adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

TD lands on a three-day in-office work model for its investment bankers – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


TD’s investment banking division has seen a higher than normal turnover rate over the last two years of the pandemic.Fred Lum/the Globe and Mail

TD’s investment banking division is taking a more relaxed approach to getting its bankers back into the office. Unlike its American counterparts such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, TD TD-T has landed on a hybrid model of three days in the office and two days working from home.

The division – TD Corporate and Investment Banking, part of TD Securities – had experienced a higher than normal turnover rate over the last two years of the pandemic, and keeping its employees happy was a key priority, said Robbie Pryde, executive vice-chair and head of corporate and investment banking.

“Some people exited the industry, some people went to private equity and some went home to ride this out and to figure out their next step,” he told The Globe and Mail. “But what did we learn during the pandemic? That our people were very interested in a work-life balance, and you have to constantly strive to make the workplace better.”

300x250x1

TD had tended to have a historically low turnover rate amongst bankers compared to other banks, which is why Mr. Pryde started paying attention when an unusual number of bankers, particularly junior ones, started quitting during the pandemic.

Effective this month – and in tandem with a bank-wide policy that encourages employees to come back into the office either a couple of times a week or full-time, with individual departments getting to decide – Mr. Pryde instituted a policy of three days in the office for his bankers.

The rationale, according to Rajni Singh, head of business management for corporate and investment banking, was that four days felt too heavy-handed and two days felt too light. “But when we rolled out the policy, we were very cautious to say to employees … ‘This is what we think will work, but we will continue to have conversations with you,’ ” Ms. Singh said.

No full return to the office for five years, commercial real estate chief predicts

Remote, hybrid work creating schism as popular option unavailable to many workers

The bank’s emphasis, at least outwardly, on maintaining a degree of flexibility around returning to the office, is prudent.

Employers’ plans to get a mass number of employees back into the office five days a week have, in some cases, spectacularly backfired. After a recent internal rebellion, Apple suspended its requirement that employees return to the office three times a week. Intuit, the California-based tax software company, had intended to mandate a two- or three-day return to the office on specific days, but has now backtracked on that requirement and allowed its 11,500 employees to work with managers and teams to decide what is best for them.

And after calling remote work an “aberration” that needed to be corrected “as quickly as possible,” Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon reluctantly admitted in a recent CNBC interview that changing employee behaviour toward returning to the office would take time. The bank’s in-person attendance was only between 50 per cent and 60 per cent as of this May.

Bankers, too, had a particularly busy (albeit, lucrative) two years, as record levels of capital financing fuelled record levels of raises, IPOs, mergers and acquisitions. “When you’re in deal mode – which was most of 2020 and 2021 – the hours are significant,” Mr. Pryde said. “But when you’re not in deal mode … and things have softened a bit right now … employees need time to recharge.” This is part of the reason why TD is not angling for its bankers to return to the office five days a week.

“I’m not going to lie to you, people do like working from home for the most part, but of course there’s a need for social connectivity too,” Mr. Pryde said.

It appears that many large white-collar employers have landed on hybrid work as the current employer-employee compromise. This spring, both Bank of Nova Scotia and Royal Bank of Canada mandated that employees return to the office some days of the week, though the specific number of days would be determined by individual managers and departments. The software company Open Text closed 50 per cent of its offices and permanently adopted a hybrid work model for its 15,000 employees.

“This hybrid model is becoming fairly consistent and I suspect it is going to stay around for a long time,” said John Duda, president of real estate management services for Colliers Canada. “The thing that I’m hearing most from the big banks and tech companies is that you cannot have employees be 100-per-cent remote. It does not help with collaboration and innovation.”

Mr. Pryde agrees that there are advantages to in-person interactions. “I’m not really focused on the number of days people are in the office, but I do think it is better for them career-wise to tap into our apprenticeship model, where they are able to be face-to-face with folks and get to know their bosses and colleagues,” he said. “That’s the model we are trying to build.”

Your time is valuable. Have the Top Business Headlines newsletter conveniently delivered to your inbox in the morning or evening. Sign up today.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Taxes should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that’s what Trudeau wants

Published

 on

Kim Moody: Ottawa is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan

The Canadian federal budget has been out for a week, which is plenty of time to absorb just how terrible it is.

300x250x1

The problems start with weak fiscal policy, excessive spending and growing public-debt charges estimated to be $54.1 billion for the upcoming year. That is more than $1 billion per week that Canadians are paying for things that have no societal benefit.

Next, the budget clearly illustrates this government’s continued weak taxation policies, two of which it apparently believes  are good for entrepreneurs. But the proposed $2-million Canadian Entrepreneurs Incentive (CEI) and $10-million capital gains exemption for transfers to an employee ownership trust (EOT) are both laughable.

Why? Well, for the CEI, virtually every entrepreneurial industry (except technology) is not eligible. If you happen to be in an industry that qualifies, the $2-million exemption comes with a long, stringent list of criteria (which will be very difficult for most entrepreneurs to qualify for) and it is phased in over a 10-year period of $200,000 per year.

For transfers to EOTs, an entrepreneur must give up complete legal and factual control to be eligible for the $10-million exemption, even though the EOT will likely pay the entrepreneur out of future profits. The commercial risk associated with such a transfer is likely too great for most entrepreneurs to accept.

Capital gains tax hike

But the budget’s highlight proposal was the capital gains inclusion rate increase to 66.7 per cent from 50 per cent for dispositions effective after June 24, 2024. The proposal includes a 50 per cent inclusion rate on the first $250,000 of annual capital gains for individuals, but not for corporations and trusts. Oh, those evil corporations and trusts.

There is a lot wrong with this proposed policy. The first is that by not putting individuals, corporations and trusts on the same taxation footing for capital gains taxation, the foundational principle of integration (the idea that the corporate and individual tax systems should be indifferent to whether an investment is held in a corporation or directly by the taxpayer) is completely thrown out the window. This is wrong.

Some economists have come out in strong favour of the proposal, mainly because of equity arguments (a buck is a buck), but such arguments ignore the real world of investing where investors look at overall risk, liquidity and the time value of money.

If capital gains are taxed at a rate approaching wage taxation rates, why would entrepreneurs and investors want to risk their capital when such investments might be illiquid for a long period of time and be highly risky?

They will seek greener pastures for their investment dollars and they already are. I’ve been fielding a tremendous number of questions from investors over the past week and I’d invite those academics and economists who support the increased inclusion rate to come live in my shoes for a day to see how the theoretical world of equity and behaviour collide. It’s not good and it certainly does nothing to help Canada’s obvious productivity challenges.

Of course, there has been the usual chatter encouraging such people to leave (“don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” some say) from those who don’t understand basic economics and taxation policy, but these cheerleaders should be careful what they wish for. The loss of successful Canadians and their investment dollars affects all of us in a very negative way.

The government messaging around this tax proposal has many people upset, including me. Specifically, it is the following paragraph in the budget documents that many supporters are parroting that is upsetting:

“Next year, 28.5 million Canadians are not expected to have any capital gains income, and 3 million are expected to earn capital gains below the $250,000 annual threshold. Only 0.13 per cent of Canadians with an average income of $1.4 million are expected to pay more personal income tax on their capital gains in any given year. As a result of this, for 99.87 per cent of Canadians, personal income taxes on capital gains will not increase.” (This is supposedly about 40,000 taxpayers.)

Bluntly, this is garbage. It outright ignores several facts.

For one thing, there are hundreds of thousands of private corporations owned and controlled by Canadian resident individuals. Those corporations will be subject to the increased capital gains inclusion rate with no $250,000 annual phase-in. Because of the way passive income is taxed in these Canadian-controlled private corporations, the increased tax load on realized capital gains will be felt by individual shareholders on the dividend distribution required to recover certain refundable corporate taxes.

Furthermore, public corporations that have capital gains will pay tax at a higher inclusion rate and this results in higher corporate tax, which means decreased amounts are available to be paid out as dividends to individual shareholders (including those held by individuals’ pensions).

The budget documents simply measured the number of corporations that reported capital gains in recent years and said it is 12.6 per cent of all corporations. That measurement is shallow and not the whole story, as described above.

Tax hit for cottages

There are also millions of Canadians who hold a second real estate property, either a cottage-type and/or rental property. Those properties will eventually be sold, with the probability that the gain will exceed the $250,000 threshold.

Upon death, an individual will often have their largest capital gains realized as a result of deemed dispositions that occur immediately prior to death. This will have the distinct possibility of capital gains that exceed $250,000.

And people who become non-residents of Canada — and that is increasing rapidly — have deemed dispositions of their assets (with some exceptions). They will face the distinct possibility that such gains will be more than $250,000.

The politics around the capital gains inclusion rate increase are pretty obvious. The government is planning for Canadian taxpayers to crystallize their inherent gains prior to the implementation date, especially corporations that will not have a $250,000 annual lower inclusion rate. For the current year, the government is projecting a $4.9-billion tax take. But next year, it dramatically drops to an estimated $1.3 billion.

This is a ridiculous way to shield the government’s tremendous spending and try to make them look like they are holding the line on their out-of-control deficits. The government is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan.

There’s an old saying that tax should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that is exactly what the government is encouraging Canadians to do in the name of raising short-term taxation revenues. It is simply wrong.

I hope the government has some second sober thoughts about the capital gains proposal, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Everton search for investment to complete 777 deal – BBC.com

Published

 on

By


Getty Images
  • 2 hours ago

Everton are searching for third-party investment in order to push through a protracted takeover by 777 Partners.

The Miami-based firm agreed a deal to buy the Toffees from majority owner Farhad Moshiri in September, but are yet to gain approval from the Premier League.

On Monday, Bloomberg reported the club’s main financial adviser Deloitte has been seeking fresh funding from sports-focused investors and lenders to get 777’s deal over the line.

300x250x1

BBC Sport has been told this is “standard practice contingency planning” and the process may identify other potential lenders to 777.

Sources close to British-Iranian businessman Moshiri have told BBC Sport they remain “working on completing the deal with 777”.

It is understood there are no other parties waiting in the wings to takeover should the takeover fall through and the focus is fully on 777.

The Americans have so far loaned £180m to Everton for day-to-day operational costs, which will be turned into equity once the deal is completed, but repaying money owed to MSP Sports Capital, whose deal collapsed in August, remains a stumbling block.

777 says it can stump up the £158m that is owed to MSP Sports Capital and once that is settled, it is felt the deal should be completed soon after.

Related Topics

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Warren Buffett Predicts 'Bad Ending' for Bitcoin — Is It a Doomed Investment? – Yahoo Finance

Published

 on

By


NanoStockk / Getty Images

Currently sitting in sixth on Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaires List, Berkshire Hathaway co-founder, chairman and CEO Warren Buffett is a first-rate example of an investor who stuck to his core financial beliefs early in life to become not only a success but a once-in-a-lifetime inspiration to those who followed in his footsteps.

One of the most trusted investors for decades, the 93-year-old Buffett isn’t shy to pontificate on his investment philosophy, which is centered around value investing, buying stocks at less than their intrinsic value and holding them for the long term.

Read Next: Warren Buffett: 6 Best Pieces of Money Advice for the Middle Class
Find Out: 5 Genius Things All Wealthy People Do With Their Money

300x250x1

He’s also quite vocal on investments he deems worthless. And one of those is Bitcoin.

Sponsored: Protect Your Wealth With A Gold IRA. Take advantage of the timeless appeal of gold in a Gold IRA recommended by Sean Hannity.

Buffett’s Take on Bitcoin

Over the past decade, it’s been clear that the crypto craze isn’t something Buffett wants any part of. He described Bitcoin as “probably rat poison squared” back in 2018.

“In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending,” Buffett said in 2018. And his stance hasn’t wavered since. According to Benzinga, Buffett believes that cryptocurrencies aren’t a viable or valuable investment.

“Now if you told me you own all of the Bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn’t take it because what would I do with it? I’d have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn’t going to do anything,” Buffett said at the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting in 2022.

Although the Oracle of Omaha has his misgivings about the unpredictable investment, does that mean crypto is doomed as an investment? Not necessarily.

For You: 10 Valuable Stocks That Could Be the Next Apple or Amazon

Is Buffett Wrong About Bitcoin?

Bitcoin bulls argue that while it’s not government-issued, cryptocurrency is as fungible, divisible, secure and portable as fiat currency and gold. Because they occupy a digital space, cryptocurrencies are decentralized, scarce and durable. They can last as long as they can be stored.

Crypto boosters continue to predict massive growth in the coin’s value. Earlier this year, SkyBridge Capital founder and former White House director of communications Anthony Scaramucci told reporters that Bitcoin could exceed $170,000 by mid-2025, and Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood predicts Bitcoin will hit $1.48 million by 2030, according to Fortune.

“They really don’t understand the concept and the whole history of money,” Scaramucci said of crypto critics like Buffett on a recent episode of Jason Raznick’s “The Raz Report.” Because we place a value on “traditional” currency, it is essentially worthless compared with the transparent and trustworthy digital Bitcoin, Scaramucci said.

Currently trading around the $66,000 mark, Bitcoin is up nearly 50% in 2024. This means it’s massively outperforming most indexes this year, including the S&P 500, which is up about 6% in 2024.

Although Berkshire Hathaway has invested heavily in Bitcoin-related Brazilian fintech company Nu Holdings, which has its own cryptocurrency called Nucoin, it’s possible Buffett will never come around fully to crypto, despite its recent surge in value. It’s contrary to the reliable investment strategy that has served him very well for decades.

“The urge to participate in something where it looks like easy money is a human instinct which has been unleashed,” Buffett said. “People love the idea of getting rich quick, and I don’t blame them … It’s so human, and once unleashed you can’t put it back in the bottle.”

More From GOBankingRates

This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Warren Buffett Predicts ‘Bad Ending’ for Bitcoin — Is It a Doomed Investment?

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending