy liquefied gas from abroad to produce electricity and fuel industry, avoiding the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint.
The shift highlights the extent to which exports from the Gulf nation, once the world’s biggest supplier of LNG, have been affected by the US-Israeli war with Iran.
“The expansion of their global portfolio is part of an effort to address the perception that they were overly dependent on their system in Qatar, by building a sizeable supply portfolio outside of the Middle East,” said Jason Feer, global head of business intelligence at energy and shipping broker Poten & Partners.
This will help the firm rebuild its reputation as a reliable supplier that — prior to the war — had never missed a shipment, he said, adding that the company is likely to do two or three more deals in the US and possibly others elsewhere.
Qatari LNG exports have fallen to less than a third of their usual level this year, as Iranian attacks on shipping have sharply reduced the number of carriers passing through the strait — Qatar’s only route to customers outside the Gulf.
Shipments of LNG from the Middle East have been more affected than oil as there are no pipelines connecting export plants to ones outside the Gulf. It is also harder to transfer LNG than oil between ships, limiting the amount of liquefied gas that can be shuttled through the strait.
QatarEnergy stopped LNG production and declared force majeure to its affected buyers days after the outbreak of war at the end of February. Its main buyers — mostly in Asia — were left hunting around for alternative supplies.
The latest supply deals “strengthen our ability to serve customers across the globe”, said QatarEnergy chief executive Saad al-Kaabi at a signing ceremony on October 29.
The newly signed contracts will give QatarEnergy access to US LNG from 2030 and 2031 and will therefore do little to help its customers facing current supply disruptions in the Middle East. However, it could provide a buffer against potential disruption to Qatari exports in the future.
“The ability to market a geographically diverse supply portfolio alongside its own production will provide reassurance to QatarEnergy’s customer base,” said Wood Mackenzie.
Qatar was overtaken as the world’s biggest LNG supplier in 2023 by the US, which has made massive investments in export capacity. The Gulf nation has since faced the challenge of maintaining its influence in a market it once dominated.
One way it has sought to do so is by expanding its trading business. In 2020 QatarEnergy launched a trading desk, and last year it traded more than 20mn tonnes, according to Wood Mackenzie.
Buying LNG from the nation that usurped it also helps Qatar achieve its second main objective, which is to build a global gas business, said Feer.
The golden age of cheap European flights was good while it lasted
The margin squeeze will be worse for budget airlines, which start out with less room to cut costs
Coming down the runway for Europe’s travellers: fewer flights at higher prices. Airlines are trying to contain the damage wrought on their profits by persistently high fuel prices. While many are talking about cost cuts, passengers will share the burden too.
Budget airlines face the toughest task. Low-cost champion Ryanair on Monday outlined potential trims it hopes will ease the impact of a €2bn rise in its fuel bill in its next financial year. Full-service carriers aren’t immune, though. Lufthansa, busy integrating Italian carrier ITA as well as taking on a large minority holding in Portugal’s TAP, on Tuesday lowered the high end of its full-year profit forecast. Its fuel costs have risen by a fifth, even with financial hedges in place.
As well as high oil prices, airlines are also suffering from a reduction in refining capacity from the Middle East on top of that already lost from sanctions on Russia. Jet fuel in the region has traded above $1,200 a tonne for the past three months compared with about $800 before the US attacked Iran in February, making it costly to hedge next year’s needs — and risky, should prices fall.
The margin squeeze will be worse for budget airlines, which start out with less room to cut costs. Fuel will soak up 44 per cent of Ryanair’s revenue next year, according to analysts polled by Visible Alpha, up from 37 per cent this year. For British Airways owner IAG and for Lufthansa, on the other hand, fuel is expected to be between a quarter and a fifth, unchanged from this year.
Nor can low-cost carriers rely on wealthier premium travellers, who seem strangely tolerant of rising prices; Lufthansa’s premium services helped it to an 8 per cent rise in revenue. Capacity cuts are an obvious place to hunker down. But if fuel prices stay roughly where they are, Ryanair would need a 16 per cent jump in revenue next year to fully offset its extra costs, estimate Barclays analysts.
That’s a painful rise for its customers when the Irish airline’s current average one-way fare is €56. Prices at the budget end have recently been increasing by “mid single digits”, according to Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary, who expects them to rise much more as the industry heads into winter, literally and metaphorically. The only consolation is that budget passengers had it so good for so long.
After Hours Summary: ANET +12.6%, DUOL +11.1%, PCOR +10.9%, ARDX +9.6%, FLYW +9.5%, AMD +7.6%, SMCI +7.5% higher on earnings; DOX -42.5%, SWKS -17.2%, LIME -10.3%, PXED -9.6%, UNM -9.4%, FRSH -7.7%, CAR -7.4% lower on earnings
After Hours Gainers:
Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance:ANET +12.6%, DUOL +11.1%, PCOR +10.9%, ARDX +9.6%, FLYW +9.5%, AMD +7.6%, SMCI +7.5%, XYZ +7.4%, NVTS +7.1%, PRIM +6.8%, PACS +5.8%, DNLI +5.6%, HMN +4.9%, IDYA +4.2%, PARR +3.5%, JKHY +2.6%, TALO +2.4%, TX +2.1%, JXN +1.7%, MOD +1.6%, HLNE +1.5%, MIRM +1.5%, EXPD +1.3%, TREE +1.3%, BALL +1.2%, ARVN +1.1%, KAI +1.0%
Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news:GIC +6.4% (Declares a $1.00 special dividend and $0.28 quarterly dividend, both payable November 23.), ANGI +3.9% (Plans to cut about 300 jobs globally under a formal restructuring program.), NVGS +3.3% (Declared a $0.08 quarterly dividend and plans about $22.6 million in share repurchases through year-end.), SII +2.7% (Raised its quarterly dividend 25% to $0.50 per share, payable December 1.), ACMR +2.5% (Appointed Yue Ma as chief operating officer.), WYFI +2.0% (Completed a $60 million cash acquisition of two North Carolina data-center sites expected to provide 60 MW initially.), GSK +2.0% (Partners with Alamar Biosciences on a GSK-led proteomic study analyzing more than 60,000 serum samples.), CRDL +1.9% (Launched an at-the-market program to sell up to $75 million in common shares through Jefferies.), PLGO +1.8% (Expanded its share-repurchase authorization to $400 million and raised the quarterly dividend to $0.22 per share.), KDK +1.7% (Delivered the first two of 65 autonomous trucks under Atlas Energy Solutions’ initial 100-truck order.), AESI +1.4% (Received the first two of 65 autonomous trucks under an initial 100-truck order, advancing its Permian Basin deployment.), FROG +1.2% (Launched Universal Zero-Touch Remediation, integrating Broadcom and Red Hat fixes to automate vulnerability patching across software artifacts.)
After Hours Losers:
Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance:DOX -42.5%, SWKS -17.2%, LIME -10.3%, PXED -9.6%, UNM -9.4%, FRSH -7.7%, CAR -7.4%, GSM -7.0%, RVLV -6.1%, RARE -5.9%, RRR -4.9%, TOST -4.7%, QDEL -4.6%, MQ -4.6%, SM -4.3%, CPNG -3.7%, SWIM -3.0%, MOS -2.9%, IFF -2.7%, GXO -2.6%, CORT -2.5%, ADUS -2.0%, MZTI -1.9%, HURN -1.7%, IPGP -1.7%, AMGN -1.4%, ALAB -1.3%, VRNS -1.3%, MTW -1.3%, TSLX -1.1%
Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news:NRIX -33.9% (Sanofi discontinued the Phase 1 SAR448272 program, eliminating Nurix’s expected future milestones and royalties tied to it.), RWT -4.8% (Approves conversion from REIT to C-corp and a 1-for-5 reverse stock split while adding a $40 million buyback.), CNXC -1.2% (Names Chinnu Varghese CFO effective December 1, succeeding Andre Valentine.)