Argentina’s tax amnesty program, launched by President Javier Milei, has successfully attracted about $18 billion back into local banks.
This initiative encourages residents to deposit foreign currency they had kept outside the formal banking system, whether in cash at home, safe deposit boxes, or accounts abroad.
This influx is especially critical as the country faces challenges with its foreign currency reserves during a technical recession.
For years, many Argentines have chosen to keep their savings in offshore accounts or cash due to worries about economic instability, hyperinflation, and currency devaluation.
A way to bring back funds to Argentina
The tax amnesty program allows them to bring their funds back into the local banking system.
Under the program’s first phase, residents can repatriate up to $100,000 without incurring taxes, while any amount over that is taxed at a rate of 5%.
The deadline for this first phase was originally set for Thursday but has been extended to November 8 due to some technical issues that arose.
Economy Minister Luis Caputo highlighted these challenges and emphasized the need for a smooth process for individuals looking to bring their foreign-held funds back home.
This extension gives people extra time to utilize the tax benefits and help bolster Argentina’s economic stability.
So far, the program has seen an enthusiastic response, with many residents eager to reintegrate their foreign savings.
What does this mean for Argentina’s economy?
The $18 billion repatriated to local banks is an important step toward restoring Argentina’s banking sector and increasing its foreign currency reserves.
As Milei’s program gains pace, it is positioned to have a long-term impact on the country’s economy, promoting greater financial openness and citizen participation.
As the amnesty program evolves, government authorities closely watch its effects and weigh the advantages of boosting savings repatriation for long-term economic growth.
This endeavour demonstrates Argentina’s commitment to improving financial stability and encouraging the responsible management of foreign assets in its banking sector.
Momentum grows in Milei’s tax amnesty program
Milei’s Tax Amnesty Program is gaining traction, as evidenced by the encouraging deposits made by residents.
With the tax rate on these deposits set to rise gradually, the positive response reflects growing confidence in Milei’s leadership, especially as inflation rates continue to decrease thanks to his austerity measures.
Although monthly inflation has now fallen to single digits, Argentina still grapples with the challenge of triple-digit annual inflation, highlighting ongoing economic struggles.
During a recent news conference, Milei’s spokesman, Manuel Adorni, emphasized his satisfaction with the progress of the tax amnesty program, calling it a “success” and revealing the large sum that has been deposited thus far.
This inflow of capital into local banks is likely to enable financial institutions to extend more credit to their consumers, thus stimulating economic growth in the country.
Analysts estimate that since the program began in mid-July, privately held dollar-denominated bank accounts in Argentina have skyrocketed to $32.5 billion, marking a huge increase beyond just the amnesty program.
Experts, including those from J.P. Morgan, highlight how crucial this financial influx is for strengthening net reserves, depending largely on the increase of dollar-denominated credit available to the private sector.
The good trend in reserves since the deadline demonstrates the major impact of the ongoing tax amnesty program.
With Argentines keeping approximately $277 billion outside the conventional banking system, the program’s success not only strengthens reserves but also marks a bigger shift toward financial openness and the reintegration of cash into the official economy.
The US labour market saw its slowest job growth since late 2020, with only 12,000 jobs added in October due to disruptions from storms in the Southeast and an ongoing strike at Boeing.
This monthly gain fell significantly below Dow Jones’s forecast of 100,000, marking a sharp drop from September’s figures.
The unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%, and a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers for economic reasons remained unchanged at 7.7%.
The latest data underscores a complex employment landscape as the US economy braces for potential shifts with the upcoming presidential election.
Storm impact and labour disputes cut into US job gains
In October, US nonfarm payrolls increased by only 12,000, marking a substantial drop from September and far short of the 100,000 forecast.
This represents the smallest gain in nearly three years, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reporting that hurricanes Helene and Milton significantly impacted job creation.
The agency noted the storms’ net effect was difficult to quantify precisely.
The prolonged Boeing strike, which removed an estimated 44,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, played a major role in the low job count, with the sector losing 46,000 jobs overall.
Manufacturing and temporary help sectors hit hard
October’s weak job growth data revealed significant losses in manufacturing and temporary help services.
The manufacturing sector, heavily impacted by the Boeing strike, reported a loss of 46,000 jobs.
The temporary help services sector also saw a decline, with 49,000 jobs lost, marking a cumulative drop of 577,000 positions since March 2022.
These two sectors are traditionally key indicators of broader employment health, and declines here suggest underlying pressures in the job market.
Despite the month’s overall slowdown, certain sectors continued to add jobs. Health care and government led the way, adding 52,000 and 40,000 jobs, respectively.
Health care remains a resilient industry, while government hiring has ramped up in response to various infrastructure and public sector needs.
These gains helped to offset some of the declines seen in sectors like leisure and hospitality, which lost 4,000 positions, along with modest declines in retail trade and transportation and warehousing.
Average earnings and work hours remain stable
The report showed that average hourly earnings rose by 0.4% in October, slightly above expectations, reflecting ongoing wage inflation amid a tight labour market.
The 12-month gain in hourly earnings stood at 4%, consistent with prior months, suggesting that wage pressures are stabilising.
The average work week remained steady at 34.3 hours, indicating a relatively consistent demand for worker hours across industries, even with the mixed job growth picture.
The October report also included downward revisions to prior job growth figures for August and September.
August’s job growth was revised down to 78,000, while September’s initial estimate of 223,000 was reduced, resulting in a net reduction of 112,000 jobs for the two months combined.
These revisions add further evidence that the US labour market may be losing steam after months of post-pandemic recovery gains.
Uncertain outlook as election approaches
The lacklustre job growth comes just ahead of the US presidential election, where economic conditions remain a major concern for voters.
With a close race between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, the latest jobs report casts an uncertain light on the economic narrative as the country heads to the polls.
The modest job gains, compounded by sector-specific declines and the impact of external disruptions, present a murky picture for the US economy’s short-term outlook.
During India’s annual Diwali ‘muhurat’ trading, the NSE Nifty 50 and BSE Sensex indices showed a notable uplift, rallying on the back of renewed investor confidence and festive optimism.
Both indices bounced back after two days of losses, with Nifty 50 rising by 0.41% and Sensex by 0.42%, showcasing positive investor sentiment as the holiday period fuelled a surge in demand.
All 13 major sectors marked gains, and auto stocks led the rally, with Mahindra & Mahindra notably jumping by 3.27%, reflecting its 25% sales increase in October.
Festive demand drives Nifty 50 and Sensex gains by over 0.4%
The festive boost was evident across all sectors, with mid-cap and small-cap indices rising by nearly 0.7% and 1% respectively.
The gains were largely propelled by the auto sector, as manufacturers reported heightened sales linked to Diwali demand.
Despite recent underperformance in October, which was the toughest month for these indices since March 2020, the Diwali trading session highlighted resilience within the Indian stock market.
Companies like NCC saw a rise of 4.6% following lucrative contract wins, while certain sectors like healthcare saw mixed responses, with Narayana Hrudayalaya dropping by 2%.
This year’s Diwali trading session offered a welcome break from an otherwise challenging October.
With foreign investors pulling out amid subdued earnings, Indian benchmarks experienced significant losses, underscoring the market’s sensitivity to both local and global factors.
While Diwali optimism provided a brief respite, analysts caution that sustaining this momentum will depend on various factors, including corporate earnings and the return of foreign investment.
What’s next for India’s stock market?
While the Diwali rally brought cheer to investors, the Indian stock market remains at the mercy of both domestic and international pressures.
Upcoming indicators like US non-farm payroll data, as well as the US presidential elections, will likely influence investor sentiment in the coming weeks.
On the home front, corporate earnings and foreign investment inflows will play a critical role in maintaining upward momentum post-Diwali.
The auto sector emerged as the top performer during the Diwali trading session, with Mahindra & Mahindra leading the way.
Analysts note that sustained growth in this sector will require continued demand, which could face headwinds if global economic pressures persist.
The festive demand boost reflects positive sentiment, but with foreign investment flows showing caution, the market’s near-term path remains uncertain.
Mid-cap and small-cap stocks also saw a strong boost, with many investors optimistic about long-term growth prospects, supported by favourable domestic policies.
Renouncing US citizenship is on the rise, driven by tax burdens, bureaucratic hurdles, and unique challenges for “accidental Americans.”
As recent data shows, nearly 6,000 Americans gave up their citizenship in the first half of 2020, marking a sharp increase.
This trend highlights the complicated tax policies and legal requirements that make holding onto US citizenship difficult for some, particularly those with dual nationality who reside abroad.
For the ultra-wealthy and accidental Americans alike, renunciation may appear an appealing solution to escape double taxation and complex financial reporting requirements.
Why citizenship renunciation is on the rise
Americans living abroad face an uphill struggle with double taxation rules, which require them to file and potentially pay taxes in both the US and their country of residence.
The US remains one of the few nations enforcing citizenship-based taxation, a system that demands worldwide income reporting.
While credits and exclusions reduce actual tax payments for many, the compliance costs and penalties loom large, leading some to explore renunciation.
According to government data, the number of US citizens renouncing their citizenship surged tenfold in early 2020.
These individuals face a long process involving costly paperwork, high fees, and potential loss of access to the US.
This rise is driven in part by “accidental Americans” who inherited US citizenship by birth but have little to no connection to the country.
Accidental Americans and tax pressures
Accidental Americans are a unique group of US citizens who might be unaware of their American status until informed by financial institutions.
Many foreign banks, fearing compliance with US tax law under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), decline services to American clients.
FATCA requires all foreign banks to report accounts held by US citizens, adding layers of complexity and compliance for banks and clients alike.
For accidental Americans with limited or no ties to the US, renunciation seems a practical solution.
The cost, estimated at $2,350, alongside an exit tax for those with significant assets, makes renunciation financially challenging.
The ultra-wealthy explore global options
High-net-worth individuals are also seeking alternatives to US citizenship.
Faced with high tax obligations on income, estate, and capital gains, some are renouncing citizenship as a tax strategy.
Wealth advisors report that the ultra-wealthy are increasingly investing in secondary citizenships in tax-friendly jurisdictions.
Programmes in Portugal, Malta, and the Caribbean allow for second citizenship by investment, offering these individuals an escape from US taxation without fully severing ties with the country.
The exit tax is particularly stringent for the wealthy, applying to those with a net worth over $2 million or an average annual income above set thresholds.
All assets, including retirement accounts, are taxed to ensure compliance before the IRS allows renunciation.
While acquiring a second passport can help, wealthy renunciants must carefully consider the consequences, as some may face re-entry restrictions to the US.
How FATCA and compliance costs fuel renunciations
Introduced in 2010, FATCA has been a significant factor in citizenship renunciations.
Intended to combat tax evasion, FATCA mandates extensive reporting on foreign accounts by both individuals and institutions.
Americans abroad have increasingly struggled with FATCA’s requirements, as it complicates even basic financial activities like obtaining a mortgage or opening a bank account.
Many foreign banks, deterred by reporting requirements, deny services to Americans, viewing them as high-risk clients.
For US citizens abroad, the administrative burden of annual tax filings, combined with the risk of penalties for non-compliance, adds further incentive for renunciation.
Process and pitfalls of renouncing citizenship
Renouncing US citizenship is a multi-step process. Individuals must secure citizenship in another country, make a formal renunciation at a US embassy, and pay both outstanding taxes and a fee (expected to drop from $2,350 to $450 soon).
For high-net-worth individuals, the IRS applies an exit tax on global assets, including IRAs.
Renunciation is a decision with lasting implications, including potential bans from re-entering the US.
While some may gain a second passport from countries with favourable agreements, others, especially those with passports from investment programmes, may face hurdles entering the US in the future.
While renouncing citizenship is an option for those seeking to escape US tax burdens, the trend remains niche, particularly among accidental Americans and the ultra-wealthy.
The broader issue lies in US tax policy, which imposes costly obligations on citizens living abroad.
Until there is a shift from citizenship-based taxation to residence-based models, experts predict that the number of Americans relinquishing citizenship will continue to grow, albeit incrementally.
The legal conflict between Rusal, one of the world’s largest aluminium producers, and Nornickel’s CEO, Vladimir Potanin, is escalating with fresh claims filed in London. Rusal’s new claims against Nornickel’s Potanin
Rusal’s grievances focus on Nornickel’s governance and Potanin’s control over decision-making, specifically targeting the digital assets platform Atomyze and a controversial employee incentive scheme.
As Nornickel is a major player in global metals markets, producing nearly 40% of the world’s palladium and a significant share of nickel, the ramifications of this dispute extend beyond Russia.
Shareholders and market participants alike are watching closely, as Rusal’s legal actions could affect dividend policies, stock performance, and commodity prices.
Rusal’s claims
Rusal, which owns a 27.8% stake in Nornickel, has long challenged Potanin’s dominance in the company’s boardroom decisions. Potanin, who controls a 36% share, has reportedly leveraged his position in ways that Rusal argues undermine fair governance.
Central to Rusal’s latest claims are Atomyze—a digital platform Potanin developed to tokenise Nornickel’s assets—and an employee incentive scheme, both of which Rusal alleges serve Potanin’s interests disproportionately.
These claims hint at deeper governance tensions, as Rusal argues that Potanin’s initiatives skew profit distribution and sideline other shareholders.
The stakes
The outcome of Rusal’s claims could directly impact Nornickel’s valuation, dividends, and stock price stability.
Under a 2012 shareholder agreement that guaranteed steady dividends to Rusal and another key shareholder, Roman Abramovich’s Crispian Investments, Nornickel has maintained high payouts for a decade.
This agreement expired in 2022, leaving the dividend policy open to Potanin’s influence.
Rusal is now questioning how dividends will be managed without these prior protections.
If the London court sides with Rusal, there may be changes in how Nornickel allocates profits, potentially leading to higher payouts or shifts in the company’s cash reserves.
Nornickel’s influence on global metals markets cannot be understated.
As the leading producer of palladium—a critical metal for the automotive and electronics industries—and a significant producer of nickel, any disruptions to its operations could drive volatility in commodity prices.
A drawn-out legal dispute risks distracting Nornickel’s management and hindering its production capabilities, which in turn could reduce supply and drive up prices in an already tight palladium market.
Investors with holdings in metal-based ETFs, automakers reliant on palladium, and industrial consumers of nickel may all feel the impact.
What shareholders should watch for next
Shareholders should stay alert to upcoming court decisions and potential settlement options, as these could define Nornickel’s profit-sharing structure and dividend policies moving forward.
They should also monitor any statements from Nornickel regarding operational adjustments or financial forecasts, as such developments may signal how management is responding to the pressure from Rusal’s claims.
With commodity markets reacting to even minor shifts in production forecasts, shareholder interest in Nornickel remains high, and significant updates could impact not only Nornickel’s stock but also related commodity prices.
The US labour market saw its slowest job growth since late 2020, with only 12,000 jobs added in October due to disruptions from storms in the Southeast and an ongoing strike at Boeing.
This monthly gain fell significantly below Dow Jones’s forecast of 100,000, marking a sharp drop from September’s figures.
The unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%, and a broader measure of joblessness that includes discouraged workers and part-timers for economic reasons remained unchanged at 7.7%.
The latest data underscores a complex employment landscape as the US economy braces for potential shifts with the upcoming presidential election.
Storm impact and labour disputes cut into US job gains
In October, US nonfarm payrolls increased by only 12,000, marking a substantial drop from September and far short of the 100,000 forecast.
This represents the smallest gain in nearly three years, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reporting that hurricanes Helene and Milton significantly impacted job creation.
The agency noted the storms’ net effect was difficult to quantify precisely.
The prolonged Boeing strike, which removed an estimated 44,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, played a major role in the low job count, with the sector losing 46,000 jobs overall.
Manufacturing and temporary help sectors hit hard
October’s weak job growth data revealed significant losses in manufacturing and temporary help services.
The manufacturing sector, heavily impacted by the Boeing strike, reported a loss of 46,000 jobs.
The temporary help services sector also saw a decline, with 49,000 jobs lost, marking a cumulative drop of 577,000 positions since March 2022.
These two sectors are traditionally key indicators of broader employment health, and declines here suggest underlying pressures in the job market.
Despite the month’s overall slowdown, certain sectors continued to add jobs. Health care and government led the way, adding 52,000 and 40,000 jobs, respectively.
Health care remains a resilient industry, while government hiring has ramped up in response to various infrastructure and public sector needs.
These gains helped to offset some of the declines seen in sectors like leisure and hospitality, which lost 4,000 positions, along with modest declines in retail trade and transportation and warehousing.
Average earnings and work hours remain stable
The report showed that average hourly earnings rose by 0.4% in October, slightly above expectations, reflecting ongoing wage inflation amid a tight labour market.
The 12-month gain in hourly earnings stood at 4%, consistent with prior months, suggesting that wage pressures are stabilising.
The average work week remained steady at 34.3 hours, indicating a relatively consistent demand for worker hours across industries, even with the mixed job growth picture.
The October report also included downward revisions to prior job growth figures for August and September.
August’s job growth was revised down to 78,000, while September’s initial estimate of 223,000 was reduced, resulting in a net reduction of 112,000 jobs for the two months combined.
These revisions add further evidence that the US labour market may be losing steam after months of post-pandemic recovery gains.
Uncertain outlook as election approaches
The lacklustre job growth comes just ahead of the US presidential election, where economic conditions remain a major concern for voters.
With a close race between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, the latest jobs report casts an uncertain light on the economic narrative as the country heads to the polls.
The modest job gains, compounded by sector-specific declines and the impact of external disruptions, present a murky picture for the US economy’s short-term outlook.
Argentina’s tax amnesty program, launched by President Javier Milei, has successfully attracted about $18 billion back into local banks.
This initiative encourages residents to deposit foreign currency they had kept outside the formal banking system, whether in cash at home, safe deposit boxes, or accounts abroad.
This influx is especially critical as the country faces challenges with its foreign currency reserves during a technical recession.
For years, many Argentines have chosen to keep their savings in offshore accounts or cash due to worries about economic instability, hyperinflation, and currency devaluation.
A way to bring back funds to Argentina
The tax amnesty program allows them to bring their funds back into the local banking system.
Under the program’s first phase, residents can repatriate up to $100,000 without incurring taxes, while any amount over that is taxed at a rate of 5%.
The deadline for this first phase was originally set for Thursday but has been extended to November 8 due to some technical issues that arose.
Economy Minister Luis Caputo highlighted these challenges and emphasized the need for a smooth process for individuals looking to bring their foreign-held funds back home.
This extension gives people extra time to utilize the tax benefits and help bolster Argentina’s economic stability.
So far, the program has seen an enthusiastic response, with many residents eager to reintegrate their foreign savings.
What does this mean for Argentina’s economy?
The $18 billion repatriated to local banks is an important step toward restoring Argentina’s banking sector and increasing its foreign currency reserves.
As Milei’s program gains pace, it is positioned to have a long-term impact on the country’s economy, promoting greater financial openness and citizen participation.
As the amnesty program evolves, government authorities closely watch its effects and weigh the advantages of boosting savings repatriation for long-term economic growth.
This endeavour demonstrates Argentina’s commitment to improving financial stability and encouraging the responsible management of foreign assets in its banking sector.
Momentum grows in Milei’s tax amnesty program
Milei’s Tax Amnesty Program is gaining traction, as evidenced by the encouraging deposits made by residents.
With the tax rate on these deposits set to rise gradually, the positive response reflects growing confidence in Milei’s leadership, especially as inflation rates continue to decrease thanks to his austerity measures.
Although monthly inflation has now fallen to single digits, Argentina still grapples with the challenge of triple-digit annual inflation, highlighting ongoing economic struggles.
During a recent news conference, Milei’s spokesman, Manuel Adorni, emphasized his satisfaction with the progress of the tax amnesty program, calling it a “success” and revealing the large sum that has been deposited thus far.
This inflow of capital into local banks is likely to enable financial institutions to extend more credit to their consumers, thus stimulating economic growth in the country.
Analysts estimate that since the program began in mid-July, privately held dollar-denominated bank accounts in Argentina have skyrocketed to $32.5 billion, marking a huge increase beyond just the amnesty program.
Experts, including those from J.P. Morgan, highlight how crucial this financial influx is for strengthening net reserves, depending largely on the increase of dollar-denominated credit available to the private sector.
The good trend in reserves since the deadline demonstrates the major impact of the ongoing tax amnesty program.
With Argentines keeping approximately $277 billion outside the conventional banking system, the program’s success not only strengthens reserves but also marks a bigger shift toward financial openness and the reintegration of cash into the official economy.
Betting platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi have surged into the limelight, reporting millions in bets placed on the upcoming presidential elections.
Many are left wondering what caused this surge in election betting platforms.
On the popular platform Polymarket, Donald Trump’s odds have soared in just a couple weeks, with the platform now reporting a 62% chance of a Trump victory.
This data—widely shared on social media and by some in mainstream media—might suggest that Trump is the favored candidate. But does it?
Why did betting markets become popular all of a sudden?
The truth is that election betting isn’t a recent invention. Wagering on political races has long been a part of American elections since almost forever.
Today, the game has evolved. What used to be informal gambling is now a tech-driven market powered by platforms like Polymarket, Kalshi, and PredictIt, which offer real-time betting on election outcomes.
But how do these platforms work? In simple terms, they operate like stock markets for events.
Users buy shares in specific outcomes—say, “Trump wins” or “Harris wins.”
The share prices fluctuate between $0 and $1 based on demand, with higher demand signalling greater perceived likelihood.
When the event resolves, shares in the correct outcome pay out at $1, while the others become worthless.
This setup provides a unique look at candidate support and, some argue, serves as a “reliable” measure of public sentiment.
Thanks to the mainstream adoption of online betting, platforms like Polymarket have drawn attention from social media, major news outlets, and even political influencers.
Since the start of the 2024 race, Polymarket has reported betting volumes reaching an astonishing $2.8 billion.
This influx of data has driven interest in betting odds as an alternative metric for gauging candidate strength.
And, as prediction market expert Nate Silver recently joined Polymarket as an advisor, the site has gained credibility, with its odds often compared alongside traditional polling data.
In theory, betting markets have an advantage over traditional polling.
While polls are snapshots that may miss late-breaking momentum, betting markets allow users to adjust bets in real time based on new information.
While some argue that the popularity of betting markets is introducing the element of gambling into elections, it must also be noted here that unregulated political donations (PAC) have already blurred the line between financial influence and betting on political outcomes many years ago.
Are these markets subject to manipulation?
A key caveat to consider in this context is that punters are not always voters. Some platforms with large betting volumes are illegal in the US where the elections are actually held.
In addition, financially powerful individuals or groups can wield significant influence over these platforms.
Analysts from Chaos Labs and Inca Digital found that much of Trump’s reported 67% odds on Polymarket could be linked to a small group of accounts using disproportionately large buy orders to sway market odds.
In fact, a single trader (known as “Fredi9999”) and several potentially linked accounts reportedly hold $40 million in Trump shares on the platform.
This outsized involvement means that just a few actors, rather than a representative crowd, may be driving market predictions, creating an inflated sense of Trump’s electoral strength.
This scenario raises questions about how betting markets might sway public opinion.
If bettors with deep pockets create an impression that Trump is the clear favourite, they could affect the expectations of undecided voters or embolden his supporters.
Elon Musk, for example, has cited betting odds as evidence of Trump’s supposed momentum, trying to get more voters to the side of Donald Trump.
Some researchers argue that by “placing their thumb on the scale,” financially powerful bettors might artificially create momentum that doesn’t fully align with actual voter sentiment.
This is a form of “soft influence”—one that subtly shifts perceptions rather than changing votes outright but can still impact the overall election narrative.
Another argument made by behavioural economists is that by having money on the line on a political outcome, individuals could try and persuade others to join them, based solely on the motive of financial gain.
Can betting odds actually predict elections?
The idea of using betting odds to forecast election results has become popular, with some even claiming it’s more accurate than traditional polling.
Betting markets are often touted as a “wisdom of the crowd” approach, with predictions driven by informed participants who have financial stakes in the outcome.
Yet, evidence of this predictive power is questionable. For example, prediction markets in 2016 and 2020 failed to capture the strength of Donald Trump’s support.
While polls were also off-mark, betting markets proved equally vulnerable to “groupthink” and failed to account for turnout nuances and state-level shifts.
On that note, betting markets could set the stage for claims of election fraud if outcomes don’t align with market expectations.
A key distinction between polls and betting odds is that polls attempt to capture a snapshot of voter intent, while betting markets reflect where participants are willing to put their money, not necessarily their votes.
This distinction became clearer with the recent revelations of “wash trading” on Polymarket.
Such manipulation distorts the market’s perceived accuracy by amplifying certain odds through non-genuine trades.
Despite these issues, betting markets can sometimes provide insights during moments of uncertainty.
When President Joe Biden faced calls to step down after a series of verbal gaffes, prediction markets quickly reflected heightened speculation, even as polls lagged in response.
Thus, while betting markets can reveal short-term reactions, they are less reliable as standalone predictors of complex elections, where factors like state-by-state polling, demographic turnout, and electoral college dynamics matter.
What’s next for betting platforms?
What happens to platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi once the election is over?
In reality, betting platforms typically experience a sharp drop in volume after major events, leading to a lull until the next high-stakes occasion.
To counter this, platforms often diversify, creating markets around global events, sports outcomes, or financial events.
Some platforms like PredictIt and Kalshi also seek regulatory approval to operate year-round in the US, aiming to stay relevant beyond election cycles.
However, Polymarket’s crypto-based, offshore structure faces unique challenges, including regulatory scrutiny and questions about legitimacy, especially given the high levels of wash trading uncovered in its 2024 presidential market.
The high-profile nature of election betting also brings these platforms under closer regulatory and media scrutiny.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), for example, has banned or restricted political betting markets due to concerns that they could be manipulated or impact public trust in democratic processes.
After the election, platforms will likely face even greater pressure to address issues like wash trading and high-volume traders, potentially reshaping how they operate in the future.
Some platforms will continue to evolve and offer additional services.
As long as there is demand for betting platforms, there will be no shortage of innovation. This evolution could be amplified by the growing demand of cryptocurrency and discussions around their use case.
Final thoughts
Election betting markets have become a fascinating, if flawed, tool in this years’ election narrative.
They offer a sense of who bettors think will win and, at times, can capture shifts in public opinion more quickly than polls.
But they are far from a perfect predictor.
The influence of wealthy backers and evidence of market manipulation show that betting odds are not as clear-cut as they might appear.
A few deep pockets can shape the numbers in ways that aren’t always visible to the casual observer, turning these odds into more of a suggestion than a reliable forecast.
While the odds may hint at trends, the final outcome rests with voters, not bettors.
And as Election Day approaches, it’s worth keeping in mind that the only “odds” that truly matter are those tallied at the ballot box.
Renouncing US citizenship is on the rise, driven by tax burdens, bureaucratic hurdles, and unique challenges for “accidental Americans.”
As recent data shows, nearly 6,000 Americans gave up their citizenship in the first half of 2020, marking a sharp increase.
This trend highlights the complicated tax policies and legal requirements that make holding onto US citizenship difficult for some, particularly those with dual nationality who reside abroad.
For the ultra-wealthy and accidental Americans alike, renunciation may appear an appealing solution to escape double taxation and complex financial reporting requirements.
Why citizenship renunciation is on the rise
Americans living abroad face an uphill struggle with double taxation rules, which require them to file and potentially pay taxes in both the US and their country of residence.
The US remains one of the few nations enforcing citizenship-based taxation, a system that demands worldwide income reporting.
While credits and exclusions reduce actual tax payments for many, the compliance costs and penalties loom large, leading some to explore renunciation.
According to government data, the number of US citizens renouncing their citizenship surged tenfold in early 2020.
These individuals face a long process involving costly paperwork, high fees, and potential loss of access to the US.
This rise is driven in part by “accidental Americans” who inherited US citizenship by birth but have little to no connection to the country.
Accidental Americans and tax pressures
Accidental Americans are a unique group of US citizens who might be unaware of their American status until informed by financial institutions.
Many foreign banks, fearing compliance with US tax law under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), decline services to American clients.
FATCA requires all foreign banks to report accounts held by US citizens, adding layers of complexity and compliance for banks and clients alike.
For accidental Americans with limited or no ties to the US, renunciation seems a practical solution.
The cost, estimated at $2,350, alongside an exit tax for those with significant assets, makes renunciation financially challenging.
The ultra-wealthy explore global options
High-net-worth individuals are also seeking alternatives to US citizenship.
Faced with high tax obligations on income, estate, and capital gains, some are renouncing citizenship as a tax strategy.
Wealth advisors report that the ultra-wealthy are increasingly investing in secondary citizenships in tax-friendly jurisdictions.
Programmes in Portugal, Malta, and the Caribbean allow for second citizenship by investment, offering these individuals an escape from US taxation without fully severing ties with the country.
The exit tax is particularly stringent for the wealthy, applying to those with a net worth over $2 million or an average annual income above set thresholds.
All assets, including retirement accounts, are taxed to ensure compliance before the IRS allows renunciation.
While acquiring a second passport can help, wealthy renunciants must carefully consider the consequences, as some may face re-entry restrictions to the US.
How FATCA and compliance costs fuel renunciations
Introduced in 2010, FATCA has been a significant factor in citizenship renunciations.
Intended to combat tax evasion, FATCA mandates extensive reporting on foreign accounts by both individuals and institutions.
Americans abroad have increasingly struggled with FATCA’s requirements, as it complicates even basic financial activities like obtaining a mortgage or opening a bank account.
Many foreign banks, deterred by reporting requirements, deny services to Americans, viewing them as high-risk clients.
For US citizens abroad, the administrative burden of annual tax filings, combined with the risk of penalties for non-compliance, adds further incentive for renunciation.
Process and pitfalls of renouncing citizenship
Renouncing US citizenship is a multi-step process. Individuals must secure citizenship in another country, make a formal renunciation at a US embassy, and pay both outstanding taxes and a fee (expected to drop from $2,350 to $450 soon).
For high-net-worth individuals, the IRS applies an exit tax on global assets, including IRAs.
Renunciation is a decision with lasting implications, including potential bans from re-entering the US.
While some may gain a second passport from countries with favourable agreements, others, especially those with passports from investment programmes, may face hurdles entering the US in the future.
While renouncing citizenship is an option for those seeking to escape US tax burdens, the trend remains niche, particularly among accidental Americans and the ultra-wealthy.
The broader issue lies in US tax policy, which imposes costly obligations on citizens living abroad.
Until there is a shift from citizenship-based taxation to residence-based models, experts predict that the number of Americans relinquishing citizenship will continue to grow, albeit incrementally.
The legal conflict between Rusal, one of the world’s largest aluminium producers, and Nornickel’s CEO, Vladimir Potanin, is escalating with fresh claims filed in London. Rusal’s new claims against Nornickel’s Potanin
Rusal’s grievances focus on Nornickel’s governance and Potanin’s control over decision-making, specifically targeting the digital assets platform Atomyze and a controversial employee incentive scheme.
As Nornickel is a major player in global metals markets, producing nearly 40% of the world’s palladium and a significant share of nickel, the ramifications of this dispute extend beyond Russia.
Shareholders and market participants alike are watching closely, as Rusal’s legal actions could affect dividend policies, stock performance, and commodity prices.
Rusal’s claims
Rusal, which owns a 27.8% stake in Nornickel, has long challenged Potanin’s dominance in the company’s boardroom decisions. Potanin, who controls a 36% share, has reportedly leveraged his position in ways that Rusal argues undermine fair governance.
Central to Rusal’s latest claims are Atomyze—a digital platform Potanin developed to tokenise Nornickel’s assets—and an employee incentive scheme, both of which Rusal alleges serve Potanin’s interests disproportionately.
These claims hint at deeper governance tensions, as Rusal argues that Potanin’s initiatives skew profit distribution and sideline other shareholders.
The stakes
The outcome of Rusal’s claims could directly impact Nornickel’s valuation, dividends, and stock price stability.
Under a 2012 shareholder agreement that guaranteed steady dividends to Rusal and another key shareholder, Roman Abramovich’s Crispian Investments, Nornickel has maintained high payouts for a decade.
This agreement expired in 2022, leaving the dividend policy open to Potanin’s influence.
Rusal is now questioning how dividends will be managed without these prior protections.
If the London court sides with Rusal, there may be changes in how Nornickel allocates profits, potentially leading to higher payouts or shifts in the company’s cash reserves.
Nornickel’s influence on global metals markets cannot be understated.
As the leading producer of palladium—a critical metal for the automotive and electronics industries—and a significant producer of nickel, any disruptions to its operations could drive volatility in commodity prices.
A drawn-out legal dispute risks distracting Nornickel’s management and hindering its production capabilities, which in turn could reduce supply and drive up prices in an already tight palladium market.
Investors with holdings in metal-based ETFs, automakers reliant on palladium, and industrial consumers of nickel may all feel the impact.
What shareholders should watch for next
Shareholders should stay alert to upcoming court decisions and potential settlement options, as these could define Nornickel’s profit-sharing structure and dividend policies moving forward.
They should also monitor any statements from Nornickel regarding operational adjustments or financial forecasts, as such developments may signal how management is responding to the pressure from Rusal’s claims.
With commodity markets reacting to even minor shifts in production forecasts, shareholder interest in Nornickel remains high, and significant updates could impact not only Nornickel’s stock but also related commodity prices.
