Q3 2020 H & R Block Inc Earnings Call

Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of Block Financial LLC and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. Since 1 January 2019, Moody's practice has been to issue a press release following each periodic review to announce its completion.

KANSAS CITY, Mo., May 26, 2020 -- H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE: HRB) will report fiscal 2020 results on Tuesday, June 16, 2020 after the New York Stock Exchange market close.  At.

Their businesses generate excess returns and are expected to improve their profitability Continue reading...

H&R Block, Inc. (HRB) today provided the following business update amidst the rapidly evolving novel coronavirus (COVID-19) situation. “The coronavirus pandemic is changing every aspect of our lives,” said Jeff Jones, H&R Block’s president and chief executive officer. With the economic impact of the pandemic being felt across America, H&R Block remains committed to helping people gain access to their refunds while shifting how we operate to help promote the safety and wellbeing of associates and clients.

Companies that have already spent large amounts of money on buybacks are very likely to dramatically reduce their repurchases, an analyst warns.

With the COVID-19 crisis sending the U.S. economy in a recession, we're looking at what companies managed to thrive during the last recession for guidance.

Could H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE:HRB) be an attractive dividend share to own for the long haul? Investors are often drawn...

Here at Zacks, our focus is on the proven Zacks Rank system, which emphasizes earnings estimates and estimate revisions to find great stocks. Nevertheless, we are always paying attention to the latest value, growth, and momentum trends to underscore strong picks.

Unfortunately for some shareholders, the H&R Block (NYSE:HRB) share price has dived 38% in the last thirty days...

Coronavirus is probably the 1 concern in investors' minds right now. It should be. On February 27th we published an article with the title Recession is Imminent: We Need A Travel Ban NOW. We predicted that a US recession is imminent and US stocks will go down by at least 20% in the next 3-6 […]

Intuit (INTU) partners with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to announce a free Stimulus Registration product via TurboTax, through which citizens with no tax liabilities can apply for stimulus money.

Does the May share price for H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE:HRB) reflect what it's really worth? Today, we will estimate the...

H&R Block (HRB) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.

KANSAS CITY, Mo., April 29, 2020 -- In times like these, we must all find more ways to help. That’s why H&R Block is offering Tax Pro Go – our expert-prepared virtual tax.

Large U.S. companies are tightening their purse strings as COVID-19 wreaks the economy. Goldman Sachs predicts S&P 500 cash spending will drop 33% during 2020 as firms prioritize liquidity amid the coronavirus slowdown.

H&R Block's (HRB) performance post the pandemic is expected to be driven by the digital enablement of business and client addition and retention in both Assisted and DIY.

Many small businesses are struggling with how to recover from the COVID-19 crisis, and H&R Block believes they should have a trusted place to turn for assistance. The Recovery Action Plan service* includes up to an hour-long one-on-one phone consultation for $99 with an H&R Block small business expert to discuss various relief options, eligibility requirements, and potential actions.

H&R; Block, Capital One Financial, and United Airlines sell 30%, 40%, and even 70% below what they cost at the start of the year.

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The coronavirus seems to have overtaken every aspect of our lives, from the mundane task of buying toilet paper to the very pressing question of when your spin class will resume. Now it’s even delaying your tax deadline.That bill from Uncle Sam will come eventually, though, which means over the next few weeks — or months — Americans and their accountants will be busy trying to squeeze every last dime out of their refunds and taking stock of household expenses.For many two-career couples, this annual budgeting exercise can become pretty dispiriting. Once you tally up the costs of nannies, daycare, commuting, dry cleaning, housekeeping, meals out and other work-related expenses, the marginal benefit of an additional salary can shrink close to zero. If one partner decides to quit, it’s the one with less potential earning power: often a wife.It may be tempting to use this grim calculus to renew calls for subsidized childcare and more generous parental leave. But a recent staff discussion note from the International Monetary Fund found that there’s a bigger swing factor: the way we file our taxes.Switching to a system where everyone files separately, whether or not you’re married, would lead to a 15.5 percentage point jump in women’s labor-force participation, the IMF found, compared with a 1.6 percentage point rise for instituting 18 weeks of paid maternity leave and  4.8 percentage points for halving the cost of childcare.(1) That would amount to adding more than 20 million women to the U.S. workforce, based on back-of-the-envelope calculations.(2)To understand why, take a look at this striking example from Edward McCaffery, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law and author of “Taxing Women.” He’s outlined a hypothetical scenario of a family where the husband (let’s call him Joe) makes $60,000 a year and the wife (let’s call her Mary) stays home with their two kids. Mary has been offered a job for $30,000 a year. However, once you factor in federal income taxes, social security, state and local taxes, not to mention the related expenses of going back to work, Joe and Mary would end up with just a net $1,000 increase in their joint income.This comes down to what’s called the secondary-earner bias. Mary’s first dollar doesn’t start getting taxed at $0, as Joe’s would, but rather at $60,001, because joint filers are recognized as one unit of income. Thanks to the U.S.’s progressive marginal rates, successive portions of income get taxed at higher levels — the first bracket starts at 10%, the next at 12%, the following at 22%, and so on. The system is problematic for spouses who are “on the margin” about working, as McCaffery puts it. Seen this way, it’s easy to understand why Mary would get discouraged.The math is even more deflating for a woman whose spouse makes, say, half-a-million dollars. She’d start getting taxed at $500,001, which could push her into the highest bracket right off the bat. We can’t exactly say she’s hard up with that handsome family income— but if she opts to stay home because her salary gets gobbled up by taxes, that costs the workforce a talented person. Multiply that out across all the women on the margin and you get a sense of why this invisible problem has such a big impact. The International Labour Organization found that narrowing the gender gap in participation by 25% in five years could boost global gross domestic product by 3.9%.McCaffery’s book published more than two decades ago, yet the secondary-earner bias hasn’t gone away — which makes you wonder where joint filing came from and why the U.S. has stuck with it all these years.Federal income taxes have existed since 1913. At that point, everyone filed separately. The tax was highly progressive; for the 1918 tax year, the rate schedule had no less than 49 brackets. This created an incentive to spread income to family members. For example, a man earning $10,000 in 1930 would pay 6% in taxes, or $600, while two individuals earning $5,000 would pay 3% each, for a total of $300. Rich men, in particular, got pretty clever about moving income to their wives.That same year, the Supreme Court ruled that this practice was legal in the states entitling wives to half their husband’s assets acquired after marriage, so-called communal property states. This ended up creating a massive discrepancy: Couples in other states were paying 40% more in federal taxes, according to H&R Block Inc. Partly to address this, Congress introduced joint filing in 1948.It wasn’t until the 1990s, with the publication of McCaffery’s book, that the public began to worry this system was keeping women like Mary out of the workforce. (Until that point, the debate circulated almost exclusively among policy wonks.) Yet proposals to move toward separate filing met stiff resistance. One of the loudest critics was conservative lioness Phyllis Schlafly, who argued that there’s no such thing as gender neutral tax policy and sought to protect the traditional one-earner household. Another argument was that taxing the family as a unit more closely reflects patterns of household consumption. Though advocacy for separate filing eventually lost momentum, the book “The Two-Income Trap,” by Amelia Warren Tyagi and Elizabeth Warren, recognizes the struggles of dual-earners. To clear up any confusion, “married filing separately” isn’t the answer. Such couples often go into a higher tax bracket and miss out on certain benefits, or those perks get phased out, according to Jackie Perlman, Principal Tax Research Analyst from H&R Block’s Tax Institute. That’s why most people file jointly: Of the 153 million tax returns filed for the 2017 tax year, 55 million were joint filers(3) and just 3.2 million were married filing separately.A sensible, centrist way forward, then, would be to make separate filing optional for all taxpayers. The U.S. is in a small minority of countries where married taxpayers still file jointly. Those that once followed the American model slowly began to shift to separate filing as low female labor-force participation became too costly, McCaffery has written. In Sweden, for example, research shows that the sharp increase in working married women came as a result of the individual tax reform of 1971. Employment in this demographic would have been 10 percentage points lower in 1975 if the 1969 statutory income tax system had still been in place then, the study found.No one likes to think about taxes. It’s a lot easier to get excited about issues more of us understand, like subsidized childcare and longer parental leave. But if we’re going to cheer the lengthening list of companies that are coming to the table — at long last — with family-friendly policies, it’s worth educating ourselves about the issues that will make a bigger difference.(1) The IMF analysis applies to middle-class working mothers of preschool children. It reduces the cost of childcare per child to 5% of family income from 10%, and excludes some women who benefit from federal programs.(2) Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.(3) This includes surviving spouses.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Rachel Rosenthal is an editor with Bloomberg Opinion. Previously, she was a markets reporter and editor at the Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.