As Nova Scotia’s Provincial Police, road safety is a top priority. In an effort to keep citizens informed about enforcement on our roadways, the RCMP is releasing statistics on stunting charges for the months of June to September.
During this four-month period, Nova Scotia RCMP charged 75 drivers with stunting on a number of highways across the province. This included 16 in June, 19 in July, 20 in August, and 20 in September. Each of these months represented an increase from 2023. The following drivers were caught travelling at speeds that caused significant concern:
109 km/h in a 30 km/h school zone on Highway 1 in Weymouth
144 km/h in a 50 km/h zone on Highway 242 in Joggins
204 km/h in a 110 km/h zone on Highway 104 in Westchester
174 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 125 in Upper North Sydney, with two racing vehicles both seized
170 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 125 in Coxheath with the driver also providing a roadside breath sample over 50mg%.
Stunting is defined as any person who operates a motor vehicle on a highway in a race, in a contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. And, anyone driving a motor vehicle 50 Km/hr or more over a speed limit, may be charged with stunting.
The fine for stunting in Nova Scotia is $2,422.50 for a first offence, six points on your licence and an immediate seven-day roadside licence suspension.
Speed is one of the major causes of serious injury and fatal collisions on our roads. Road safety is a priority for the RCMP and drivers are reminded to make it their priority as well. If you see someone driving unsafely on our roads, please report it by calling the RCMP at 1-800-803-RCMP (7267). If you believe it is an emergency, call 911.
JEFFERSON CITY, MO – The Missouri Department of Social Services’ MO HealthNet Division (MHD) is proud to announce that on October 2, 2024, the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) approved a State Plan Amendment (SPA) that enables the state to begin reimbursing for doula services.
This CMS approval aligns with Missouri’s emergency regulation, which was published on September 27 and took effect on October 1. The emergency regulation was necessary to ensure these valuable services could be accessed as quickly as possible. A newly filed permanent regulation is expected to receive full approval and become operational when the emergency rule expires in six months.
The SPA clarifies how doulas are defined for Medicaid billing and outlines service definitions. Doulas interested in these services should look for an upcoming provider bulletin that will provide details, including reimbursement rates. This bulletin will also contain information about future educational webinars aimed at helping doulas with enrollment and addressing any questions.
Medicaid participants will have access to the following doula services:
Prenatal Support: Sessions aimed at enhancing health literacy, covering what to expect during pregnancy and childbirth, identifying normal experiences, communicating concerns to providers, and discussing nutrition, exercise, tobacco cessation, and self-monitoring of existing health risks or conditions.
Community Navigation: Connecting pregnant and postpartum women on MO HealthNet (Medicaid) to resources and assistance programs based on individual needs.
Childbirth Support: Assisting with birth planning, what to expect, and providing non-medical support during labor while respecting personal and cultural preferences.
Postpartum Support: Sessions designed to help women understand what to expect, identify normal experiences, communicate concerns to providers, transition back to well-woman care, family planning, screening for postpartum depression, parenting education and skills, and transition to other insurance as necessary.
Lactation Education: Offering up to two lactation education and support sessions that cover the fundamentals of breastfeeding.
MHD is implementing a range of strategies to enhance maternal and infant health outcomes within Missouri’s Medicaid program. Providing reimbursement for doula services is a vital part of a comprehensive approach to improve maternal health.
For more information on maternal and infant health in Missouri, please visit healthymomsbabies.mo.gov.
A recent decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding income apportionment (Secretary, Department of Social Services and FTXB) has been appealed to the Full Federal Court by the respondent to the Tribunal proceedings.
I have carefully considered the legal position and I remain confident in the interpretation of the law advanced by my Department, and I will be making submissions to that effect during the appeal process.
The raising and review of debts potentially affected by income apportionment was paused in July 2021. Recovery of debts potentially affected by income apportionment has been paused since October 2023.
In April 2024, Services Australia restarted a limited number of internal reviews, explanations of decisions and new debt raising activities, in line with the Department’s interpretation of the law. This was in response to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s recommendations in their 2023 reports, Lessons in Lawfulness and Accountability in Action. These reports emphasised the need for the Department to reach a firm legal position and restart debt activity in a timely manner. The Department achieved this, in consultation with Services Australia, the Ombudsman, and welfare rights stakeholders.
I have reconsidered this position in light of the appeal to the Full Federal Court. To minimise the potential future impact of an adverse decision on individuals, I have directed Services Australia to redirect resources to other work until the appeal is resolved (effectively pausing internal reviews, explanations of decisions and raising of new debts potentially affected by income apportionment).
However, I am aware that there are individuals, who for personal and related compelling reasons, require resolution of a debt potentially affected by income apportionment. Not having access to an internal review is preventing these people from seeking further external review and/or addressing their concerns. Accordingly, if an individual in this situation contacts Services Australia and asks that their review proceed, their internal review or explanation of decision will be progressed in accordance with the Department’s interpretation of the law. Individuals will be given information about the Full Federal Court appeal and their review and appeal rights will be explained. They will also be made aware that their debt may change in the future, should a Court determine a different interpretation of the law. Services Australia will also progress any reviews or explanation of decisions it is aware of where an individual has already requested it be progressed as part of the recommencement activities in April this year.
Services Australia will continue identifying, processing and recovering debts which are not affected by income apportionment.
Unregulated toxic drugs claimed the lives of 187 British Columbians in August and 183 in September, according to the BC Coroners Service.
The preliminary data finds that since January 2024, at least 1,749 people have died from unregulated drug toxicity in communities throughout the province.
The data for the first nine months of 2024 represents an 8% decrease from the number of deaths during the first nine months of 2023 (1,896). In both August and September, approximately six people died each day from suspected unregulated drugs.
Additional findings from the latest report include:
48% of unregulated drug deaths in September were people between the ages of 30 and 49, while 1.1% were 18 years of age and below.
77% of unregulated drug deaths in September were males, up from the year-to-date figure of 74% in 2024.
26% of deaths related to unregulated drug toxicity were females in 2024. The rate of death among females is 21 per 100,000 people, an increase of 60% from 2020 (13 per 100,000).
Vancouver (45), Surrey (19) and Greater Victoria (16) had the highest number of unregulated drug toxicity deaths in September.
While the health authorities of Vancouver Coastal and Interior Health had the highest number of unregulated drug deaths in September with 50 in each region, Interior (5.6) and Northern Health (4.3) had the highest rates of unregulated drug deaths per 100,000 people.
Fentanyl was detected in 85% and stimulants in 81% of unregulated drug deaths in September 2024 that underwent expedited toxicological testing.
Please note the data is preliminary and subject to change as additional toxicology results are received and investigations are concluded.
Learn More:
To learn more about August and September 2024 unregulated drug toxicity deaths, visit: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZThmOTkxMzgtZWUzNS00ODk1LWJiZjItYzMyMTFjNmY0MzJiIiwidCI6IjZmZGI1MjAwLTNkMGQtNGE4YS1iMDM2LWQzNjg1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9
To learn more about youth unregulated drug toxicity deaths, 2019-2023, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/youth_unregulated_drug_toxicity_deaths_in_bc_2019-2023.pdf
To learn more about Unregulated Drug Toxicity Type of Drug Data (to Dec. 31, 2022), visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/statistical/illicit-drug-type.pdf
To learn more about BC Coroners Service Death Review Panel: An Urgent Response to a Continuing Crisis, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/death-review-panel/an_urgent_response_to_a_continuing_crisis_report.pdf
To learn more about BC Coroners Service Death Review Panel: A Review of Illicit Drug Toxicity Deaths, visit: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-service/death-review-panel/review_of_illicit_drug_toxicity_deaths_2022.pdf
To learn more about Toward the Heart, visit: https://www.towardtheheart.com
To learn more about Stop Overdose BC, visit: https://www.stopoverdose.gov.bc.ca
To learn more about BC Centre on Substance Use, visit: https://www.bccsu.ca
Media Contacts
Amber Schinkel
Manager Strategic Communications and Media Relations BC Coroners Service amber.schinkel@gov.bc.ca 236 969-1759
NEW YORK, Oct. 24, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York (“FHLBNY”) today released its unaudited financial highlights for the quarter ended September 30, 2024.
“Throughout the first nine months of 2024, the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York has continued to successfully execute on our mission, meeting the needs of our members and working together to the benefit of the communities we all serve,” said José R. González, president and CEO of the FHLBNY.
Highlights from the third quarter of 2024 include:
Net income for the quarter was $183.4 million, an increase of $1.5 million, or 0.8%, from net income of $181.9 million for the third quarter of 2023. Net interest income for the quarter was $237.2 million, a decrease of $5.3 million, or 2.2%, from $242.4 million in the third quarter last year. Non-interest income increased by $23.3 million in the third quarter of 2024 compared with the prior year’s quarter, mainly due to an increase in unrealized fair value gains on derivatives, hedged items and trading securities. Non-interest expense increased by $16.2 million to $68.4 million in the third quarter of 2024, primarily due to larger voluntary contributions for housing and community development initiatives and increases in headcount.
Return on average equity (“ROE”) for the quarter was 8.29% (annualized), compared to ROE of 9.13% for the third quarter of 2023.
As of September 30, 2024, total assets were $155.5 billion, a decrease of $2.8 billion, or 1.8%, from total assets of $158.3 billion at December 31, 2023. As of September 30, 2024, advances were $106.4 billion, a decrease of $2.5 billion, or 2.3%, from $108.9 billion at December 31, 2023.
As of September 30, 2024, total capital was $8.4 billion, an increase of $0.2 billion from total capital of $8.2 billion at December 31, 2023. The FHLBNY’s retained earnings increased by $0.2 billion to $2.5 billion as of September 30, 2024, of which $1.3 billion was unrestricted retained earnings and $1.2 billion was restricted retained earnings. At September 30, 2024, the FHLBNY met its regulatory capital ratios and liquidity requirements.
The FHLBNY allocated $20.4 million from its third quarter 2024 earnings for its Affordable Housing Program.
The FHLBNY expects to file its Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2024 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on or before November 7, 2024.
Selected Balance Sheet Items (dollars in millions)
September 30,
December 31,
2024
2023
Change
Advances
$
106,435
$
108,890
$
(2,455
)
Mortgage loans held for portfolio
2,308
2,180
128
Mortgage-backed securities
19,736
19,582
154
Liquidity assets
24,581
25,340
(759
)
Total assets
$
155,454
$
158,333
$
(2,879
)
Consolidated obligations
$
143,809
$
145,476
$
(1,667
)
Capital stock
6,014
6,050
(36
)
Unrestricted retained earnings
1,309
1,277
32
Restricted retained earnings
1,178
1,061
117
Accumulated other comprehensive income
(85
)
(143
)
58
Total capital
$
8,416
$
8,245
$
171
Capital-to-assets ratio (GAAP)
5.41
%
5.21
%
Capital-to-assets ratio (Regulatory)
5.47
%
5.30
%
Operating Results (dollars in millions)
Three Months Ended September 30,
Nine Months Ended September 30,
2024
2023
Change
2024
2023
Change
Total interest income
$
2,316.6
$
2,030.7
$
285.9
$
6,916.0
$
6,264.1
$
651.9
Total interest expense
2,079.4
1,788.3
291.1
6,166.1
5,517.2
648.9
Net interest income
237.2
242.4
(5.2
)
749.9
746.9
3.0
Provision (Reversal) for credit losses
0.1
(0.1
)
0.2
(0.7
)
1.8
(2.5
)
Net interest income after provision for credit losses
237.1
242.5
(5.4
)
750.6
745.1
5.5
Non-interest income (loss)
35.1
11.8
23.3
88.2
70.7
17.5
Non-interest expense
68.4
52.2
16.2
188.5
153.3
35.2
Affordable Housing Program assessments
20.4
20.2
0.2
65.1
66.3
(1.2
)
Net income
$
183.4
$
181.9
$
1.5
$
585.2
$
596.2
$
(11.0
)
Return on average equity
8.29
%
9.13
%
9.09
%
9.54
%
Return on average assets
0.43
%
0.48
%
0.46
%
0.48
%
Net interest margin
0.56
%
0.64
%
0.59
%
0.60
%
Federal Home Loan Bank of New York The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York is a Congressionally chartered, wholesale Bank. It is part of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, a national wholesale banking network of 11 regional, stockholder-owned banks. As of September 30, 2024, the FHLBNY serves 338 financial institutions and housing associates in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The mission of the FHLBNY is to provide members with reliable liquidity in support of housing and local community development.
Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 This report may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based upon our current expectations and speak only as of the date hereof. These statements may use forward-looking terms, such as “projected,” “expects,” “may,” or their negatives or other variations on these terms. The Bank cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk or uncertainty and that actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements or could affect the extent to which a particular objective, projection, estimate, or prediction is realized. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the Risk Factors set forth in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, as well as regulatory and accounting rule adjustments or requirements, changes in interest rates, changes in projected business volumes, changes in prepayment speeds on mortgage assets, the cost of our funding, changes in our membership profile, the withdrawal of one or more large members, competitive pressures, shifts in demand for our products, and general economic conditions. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christopher Hill, Associate Professor (Research and Development), Faculty of Business and Creative Industries, University of South Wales
Nuclear detonations were the backdrop to Teeua and Teraabo’s childhood. By the time the sisters were eight and four, the Pacific island on which they grew up, Kiritimati, had hosted 30 atomic and thermonuclear explosions – six during Operation Grapple, a British series between 1957 and 1958, and 24 during Operation Dominic, led by the US in 1962.
The UK’s secretary of state for the colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, had claimed the Grapple series would put Britain “far ahead of the Americans, and probably the Russians too, in super-bomb development”. Grapple, the country’s largest tri-service operation since D-Day, also involved troops from Fiji and New Zealand. It sought to secure the awesome power of the hydrogen bomb: a thermonuclear device far more destructive than the atomic bomb.
Britain’s seat at the top table of “super-bomb development” was emphatically announced in April 1958 with Grapple Y: an “H-bomb” 200 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. This remains Britain’s largest nuclear detonation – one of more than 100 conducted by the UK, US and Soviet Union in 1958 alone.
More than six decades later, the health effects on former servicemen based on Kiritimati, as well as at test locations in South and Western Australia, remain unresolved. Greater Manchester’s mayor, Andy Burnham, has called the treatment of UK nuclear test veterans “the longest-standing and, arguably, the worst” of all the British public scandals in recent history.
Over the past year, the life stories of British nuclear test veterans have been collected by researchers, including myself, for an oral history project in partnership with the British Library. Whether from a vantage point of air, land or sea, the veterans all recall witnessing nuclear explosions with startling clarity, as if the moment was seared on to their memories. According to Doug Herne, a ship’s cook with the Royal Navy:
When the flash hit you, you could see the X-rays of your hands through your closed eyes. Then the heat hit you, and it was as if someone my size had caught fire and walked through me. To say it was frightening is an understatement. I think it shocked us into silence.
British servicemen describe their nuclear test experiences. Video: Wester van Gaal/Motherboard.
But what of the experiences of local people on Kiritimati? I have recently interviewed two sisters who are among the few surviving islanders who witnessed the nuclear tests. This is their story.
‘A mushroom cloud igniting the sky’
At the start of Operation Grapple in May 1957, around 250 islanders lived on Kiritimati – the world’s largest coral reef atoll, slap bang in the centre of the Pacific Ocean, around 1,250 miles (2,000km) due south of Hawaii. The island’s name is derived from the English word “Christmas”, the atoll having been “discovered” by the British explorer James Cook on Christmas Eve 1777.
In May 2023, I visited Kiritimati for a research project on “British nuclear imperialism”, which investigated how post-war Britain used its dwindling imperial assets and resources as a springboard for nuclear development. I sought to interview islanders who had remained on the atoll since the tests, including Teeua Tekonau, then aged 68. In 2024, I visited her younger sister, Teraabo Pollard, who lives more than 8,000 miles away in the contrasting surroundings of Burnley, north-west England.
Far from descriptions of fear and terror, both Teeua and Teraabo looked back on the tests with striking enthusiasm. Teraabo recalled witnessing them from the local maneaba (open-air meeting place) or tennis court as a “pleasurable” experience full of “excitement”.
She described having her ears plugged with cotton wool before being covered with a blanket. As if by magic, the blanket was then lifted to reveal a mushroom cloud igniting the night sky – a sight accompanied by sweetened bread handed out by American soldiers. So vivid was the light that Teraabo, then aged four, described “being excited about it being daytime again”.
An Operation Grapple thermonuclear test near Kiritimati, 1957-58. Video: Imperial War Museums.
In view of the violence of the tests, I was struck that Teeua and Teraabo volunteered these positive memories. Their enthusiasm seemed in marked contrast to growing concerns about the radioactive fallout – including those voiced by surviving test veterans and their descendants. As children, the tests seem to have offered the sisters a spectacle of fantasy and escapism – glazed with the saccharine of American treats and Disney films on British evacuation ships.
Yet they have also lived through the premature deaths of family members and, in Teraabo’s case, a malignant tumour dating from the time of the tests. And there have been similar stories from other families who lived in the shadow of these very risky, loosely controlled experiments. Teraabo told me about a friend who had peeked out from her blanket as a young girl – and who suffered from eye and health problems ever since.
‘Only a very slight health hazard’
Kiritimati forms part of the impossibly large Republic of Kiribati – a nation of 33 islands spread over 3.5 million square kilometres; the only one to have territory in all four hemispheres and, until 1995, on either side of the international date line. Before independence from Britain in 1979, Kiribati belonged to the Gilbert and Ellice Island Colony, which in effect made Kiritimati a “nuclear colony” for the purpose of British and American testing.
In 1955, Teeua and Teraabo’s parents, Taraem and Tekonau Tetoa, left their home island of Tabiteuea, a small atoll belonging to the Gilbert group of islands in the western Pacific. They boarded a British merchant vessel bound for Christmas Island nearly 2,000 miles away. Setting sail with new-born Teeua in their arms, the family looked forward to a future cutting copra on Kiritimati’s British coconut plantation.
The scale of this journey, with four young children, was immense. Just how the hundred or so Gilbertese passengers “managed to live [during the voyage] was better not asked”, according to one royal engineer who described a similar voyage a few years later. “There were piles of coconuts everywhere – perhaps they were for both food and drink.”
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Within two years of their arrival, the family faced more upheaval as mother Taraem and her children were packed aboard another ship ahead of the first three sets of British nuclear tests in the Pacific. Known as Grapple 1, 2 and 3, they were to be detonated over Malden Island, an atoll some 240 miles to the south of Kiritimati – but still too close for the comfort of local residents.
According to Teeua, the evacuation was prompted by disillusioned labourers brought to Kiritimati without their families, who went on strike after learning how much the British troops were being paid. But the islanders’ perspectives do not feature much in the colonial records, which give precedence to British disputes about logistical costs and safety calculations.
The Grapple task force resolved that the safe limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection should be reduced, to limit the cost of evacuations. A meeting in November 1956 noted that “only a very slight health hazard to people would arise from this reduction – and that only to primitive peoples”.
Shocking as this remark sounds, it is typical of the disregard that nuclear planners appear to have had, both for Indigenous communities and the mostly working-class soldiers. These lives did not seem to matter much in the context of Britain’s quest for nuclear supremacy. William Penney, Britain’s chief nuclear scientist, had bemoaned how critics during tests in Australia were “intent on thwarting the whole future of the British Empire for the sake of a few Aboriginals”.
Tekonau, Teeua’s father, was one of the 30 or so I-Kiribati people to stay behind on Kiritimati during the Malden tests in May and June 1957. As one of the only labourers to speak English, he had gained the trust of the district commissioner, Percy Roberts, who invited Tekonau to accompany him during inspections of villagers’ houses in Port London, then the island’s only village. On one occasion, Teeua said, the islanders did not recognise her father as he had been given a “flat top” haircut like the Fijian soldiers. “This means he had a nice relationship with the soldiers,” she told me. “Thank God for giving me such a good and clever dad.”
Since the initial tests did not produce a thermonuclear explosion, the task force embarked on further trials between November 1957 and September 1958, known as Grapple X, Y and Z. In view of expense and time, these were conducted on Kiritimati rather than Malden Island – and this time, the residents were not evacuated to other islands. Rather, families were brought aboard ships in the island’s harbour and shown films below deck.
After these tests, the islanders returned to find the large X and Y detonations had cracked the walls of their homes and smashed their doors and furniture. One islander found their pet frigate bird, like so many of the wild birds on Kiritimati, had been blinded by the flash of Grapple Y. No compensation was ever paid to the islanders, although the Ministry of Supply did reimburse the colony for deterioration of “plantation assets”, including £4 for every damaged coconut tree (equivalent to £120 today).
A month before Grapple Y, Teraabo was born. Her earliest and most vivid childhood memories are of the US-led Operation Dominic four years later, by which time evacuation procedures had been abandoned altogether.
This series of tests was sanctioned by Britain in exchange for a nuclear-powered submarine and access to the Nevada Proving Grounds in the US – regarded as pivotal to the future of British weapons technology ahead of the signing of the Test Ban Treaty in October 1963, which would prohibit atmospheric testing.
Dominic’s 24 detonations on Kiritimati – which usually took place after sunset around 6pm, between April and November 1962 – were “awesome”, according to Teraabo. Recalling the suspense as the “tannoy announced the countdown”, she described “coming out of cover [and] witnessing the bomb [as] an amazing experience … When the bomb set off, the brilliance of the light was tremendous.”
Each explosion’s slow expiration would re-illuminate the Pacific sky. One, Starfish Prime, became known as a “rainbow bomb” because of the multi-coloured aurora it produced over the Pacific, having been launched into space where it exploded.
So spectacular were these descriptions that I almost felt I had to suspend disbelief as I listened. At one point in my interview with Teraabo, she leaned in to reassure me that she had no interest in exaggerating these events: “I’m a very proud person,” she whispered, “I would never lie.”
‘In our blood’
More than six decades on from the Grapple tests, I was sitting in Teeua’s kitchen in the village of Tabwakea (meaning “turtle”), near the northern tip of Kiritimati. I had driven here in a Subaru Forester, clapped-out from the many potholes on the island’s main road, itself built by royal engineers over 60 years ago.
Teeua Tekonau in her kitchen during the author’s visit to Kiritimati in 2023. Christopher R. Hill., CC BY
Teeua’s home, nestled down a sand track, had a wooden veranda at the front where she would teach children to read and write under shelter from the hot equatorial sun. Handcrafted mats lined the sand and coral floor, fanning out from the veranda to the kitchen at the back.
The house felt full of the sounds of the local community, from the chatter of neighbours to the laughter of children outdoors. No one could feel lonely here, despite the vastness of the ocean that surrounds Kiritimati.
As Teeua cooked rice and prepared coffee, we discussed the main reason for my visit: to understand the impacts of the nuclear tests on the islanders, their descendents, and the sensitive ecosystem in which they live. Teeua is chair of Kiritimati’s Association of Atomic Cancer Patients, and one of only three survivors of the tests still living on Kiritimati. She pulled up a seat and looked at me:
Many, many died of cancer … And many women had babies that died within three months … I remember the coconut trees … when you drank [from the coconuts], you [were] poisoned.
Both Teeua’s parents and four of her eight siblings had died of cancer or unexplained conditions, she said. Her younger brother, Takieta, died of leukaemia at the age of two in November 1963 – less than a year after Operation Dominic ended. Her sister Teraabo, who discovered a tumour in her stomach shortly after the trials, was only able to have her stomach treated once she moved to the UK in 1981, by which time the tumour had turned malignant.
Teeua’s testimony pointed to the gendered impacts of the nuclear tests. She referred to the prevalence of menstrual problems and stillbirths, evidence of which can be inferred from the testimony of another nuclear survivor, Sui Kiritome, a fellow I-Kiribati who had arrived on Kiritimati in 1957 with her teacher husband. Sui has described how their second child, Rakieti, had “blood coming out of all the cavities of her body” at birth.
A rare military hospital record from 1958 – stored in the UK’s National Archives at Kew in London – also refers to the treatment of a civilian woman for ante-partum haemorrhage and stillbirth, though it is unclear whether this was a local woman or one of the soldier’s wives on the passenger ship HMT Dunera, which visited briefly to “boost morale” after Grapple X.
Members of the Kiritimati Association of Atomic Cancer Patients. Courtesy: Teeua Taukaro., CC BY-ND
Having re-established the Association of Atomic Cancer Patients in 2009, Teeua has continued much of the work that Ken McGinley, first chair of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association, did after its establishment in 1983. She has documented the names of all I-Kiribati people present during the tests, along with their spouses, children and other relatives. And she has listed the cancers and illnesses from which they have suffered.
In the absence of medical records at the island hospital, these handwritten notes are the closest thing on the atoll to epidemiological data about the tests. But according to Teeua, concerns about the health effects of the tests date back much longer, to 1965 when a labourer named Bwebwe spoke out about poisonous clouds. “Everyone thought he was crazy,” Teeua recalled.
But Bwebwe’s speculations were lent credibility by Sui Kiritome’s testimony, and by the facial scars she bore that were visible for all to see. In an interview with her daughter, Sui explained how she was only 24 when she started to lose her hair, and “burns developed on my face, scalp and parts of my shoulder”.
In a similar manner to claims made by British nuclear test veterans, Sui attributed her health problems to being rained on during Grapple Y – which may have been detonated closer to the atoll’s surface than the task force was prepared to admit.
When I asked Teeua why her campaigning association was only reformed in 2009, she explained it had been prompted by a visit from British nuclear test veterans who “told us that everyone [involved in the tests] has cancer – blood cancer”. They had been told this in the past but, she said, “we did not believe it. But after years … after our children [also] died of cancer, then we remembered what they told us.”
After some visiting researchers explained to Teeua and the community that the effects of the tests were “not good”, she concluded that “our kids died of cancer because of the tests … That’s why we start to combine together … the nuclear survivors, to talk about what they did to our kids”.
I found Teeua’s testimony deeply troubling: not only because of the suffering she and other families have been through, but in the way that veterans had returned to Kiritimati as civilians, raising concerns among locals that may have lain dormant or been forgotten. The suggestion that radiation was “in her blood” must have been deeply disturbing for Teeua and her community.
But I reminded myself that the veterans who came looking for answers in 2009 were also victims. They made the long journey seeking clues about their health problems, or a silver bullet to prove their government’s deception over the nuclear fallout.
As young men, they were unwittingly burdened with a lifetime of uncertainty – compounded by endless legal disputes with the Ministry of Defence or inconclusive health studies that jarred with their personal medical histories. And, like the islanders, some of these servicemen died young after experiencing agonising illnesses.
The scramble for the Pacific
My research on British nuclear imperialism also sheds light on how imperial and settler colonial perceptions of “nature” shaped how these nuclear tests were planned and operationalised.
British sites were selected on the basis of in-depth environmental research. When searching the site for Britain’s first atomic bomb (the Montebello Islands off the west coast of Australia), surveyors discovered 20 new species of insect, six new plants, and a species of legless lizard.
Monitoring of radioactive fallout from nuclear tests fed into the rise of ecosystem ecologies as an academic discipline. In the words of one environmental specialist on the US tests, it seemed that “destruction was the enabling condition for understanding life as interconnected”.
Since H-bombs would exceed the explosive yield deemed acceptable by Australia, Winston Churchill’s government in the mid-1950s had been forced to look for a new test site beyond Western and South Australia. British planners drew on a wealth of imperial knowledge and networks – but their proposal to use the Kermadec Islands, an archipelago 600 miles north-east of Auckland, was rejected by New Zealand on environmental grounds.
So, when Teeua and her family landed on Kiritimati in 1955, their journey was part of “the scramble for the Pacific”: a race between Britain and the US to lay claim to the sovereignty of Pacific atolls in light of their strategic significance for air and naval power.
The British government archives include some notable environmental “what ifs?” Had the US refused the UK’s selection of Kiritimati because of its own sovereignty claim, then it would have been probable, as Lennox-Boyd, Britain’s colonial secretary, admitted, that “the Antarctic region south of Australia might have to be used” for its rapidly expanding nuclear programme.
Instead, this extraordinary period in global history recently took me to a Victorian mansion in the Lancashire town of Burnley, where I interviewed Teeua’s younger sister, Teraabo, about her memories of the Kiritimati tests.
‘No longer angry’
Teraabo’s home felt like the antithesis of Teeua’s island abode 8,300 miles away: ordered instead of haphazard, private instead of communal, spacious instead of crowded. And our interview had a more detached, philosophical tone.
Teraabo Pollard with her father’s nuclear test veteran medal. Christopher R. Hill., CC BY-ND
Like her sister, Teraabo has worked to raise awareness about the legacy of the nuclear tests, including with the Christmas Island Appeal, an offshoot of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association that sought to publicise the extent of the waste left on Kiritimati from the nuclear test period.
The appeal succeeded in persuading Tony Blair’s UK government to tackle the remaining waste in Kiritimati – most of which was non-radiological, according to a 1998 environmental assessment. The island was “cleaned up” and remediated between 2004 and 2008, at a cost of around £5 million to the Ministry of Defence. Much of the waste was flown or shipped back to the UK, where 388 tonnes of low-grade radioactive material were deposited in a former salt mine at Port Clarence, near Middlesbrough.
Yet Teraabo’s views have evolved. She told me she is “no longer angry” about the tests, a stark contrast to her position 20 years ago, when she told British journalist Alan Rimmer how islanders had “led a simple life with disease virtually unknown. But after the tests, everything changed. I now realise the whole island was poisoned.”
Whereas the Teraabo of 2003 blamed “the British government for all this misery”, she has since become more reflective. In the context of the cold war and the nuclear arms race, she even told me she could understand the British rationale for selecting Kiritimati as a test site. This seemed a remarkable statement from a survivor who had lost so much.
Over the course of the interview, it became clear Teraabo had grown tired of being angry – and that she had felt “trapped” by the tragic figure she was meant to represent in the campaigns of veterans and disarmers. Each time Teraabo rehearsed the doom-laden script of radiation exposure, she admitted she was also suppressing the joy of her childhood memories.
A turning point for Teraabo seems to have come in 2007, when she last visited Kiritimati and met her sister Teeua. By this time, the atoll’s population was 4,000 – quite a leap from the 300 residents she grew up with. “It is no longer the island I remember,” she said.
The Kiritimati of Teraabo’s memory was neat and well-structured. The one she described encountering in 2007 was chaotic and unkempt. She had come to the realisation that the Kiritimati she had been campaigning for – the pristine, untouched atoll of her parents – had long since moved on, so she should move on with it. The sorrow caused by the test operations would not define her.
Radioactive colonialism
Not long after I left Kiritimati in June 2023, the global nuclear disarmament organisation Ican began researching the atoll ahead of a major global summit to discuss the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Descendants of Kiritimati’s nuclear test survivors were asked a series of questions, with those who provided the “right” answers being selected for a sponsored trip to UN headquarters in New York.
The chosen representatives included Teeua’s daughter, Taraem. I wondered if the survivors of Kiritimati are doomed to forever rehearse the stories of their nuclear past – a burden that Teeua and Teraabo have had to carry ever since they stood in awe of atomic and thermonuclear detonations more than 60 years ago.
They have had to deal with “radioactive colonialism” all their adult lives – the outside world demanding to see the imprint of radioactivity on their health and memories. But the sisters’ fondness for British order, despite all they have been through, prevails.
Their positive memories of Britain may in part reflect the elevated role of their father, Tekonau Tetoa – a posthumous recipient of the test veteran medal – within the British colonial system. During my visit, I happened upon an old photo of Tekonau, looking immaculate as he hangs off the side of a plantation truck in a crisp white shirt. Knowing Teeua did not possess a photo of her parents, I took a scan and raced to her house down the road.
“Do you recognise this man?” I asked, holding up my phone.
She flickered with recognition. “Is that my father?”
I nodded, and she shed a tear of joy.
Tekonau Tetoa, father of Teeua and Teraabo, hangs off the door of a coconut plantation truck in Kiritimati. Courtesy: John Bryden., CC BY-ND
Memories of Teeua and Teraabo’s father are preserved in the island landscape of their youth: pristine, regimented by the ostensible tidiness of colonial and military order.
But such order masked contamination: an unknown quantity that would only become evident years later in ill-health and environmental damage. It was not only the nuclear tests: from 1957 to 1964, the atoll was sprayed four times a week with DDT, a carcinogenic insecticide, as part of attempts to reduce insect-borne disease. In the words of one of the pilots: “I had many a wave from the rather fat Gilbo ladies sitting on their loos as I passed overhead, and gave them some spray for good measure!” British tidiness concealed a special brand of poison.
Today, the prospect of a meaningful response from the UK to the concerns raised by the islanders and servicemen alike seems slim. In October 2023, the UK and France followed North Korea and Russia in vetoing a Kiribati and Kazakhstan-proposed UN resolution on victim assistance and environmental remediation for people and places harmed by nuclear weapons use and testing.
Over in Kiritimati, meanwhile, Teeua still tends to a small plot where Prince Philip planted a commemorative tree in April 1959, shortly after the British-led nuclear tests had ended. It is rumoured he did not drink from the atoll’s water while he was there.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Christopher Hill receives funding from the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, UK Cabinet Office. The research for this article was also supported by funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), UKRI. The author wishes to thank the following for their support with this article: Fiona Bowler, Ian Brailsford, Joshua Bushen, John Bryden, Jon Hogg, Brian Jones, Rens van Munster, Wesley Perriman, Maere Tekanene, Michael Walsh, Rotee Walsh and Derek Woolf. Sincere thanks to Teeua Tekonau and Teraabo Pollard for sharing their family stories.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Philip Murphy, Director of History & Policy at the Institute of Historical Research and Professor of British and Commonwealth History, School of Advanced Study, University of London
That the recent visit of King Charles to Australia – his first as the country’s sovereign – attracted protests will have come as a surprise to very few people.
But the message from the most prominent protester was, perhaps, less expected. At the end of a speech by the king at Parliament House in Canberra on October 21, he was heckled by Lidia Thorpe, an independent senator of Aboriginal (Djab Wurrung, Gunnai and Gunditjmara) origin.
She told him: “You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us – our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people.”
Earlier in the day, Thorpe had issued a statement outlining her position. In it, she claimed:
As First Peoples, we never ceded our Sovereignty over this land. The crown invaded this country, has not sought treaty with First Peoples, and committed a genocide of our people. King Charles is not the legitimate sovereign of these lands. Any move towards a republic must not continue this injustice. Treaty must play a central role in establishing an independent nation. A republic without a treaty must not happen.
Historic treaties
The recognition of the rights of Aboriginal peoples through a formal treaty has been a demand of Australian indigenous rights campaigners for decades. Indeed, Australia is unusual among British settler colonies in the failure of the crown to forge treaties with Indigenous peoples in the process of imperial occupation. In New Zealand and Canada these treaties continue to be invoked as an historical underpinning of indigenous rights.
The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between Māori leaders and the crown as well as the rights and principles that followed from it are certainly politically contentious in New Zealand. Yet the Treaty is still widely regarded as the country’s founding document and a key symbolic basis for inclusion and reconciliation.
In Canada, the treaties signed by the crown with First Nations peoples are explicitly referenced in the country’s 1982 constitution and are cited by the Canadian government as “a framework for living together and sharing the land Indigenous peoples traditionally occupied.”
It should not come as much of a surprise that the issue of the the absence of similar treaties in Australia has been raised during the king’s visit. The rather dull itineraries of royal visits provide activists with a perfect opportunity to have their voices heard by journalists desperate for something interesting to write about. There is a history of Aboriginal protesters using them in this way.
In 1972, the Larrakia people, the traditional owners of the Darwin region in the Northern Territory, used a visit by Princess Margaret to draw attention to a petition asking Queen Elizabeth II to assist them in their demand for land rights and political representation.
The palace and the governments of the Realms are keenly aware of these sensitivities and plan royal tours accordingly. During his visit to Canada in 2022, for example, while he was still Prince of Wales, Charles made a point of meeting the survivors of the country’s notorious residential schools where thousands of indigenous children suffered abuse.
Ironically, indigenous treaties with the crown have complicated the republican issue, forcing campaigners for a republic in both New Zealand and Canada to offer assurances that the rights and obligations in those treaties would not be lost if the monarchy was to be abolished.
The question of reparations
Charles has followed his Australia visit by flying to Samoa for the summit of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. Again, the UK press sensed trouble ahead, predicting that as head of the Commonwealth Charles might be caught up in a row between the British government and Caribbean nations over the call for reparations for slavery.
The UK is not the only government in the Commonwealth having to wrestle with colonial legacy issues. But there is no avoiding them.
Britain has a monarchy steeped in imperial history, with a king who is quite separately sovereign of 14 other realms. Its government continues to profess a belief in the value of the Commonwealth, when its members have little else in common except that most of them were colonised by Britain.
A recent report by the UK thinktank Policy Exchange, which imagined the Commonwealth playing a greater role in British diplomatic, defence and trade policy, seemed blithely unaware of the tensions within the organisation and the barriers to collective action.
In a similar vein, UK prime minister Keir Starmer has claimed that he wants to “look forward” and focus on issues such as climate change and boosting prosperity rather than reparations.
But the Commonwealth is simply not a logical framework for the discussion of these matters. On the other hand, it is uniquely qualified to debate the impact of colonialism and the question of reparatory justice. And even if Britain doesn’t want to have that conversation, other Commonwealth countries certainly do.
Philip Murphy has received funding from the AHRC. He belongs to the European Movement UK.
TORONTO, Oct. 24, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. today announced the final October 2024 cash distributions for certain Vanguard ETFs, listed below, that trade on Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). Unitholders of record on October 31, 2024 will receive cash distributions payable on November 07, 2024. Details of the “per unit” distribution amounts are as follows:
Vanguard ETF®
TSX Ticker Symbol
Distribution per Unit ($)
CUSIP
ISIN
Payment Frequency
Vanguard Retirement Income ETF Portfolio
VRIF
0.081577
92211X109
CA92211X1096
Monthly
Vanguard FTSE Canadian Capped REIT Index ETF
VRE
0.078389
92203B107
CA92203B1076
Monthly
Vanguard FTSE Canadian High Dividend Yield Index ETF
VDY
0.157956
92203Q104
CA92203Q1046
Monthly
To learn more about the TSX-listed Vanguard ETFs, please visit www.vanguard.ca
About Vanguard
Canadians own CAD $103 billion in Vanguard assets, including Canadian and U.S.-domiciled ETFs and Canadian mutual funds. Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. manages CAD $70 billion in assets (as of April 30, 2024) with 37 Canadian ETFs and six mutual funds currently available. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is one of the world’s largest investment management companies and a leading provider of company-sponsored retirement plan services. Vanguard manages USD $9.3 trillion (CAD $12.8 trillion) in global assets, including over USD $2.7 trillion (CAD $3.7 trillion) in global ETF assets (as of March 30, 2024). Vanguard has offices in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Europe and Australia. The firm offers 423 funds, including ETFs, to its more than 50 million investors worldwide.
Vanguard operates under a unique operating structure. Unlike firms that are publicly held or owned by a small group of individuals, The Vanguard Group, Inc. is owned by Vanguard’s U.S.-domiciled funds and ETFs. Those funds, in turn, are owned by Vanguard clients. This unique mutual structure aligns Vanguard interests with those of its investors and drives the culture, philosophy, and policies throughout the Vanguard organization worldwide. As a result, Canadian investors benefit from Vanguard’s stability and experience, low-cost investing, and client focus. For more information, please visit vanguard.ca.
For more information, please contact: Matt Gierasimczuk Vanguard Canada Public Relations Phone: 416-263-7087 matthew_gierasimczuk@vanguard.com
Important information
Commissions, management fees, and expenses all may be associated with investment funds. Investment objectives, risks, fees, expenses, and other important information are contained in the prospectus; please read it before investing. Investment funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated. Vanguard funds are managed by Vanguard Investments Canada Inc. and are available across Canada through registered dealers.
London Stock Exchange Group companies include FTSE International Limited (“FTSE”), Frank Russell Company (“Russell”), MTS Next Limited (“MTS”), and FTSE TMX Global Debt Capital Markets Inc. (“FTSE TMX”). All rights reserved. “FTSE®”, “Russell®”, “MTS®”, “FTSE TMX®” and “FTSE Russell” and other service marks and trademarks related to the FTSE or Russell indexes are trademarks of the London Stock Exchange Group companies and are used by FTSE, MTS, FTSE TMX and Russell under licence. All information is provided for information purposes only. No responsibility or liability can be accepted by the London Stock Exchange Group companies nor its licensors for any errors or for any loss from use of this publication. Neither the London Stock Exchange Group companies nor any of its licensors make any claim, prediction, warranty or representation whatsoever, expressly or impliedly, either as to the results to be obtained from the use of the FTSE Indexes or the fitness or suitability of the Indexes for any particular purpose to which they might be put.
The S&P 500 Index is a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (“SPDJI”), and has been licensed for use by The Vanguard Group, Inc. (Vanguard). Standard & Poor’s®, S&P® and S&P 500® are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P”); Dow Jones® is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (“Dow Jones”); and these trademarks have been licensed for use by SPDJI and sublicensed for certain purposes by Vanguard. Vanguard ETFs are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by SPDJI, Dow Jones, S&P, their respective affiliates, and none of such parties make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s) nor do they have any liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of the S&P 500 Index.
ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Oct. 24, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Gevo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GEVO) announced today that it will host a conference call on November 7, 2024, at 4:30 p.m. ET (2:30 p.m. MT) to report its financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024.
A webcast replay will be available two hours after the conference call ends on November 7, 2024. The archived webcast will be available in the Investor Relations section of Gevo’s website at www.gevo.com.
About Gevo
Gevo’s mission is to convert renewable energy and biogenic carbon into sustainable fuels and chemicals with a net-zero or better carbon footprint. Gevo’s innovative technology can be used to make a variety of products, including sustainable aviation fuel (“SAF”), motor fuels, chemicals, and other materials. Gevo’s business model includes developing, financing, and operating production facilities for these renewable fuels and other products. It currently runs one of the largest dairy-based renewable natural gas (“RNG”) facilities in the United States. It also owns the world’s first production facility for specialty alcohol-to-jet (“ATJ”) fuels and chemicals. Gevo emphasizes the importance of sustainability by tracking and verifying the carbon footprint of its business systems through its Verity subsidiary.
Learn more at Gevo’s website: www.gevo.com.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONTACT Heather Manuel VP of Stakeholder Engagement & Partnerships PR@gevo.com
INVESTOR CONTACT Eric Frey, PhD VP of Finance and Strategy IR@gevo.com
Two women have been charged following an incident at Elizabeth yesterday evening.
Just after 6.30 pm on Wednesday 23 October, police were called to the Elizabeth Interchange at Mountbatten Square following reports a security guard had been stabbed.
Patrols were quick to the scene and located two 27-year-old women who were swiftly arrested by patrols.
The 34-year-old security guard suffered a laceration to his forearm and was taken to hospital by paramedics for treatment of serious but non-life threatening injuries.
Whilst attempting to arrest one of the women, a police officer was assaulted and suffered minor injuries.
Further enquiries identified that the two females stole items from a store within the Elizabeth Shopping Centre before one female assaulted the security guard.
One female was charged with theft and granted police bail to appear in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court on 26 November.
The second female was charged with assault cause harm, resisting arrest and assaulting a prescribed emergency service worker. She was refused police bail and will appear in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court today (Thursday 24 October).
CALGARY, Alberta, Oct. 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Board of Directors of TransAlta Corporation (TSX: TA) (NYSE: TAC) declared a quarterly dividend of $0.06 per common share payable on January 1, 2025, to shareholders of record at the close of business on December 1, 2024.
The Board of Directors also declared the following quarterly dividend on its Cumulative Redeemable Rate Reset First Preferred Shares for the period starting from and including September 30, 2024, up to but excluding December 31, 2024:
Preferred Shares
TSX Stock Symbol
Dividend Rate
Dividend Per Share
Record Date
Payment Date
Series A
TA.PR.D
2.877%
$0.17981
December 1, 2024
December 31, 2024
Series B*
TA.PR.E
6.235%
$0.39182
December 1, 2024
December 31, 2024
Series C
TA.PR.F
5.854%
$0.36588
December 1, 2024
December 31, 2024
Series D*
TA.PR.G
7.305%
$0.45906
December 1, 2024
December 31, 2024
Series E
TA.PR.H
6.894%
$0.43088
December 1, 2024
December 31, 2024
Series G
TA.PR.J
6.773%
$0.42331
December 1, 2024
December 31, 2024
* Please note the quarterly floating rate on the Series B and Series D Preferred Shares will be reset every quarter.
All currency is expressed in Canadian dollars except where noted. When the dividend payment date falls on a weekend or holiday the payment is made the following business day.
About TransAlta Corporation:
TransAlta owns, operates and develops a diverse fleet of electrical power generation assets in Canada, the United States and Australia with a focus on long-term shareholder value. TransAlta provides municipalities, medium and large industries, businesses and utility customers with affordable, energy efficient and reliable power. Today, TransAlta is one of Canada’s largest producers of wind power and Alberta’s largest producer of hydro-electric power. For over 113 years, TransAlta has been a responsible operator and a proud member of the communities where we operate and where our employees work and live. TransAlta aligns its corporate goals with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Future-Fit Business Benchmark, which also defines sustainable goals for businesses. Our reporting on climate change management has been guided by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) S2 Climate-related Disclosures Standard and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations. TransAlta has achieved a 66 per cent reduction in GHG emissions or 21.3 million tonnes CO2e since 2015 and received an upgraded MSCI ESG rating of AA.
For more information about TransAlta, visit our web site attransalta.com.
BETHESDA, Md., Oct. 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Eagle Bancorp, Inc. (“Eagle”, the “Company”) (NASDAQ: EGBN), the Bethesda-based holding company for EagleBank, one of the largest community banks in the Washington D.C. area, reported its unaudited results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024.
Eagle reported net income of $21.8 million or $0.72 per share for the third quarter 2024, compared to a net loss of $83.8 million during the second quarter in which the Company recorded a $104.2 million impairment in the value of goodwill. Operating net income1 in the second quarter, adjusted to exclude the impairment charge on goodwill, was $20.4 million or $0.67 per share per diluted share. Pre-provision net revenue (“PPNR”)1 in the third quarter was $35.2 million compared to a pre-provision net loss of $69.8 million for the prior quarter, or $34.4 million of PPNR when adjusted to exclude the impairment charge on goodwill1.
The $1.4 million increase in operating net income1 over the prior quarter is attributed to a positive variance of $2.2 million related to the change in provision for unfunded commitments; $1.6 million increase in non-interest income; and a $490 thousand increase in net interest income, offset by a $1.3 million increase in operating non-interest expense, adjusted to exclude the impairment charge on goodwill, and a $1.1 million increase in provision for credit losses.
“We continue to strategically position the Company for future growth as evidenced by actions taken during the quarter with the refinancing of our maturing subordinated debt and the recalibration of our common dividend strategy,” said Susan G. Riel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. “We announced the addition of Evelyn Lee to our senior leadership as our Chief Lending Officer for our commercial lending team. As a 25 year banker in the Washington D.C. market, I am excited about accomplishing our strategic goal of continuing to build out our commercial banker group and pursuing diversification of the loan portfolio and growing our relationship deposits,” added Ms. Riel.
Eric R. Newell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company said, “Raising senior debt in the third quarter demonstrates the confidence debt investors have in our vision and the future of the Company. Operating performance was stable from last quarter evidenced by operating net income1 increasing $1.4 million to $21.8 million in the third quarter. We continued to build our reserve for credit losses, with coverage as a percentage of total held for investment loans at 1.40% increasing 7 basis points from last quarter. Common equity tier one capital increased to 14.5% and our tangible common equity1 ratio exceeds 10%.”
Ms. Riel added, “I thank all of our employees for their hard work and their commitment to a culture of respect, diversity and inclusion in both the workplace and the communities we serve.”
Third Quarter 2024 Highlights
The Company repaid $70 million of maturing subordinated debt and issued $77.7 million of 10% unsecured senior debt maturing September 30, 2029.
During the quarter, the Company announced a recalibration of the common stock dividend to $0.165 per share from $0.45 per share in the second quarter an action estimated to retain an additional $32 million of capital annually to meet growth and investment objectives.
The ACL as a percentage of total loans held for investment was 1.40% at quarter-end; up from 1.33% at the prior quarter-end. Performing office coverage2 was 4.55% at quarter-end; as compared to 4.05% at the prior quarter-end.
Nonperforming assets increased $38.2 million to $137.1 million as of September 30, 2024 and were 1.22% of total assets compared to 0.88% as of June 30, 2024. Inflows to non-performing loans in the quarter totaled $45.5 million offset by $9 million of outflows, of which $5 million was the loan held for sale at June 30, 2024 and an increase of other real estate owned of $2.0 million. The inflows were predominantly associated with $27.3 million in mixed use land loans and $17.9 million in an assisted living facility loan.
Substandard loans declined $17.0 million to $391.3 million and special mention loans increased $57.1 million to $365.0 million at September 30, 2024.
Net charge-offs for the third quarter were 0.26% compared to 0.11% for the second quarter 2024. Of the total $5.3 million of net charge offs in the quarter, $3.8 million is associated with a senior living property that has not stabilized.
The net interest margin (“NIM”) decreased slightly to 2.37% for the third quarter 2024, compared to 2.40% for the prior quarter, primarily due to continued decline in average non-interest bearing deposits. Net interest income increased $490 thousand from the second quarter to $71.8 million in the third quarter.
At quarter-end, the common equity ratio, tangible common equity ratio1, and common equity tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets) ratio were 10.86%, 10.86%, and 14.54%, respectively.
Total estimated insured deposits at quarter-end were $6.4 billion, or 74.5% of deposits, stable from the second quarter total of 72.5% of deposits.
Total on-balance sheet liquidity and available capacity was $4.6 billion at quarter-end compared to $4.0 billion at June 30, 2024.
Income Statement
Net interest income was $71.8 million for the third quarter 2024, compared to $71.4 million for the prior quarter. The increase in net interest income was primarily driven by an increase in the average balances of deposits held with other banks and average loans partially offset by higher average interest-bearing deposits and higher rates paid on those deposits in the third quarter from the prior quarter.
Provision for credit losses was $10.1 million for the third quarter 2024, compared to $9.0 million for the prior quarter. The increase in the provision quarter over quarter reflects higher net charge-offs in the third quarter from the prior quarter. Reserve for unfunded commitments was a reversal of $1.6 million due to lower unfunded commitments in our construction portfolio. This compared to a reserve for unfunded commitments in the prior quarter of $0.6 million.
Noninterest income was $6.95 million for the third quarter 2024, compared to $5.33 million for the prior quarter. The primary driver for the increase was higher swap fee income.
Noninterest expense was $43.6 million for the third quarter 2024, compared to $146.5 million for the prior quarter. The decrease over the comparative quarters was primarily due to a goodwill impairment charge of $104.2 million in the second quarter 2024. When excluding the goodwill impairment charge, the increase quarter over quarter was associated with increased FDIC insurance expense.
Loans and Funding
Total loans were $8.0 billion at September 30, 2024, down 0.4% from the prior quarter-end. The decrease in total loans was driven by a reduction in commercial loans and income producing commercial real estate loans from the prior quarter-end, partially offset by increased fundings of ongoing construction projects for commercial and residential properties.
At September 30, 2024, income-producing commercial real estate loans secured by office properties other than owner-occupied properties were 10.8% of the total loan portfolio, down from 11.3% at the prior quarter-end.
Total deposits at quarter-end were $8.5 billion, up $273.5 million, or 3.3%, from the prior quarter-end. The increase was primarily attributable to an increase in time deposits from the company’s digital acquisition channel. Period end deposits have increased $165 million when compared to prior year comparable period end of September 30, 2023.
Other short-term borrowings were $1.2 billion at September 30, 2024, down 25.3% from the prior quarter-end as maturing FHLB borrowings were paid down with increased cash from deposits.
Asset Quality
Allowance for credit losses was 1.40% of total loans held for investment at September 30, 2024, compared to 1.33% at the prior quarter-end. Performing office coverage was 4.55% at quarter-end; as compared to 4.05% at the prior quarter-end.
Net charge-offs were $5.3 million for the quarter compared to $2.3 million in the second quarter of 2024.
Nonperforming assets were $137.1 million at September 30, 2024.
NPAs as a percentage of assets were 1.22% at September 30, 2024, compared to 0.88% at the prior quarter-end. At September 30, 2024, other real estate owned consisted of four properties with an aggregate carrying value of $2.7 million. The increase in NPAs was predominantly associated with $27.3 million in mixed use land loans and $17.9 million in an assisted living facility loan.
Loans 30-89 days past due were $56.3 million at September 30, 2024, compared to $8.4 million at the prior quarter-end. Of the total increase, $25 million was brought current subsequent to quarter-end.
Capital
Total shareholders’ equity was $1.2 billion at September 30, 2024, up 4.8% from the prior quarter-end. The increase in shareholders’ equity of $56.0 million was primarily due to increased valuations of available-for-sale securities and an increase in retained earnings.
Book value per share and Tangible book value per share3 was $40.61, up $1.86 from the prior quarter-end.
Additional financial information: The financial information that follows provides more detail on the Company’s financial performance for the three months ended September 30, 2024 as compared to the three months ended June 30, 2024 and September 30, 2023, as well as eight quarters of trend data. Persons wishing additional information should refer to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, and other reports filed with the SEC.
About Eagle Bancorp: The Company is the holding company for EagleBank, which commenced operations in 1998. The Bank is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, and operates through twelve banking offices and four lending offices located in Suburban Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia. The Company focuses on building relationships with businesses, professionals and individuals in its marketplace, and is committed to a culture of respect, diversity, equity and inclusion in both its workplace and the communities in which it operates.
Conference call: Eagle Bancorp will host a conference call to discuss its third quarter 2024 financial results on Thursday, October 24, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The listen-only webcast can be accessed at:
https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/79xpxyi2
For analysts who wish to participate in the conference call, please register at the following URL:
A replay of the conference call will be available on the Company’s website through November 7, 2024: https://www.eaglebankcorp.com/
Forward-looking statements: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including statements of goals, intentions, and expectations as to future trends, plans, events or results of Company operations and policies and regarding general economic conditions. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by use of words such as “may,” “will,” “can,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “expects,” “plans,” “estimates,” “potential,” “continue,” “should,” “could,” “strive,” “feel” and similar words or phrases. These statements are based upon current and anticipated economic conditions, nationally and in the Company’s market (including volatility in interest rates and interest rate policy; the current inflationary environment; competitive factors) and other conditions (such as the impact of bank failures or adverse developments at other banks and related negative press about the banking industry in general on investor and depositor sentiment regarding the stability and liquidity of banks), which by their nature are not susceptible to accurate forecast and are subject to significant uncertainty. Because of these uncertainties and the assumptions on which this discussion and the forward-looking statements are based, actual future operations and results in the future may differ materially from those indicated herein. For details on factors that could affect these expectations, see the risk factors and other cautionary language included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 and in other periodic and current reports filed with the SEC. Readers are cautioned against placing undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements. The Company’s past results are not necessarily indicative of future performance, and nothing contained herein is meant to or should be considered and treated as earnings guidance of future quarters’ performance projections. All information is as of the date of this press release. Any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of the Company speak only as to the date they are made. Except to the extent required by applicable law or regulation, the Company undertakes no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statement for any reason.
Eagle Bancorp, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
Three Months Ended
September 30,
June 30,
September 30,
2024
2024
2023
Interest Income
Interest and fees on loans
$
139,836
$
137,616
$
132,273
Interest and dividends on investment securities
12,578
12,405
13,732
Interest on balances with other banks and short-term investments
21,296
19,568
15,067
Interest on federal funds sold
103
142
77
Total interest income
173,813
169,731
161,149
Interest Expense
Interest on deposits
81,190
76,846
70,929
Interest on customer repurchase agreements
332
330
311
Interest on other short-term borrowings
20,448
21,202
18,152
Interest on long-term borrowings
$
—
—
1,038
Total interest expense
101,970
98,378
90,430
Net Interest Income
71,843
71,353
70,719
Provision for Credit Losses
10,094
8,959
5,644
Provision (Reversal) for Credit Losses for Unfunded Commitments
(1,593
)
608
(839
)
Net Interest Income After Provision for Credit Losses
63,342
61,786
65,914
Noninterest Income
Service charges on deposits
1,747
1,653
1,631
Gain on sale of loans
20
37
(5
)
Net gain on sale of investment securities
3
3
5
Increase in cash surrender value of bank-owned life insurance
731
709
669
Other income
4,450
2,930
4,047
Total noninterest income
6,951
5,332
6,347
Noninterest Expense
Salaries and employee benefits
21,675
21,770
21,549
Premises and equipment expenses
2,794
2,894
3,095
Marketing and advertising
1,588
1,662
768
Data processing
3,435
3,495
3,194
Legal, accounting and professional fees
3,433
2,705
2,162
FDIC insurance
7,399
5,917
3,342
Goodwill impairment
—
104,168
—
Other expenses
3,290
3,880
3,523
Total noninterest expense
43,614
146,491
37,633
(Loss) Income Before Income Tax Expense
26,679
(79,373
)
34,628
Income Tax Expense
4,864
4,429
7,245
Net (Loss) Income
$
21,815
$
(83,802
)
$
27,383
(Loss) Earnings Per Common Share
Basic
$
0.72
$
(2.78
)
$
0.91
Diluted
$
0.72
$
(2.78
)
$
0.91
Eagle Bancorp, Inc.
Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
September 30,
June 30,
September 30,
2024
2024
2023
Assets
Cash and due from banks
$
16,383
$
10,803
$
8,625
Federal funds sold
9,610
5,802
13,611
Interest-bearing deposits with banks and other short-term investments
584,491
526,228
235,819
Investment securities available-for-sale at fair value (amortized cost of $1,550,038, $1,613,659, and $1,732,722, respectively, and allowance for credit losses of $17, $17 and $17, respectively)
1,433,006
1,584,435
1,474,945
Investment securities held-to-maturity at amortized cost, net of allowance for credit losses of $1,237, $2,012 and $2,010, respectively (fair value of $868,425, $856,275 and $923,313, respectively)
961,925
982,955
1,032,485
Federal Reserve and Federal Home Loan Bank stock
37,728
54,274
25,689
Loans held for sale
—
5,000
—
Loans
7,970,269
8,001,739
7,916,391
Less: allowance for credit losses
(111,867
)
(106,301
)
(83,332
)
Loans, net
7,858,402
7,895,438
7,833,059
Premises and equipment, net
8,291
8,788
11,216
Operating lease right-of-use assets
15,167
16,250
20,151
Deferred income taxes
74,381
86,236
98,987
Bank-owned life insurance
115,064
114,333
112,234
Goodwill and intangible assets, net
21
129
105,239
Other real estate owned
2,743
773
1,487
Other assets
167,840
174,396
190,667
Total Assets
$
11,285,052
$
11,465,840
$
11,164,214
Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
Liabilities
Deposits:
Noninterest-bearing demand
$
1,609,823
$
1,693,955
$
2,072,665
Interest-bearing transaction
903,300
1,123,980
932,779
Savings and money market
3,316,819
3,165,314
3,129,773
Time deposits
2,710,908
2,284,099
2,241,089
Total deposits
8,540,850
8,267,348
8,376,306
Customer repurchase agreements
32,040
39,220
25,689
Other short-term borrowings
1,240,000
1,659,979
1,300,001
Long-term borrowings
75,812
—
69,887
Operating lease liabilities
18,755
20,016
24,422
Reserve for unfunded commitments
5,060
6,653
6,183
Other liabilities
147,111
139,348
145,842
Total Liabilities
10,059,628
10,132,564
9,948,330
Shareholders’ Equity
Common stock, par value $0.01 per share; shares authorized 100,000,000, shares issued and outstanding 30,173,200 30,180,482, and 30,185,732, respectively
298
297
296
Additional paid-in capital
382,284
380,142
372,394
Retained earnings
967,019
949,863
1,054,699
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
(124,177
)
(160,843
)
(211,505
)
Total Shareholders’ Equity
1,225,424
1,169,459
1,215,884
Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
$
11,285,052
$
11,302,023
$
11,164,214
Loan Mix and Asset Quality (Dollars in thousands)
September 30,
June 30,
September 30,
2024
2024
2023
Amount
%
Amount
%
Amount
%
Loan Balances – Period End:
Commercial
$
1,154,349
14
%
$
1,238,261
15
%
$
1,418,760
18
%
PPP loans
348
—
%
407
—
%
588
—
%
Income producing – commercial real estate
4,155,120
52
%
4,217,525
53
%
4,147,301
52
%
Owner occupied – commercial real estate
1,276,240
16
%
1,263,714
16
%
1,182,959
15
%
Real estate mortgage – residential
57,223
1
%
61,338
1
%
76,511
1
%
Construction – commercial and residential
1,174,591
15
%
1,063,764
13
%
904,282
11
%
Construction – C&I (owner occupied)
100,662
1
%
99,526
1
%
129,616
2
%
Home equity
51,567
1
%
52,773
1
%
53,917
1
%
Other consumer
169
—
%
4,431
—
%
2,457
—
%
Total loans
$
7,970,269
100
%
$
8,001,739
100
%
$
7,916,391
100
%
Three Months Ended or As Of
September 30,
June 30,
September 30,
2024
2024
2023
Asset Quality:
Net charge-offs
$
5,303
$
2,285
$
340
Nonperforming loans
$
134,371
$
98,169
$
70,148
Other real estate owned
$
2,743
$
773
$
1,757
Nonperforming assets
$
137,114
$
98,942
$
71,905
Special mention
$
364,983
$
307,906
$
158,182
Substandard
$
391,301
$
408,311
$
219,001
Eagle Bancorp, Inc.
Consolidated Average Balances, Interest Yields And Rates vs. Prior Quarter (Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands)
Three Months Ended
September 30, 2024
June 30, 2024
Average Balance
Interest
Average Yield/Rate
Average Balance
Interest
Average Yield/Rate
ASSETS
Interest earning assets:
Interest-bearing deposits with other banks and other short-term investments
$
1,577,464
$
21,296
5.37
%
$
1,455,007
$
19,568
5.41
%
Loans held for sale (1)
4,936
1
0.08
%
8,045
100
5.00
%
Loans (1) (2)
$
8,026,524
139,835
6.93
%
8,003,206
137,516
6.91
%
Investment securities available-for-sale (2)
1,479,598
7,336
1.97
%
1,478,856
7,048
1.92
%
Investment securities held-to-maturity (2)
974,366
5,242
2.14
%
995,274
5,357
2.16
%
Federal funds sold
10,003
103
4.10
%
13,058
142
4.37
%
Total interest earning assets
12,072,891
$
173,813
5.73
%
11,953,446
$
169,731
5.71
%
Total noninterest earning assets
397,006
510,725
Less: allowance for credit losses
(108,998
)
(102,671
)
Total noninterest earning assets
288,008
408,054
TOTAL ASSETS
$
12,360,899
$
12,361,500
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Interest bearing liabilities:
Interest-bearing transaction
$
1,656,676
$
14,596
3.51
%
$
1,636,795
$
16,100
3.96
%
Savings and money market
3,254,128
34,896
4.27
%
3,321,001
33,451
4.05
%
Time deposits
2,517,944
31,698
5.01
%
2,215,693
27,295
4.95
%
Total interest bearing deposits
7,428,748
81,190
4.35
%
7,173,489
76,846
4.31
%
Customer repurchase agreements
38,045
332
3.47
%
38,599
330
3.44
%
Other short-term borrowings
1,615,867
20,448
5.03
%
1,682,684
21,202
5.07
%
Long-term borrowings
824
—
—
%
—
—
—
%
Total interest bearing liabilities
9,083,484
$
101,970
4.47
%
8,894,772
$
98,378
4.45
%
Noninterest bearing liabilities:
Noninterest bearing demand
1,915,666
2,051,777
Other liabilities
160,272
151,324
Total noninterest bearing liabilities
2,075,938
2,203,101
Shareholders’ equity
1,201,477
1,263,627
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
$
12,360,899
$
12,361,500
Net interest income
$
71,843
$
71,353
Net interest spread
1.26
%
1.26
%
Net interest margin
2.37
%
2.40
%
Cost of funds
3.69
%
3.61
%
(1) Loans placed on nonaccrual status are included in average balances. Net loan fees and late charges included in interest income on loans totaled $3.9 million and $4.8 million for the three months ended September 30, 2024 and June 30, 2024, respectively. (2) Interest and fees on loans and investments exclude tax equivalent adjustments.
Eagle Bancorp, Inc.
Consolidated Average Balances, Interest Yields And Rates vs. Year Ago Quarter (Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands)
Three Months Ended September 30,
2024
2023
Average Balance
Interest
Average Yield/Rate
Average Balance
Interest
Average Yield/Rate
ASSETS
Interest earning assets:
Interest bearing deposits with other banks and other short-term investments
$
1,577,464
$
21,296
5.37
%
$
1,127,451
$
15,067
5.30
%
Loans held for sale (1)
4,936
1
0.08
%
—
—
—
%
Loans (1) (2)
8,026,524
139,835
6.93
%
7,795,144
132,273
6.73
%
Investment securities available-for-sale (2)
1,479,598
7,336
1.97
%
1,554,348
8,126
2.07
%
Investment securities held-to-maturity (2)
974,366
5,242
2.14
%
1,047,515
5,606
2.12
%
Federal funds sold
10,003
103
4.10
%
7,728
77
3.95
%
Total interest earning assets
12,072,891
$
173,813
5.73
%
11,532,186
$
161,149
5.54
%
Total noninterest earning assets
397,006
489,683
Less: allowance for credit losses
(108,998
)
(78,964
)
Total noninterest earning assets
288,008
410,719
TOTAL ASSETS
$
12,360,899
$
11,942,905
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Interest bearing liabilities:
Interest bearing transaction
$
1,656,676
$
14,596
3.51
%
$
1,421,522
$
12,785
3.57
%
Savings and money market
3,254,128
34,896
4.27
%
3,113,755
32,855
4.19
%
Time deposits
2,517,944
31,698
5.01
%
2,162,582
25,289
4.64
%
Total interest bearing deposits
7,428,748
81,190
4.35
%
6,697,859
70,929
4.20
%
Customer repurchase agreements
38,045
332
3.47
%
36,082
311
3.42
%
Other short-term borrowings
1,615,867
20,448
5.03
%
1,610,097
19,190
4.73
%
Long-term borrowings
824
—
—
%
—
—
—
%
Total interest bearing liabilities
9,083,484
$
101,970
4.47
%
8,344,038
$
90,430
4.30
%
Noninterest bearing liabilities:
Noninterest bearing demand
1,915,666
2,248,782
Other liabilities
160,272
114,923
Total noninterest bearing liabilities
2,075,938
2,363,705
Shareholders’ equity
1,201,477
1,235,162
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
$
12,360,899
$
11,942,905
Net interest income
$
71,843
$
70,719
Net interest spread
1.26
%
1.24
%
Net interest margin
2.37
%
2.43
%
Cost of funds
3.69
%
3.39
%
(1) Loans placed on nonaccrual status are included in average balances. Net loan fees and late charges included in interest income on loans totaled $3.9 million and $4.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2024 and 2023, respectively. (2) Interest and fees on loans and investments exclude tax equivalent adjustments.
Eagle Bancorp, Inc.
Statements of Operations and Highlights Quarterly Trends (Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
Three Months Ended
September 30,
June 30,
March 31,
December 31,
September 30,
June 30,
March 31,
December 31,
Income Statements:
2024
2024
2024
2023
2023
2023
2023
2022
Total interest income
$
173,813
$
169,731
$
175,602
$
167,421
$
161,149
$
156,510
$
140,247
$
129,130
Total interest expense
101,970
98,378
100,904
94,429
90,430
84,699
65,223
43,530
Net interest income
71,843
71,353
74,698
72,992
70,719
71,811
75,024
85,600
Provision (reversal) for credit losses
10,094
8,959
35,175
14,490
5,644
5,238
6,164
(464
)
Provision (reversal) for credit losses for unfunded commitments
(1,593
)
608
456
(594
)
(839
)
318
848
161
Net interest income after provision for (reversal of) credit losses
63,342
61,786
39,067
59,096
65,914
66,255
68,012
85,903
Noninterest income before investment gain (loss)
6,948
5,329
3,585
2,891
6,342
8,593
3,721
5,326
Net gain (loss) on sale of investment securities
3
3
4
3
5
2
(21
)
3
Total noninterest income
6,951
5,332
3,589
2,894
6,347
8,595
3,700
5,329
Salaries and employee benefits
21,675
21,770
21,726
18,416
21,549
21,957
24,174
23,691
Premises and equipment expenses
2,794
2,894
3,059
2,967
3,095
3,227
3,317
3,292
Marketing and advertising
1,588
1,662
859
1,071
768
884
636
1,290
Goodwill impairment
—
104,168
—
—
—
—
—
—
Other expenses
17,557
15,997
14,353
14,644
12,221
11,910
12,457
10,645
Total noninterest expense
43,614
146,491
39,997
37,098
37,633
37,978
40,584
38,918
(Loss) income before income tax expense
26,679
(79,373
)
2,659
24,892
34,628
36,872
31,128
52,314
Income tax expense
4,864
4,429
2,997
4,667
7,245
8,180
6,894
10,121
Net (loss) income
$
21,815
$
(83,802
)
$
(338
)
$
20,225
$
27,383
$
28,692
$
24,234
$
42,193
Per Share Data:
(Loss) earnings per weighted average common share, basic
$
0.72
$
(2.78
)
$
(0.01
)
$
0.68
$
0.91
$
0.94
$
0.78
$
1.32
(Loss) earnings per weighted average common share, diluted
$
0.72
$
(2.78
)
$
(0.01
)
$
0.67
$
0.91
$
0.94
$
0.78
$
1.32
Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic
30,173,852
30,185,609
30,068,173
29,925,557
29,910,218
30,454,766
31,109,267
31,819,631
Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted
30,241,699
30,185,609
30,068,173
29,966,962
29,944,692
30,505,468
31,180,346
31,898,619
Actual shares outstanding at period end
30,173,200
30,180,482
30,185,732
29,925,612
29,917,982
29,912,082
31,111,647
31,346,903
Book value per common share at period end
$
40.61
$
38.75
$
41.72
$
42.58
$
40.64
$
40.78
$
39.92
$
39.18
Tangible book value per common share at period end (1)
$
40.61
$
38.74
$
38.26
$
39.08
$
37.12
$
37.29
$
36.57
$
35.86
Dividend per common share
$
0.165
$
0.45
$
0.45
$
0.45
$
0.45
$
0.45
$
0.45
$
0.45
Performance Ratios (annualized):
Return on average assets
0.70
%
(2.73
)%
(0.01
)%
0.65
%
0.91
%
0.96
%
0.86
%
1.49
%
Return on average common equity
7.22
%
(26.67
)%
(0.11
)%
6.48
%
8.80
%
9.24
%
7.92
%
13.57
%
Return on average tangible common equity (1)
7.22
%
(28.96
)%
(0.11
)%
7.08
%
9.61
%
10.08
%
8.65
%
14.82
%
Net interest margin
2.37
%
2.40
%
2.43
%
2.45
%
2.43
%
2.49
%
2.77
%
3.14
%
Efficiency ratio (2)
55.4
%
191.0
%
51.1
%
48.9
%
48.8
%
47.2
%
51.6
%
42.8
%
Other Ratios:
Allowance for credit losses to total loans (3)
1.40
%
1.33
%
1.25
%
1.08
%
1.05
%
1.00
%
1.01
%
0.97
%
Allowance for credit losses to total nonperforming loans
83
%
110
%
109
%
131
%
119
%
268
%
1,160
%
1,151
%
Nonperforming assets to total assets
1.22
%
0.88
%
0.79
%
0.57
%
0.64
%
0.28
%
0.08
%
0.08
%
Net charge-offs (recoveries) (annualized) to average total loans (3)
0.26
%
0.11
%
1.07
%
0.60
%
0.02
%
0.29
%
0.05
%
0.05
%
Tier 1 capital (to average assets)
10.94
%
10.58
%
10.26
%
10.73
%
10.96
%
10.84
%
11.42
%
11.63
%
Total capital (to risk weighted assets)
15.74
%
15.07
%
14.87
%
14.79
%
14.54
%
14.51
%
14.74
%
14.94
%
Common equity tier 1 capital (to risk weighted assets)
14.54
%
13.92
%
13.80
%
13.90
%
13.68
%
13.55
%
13.75
%
14.03
%
Tangible common equity ratio (1)
10.86
%
10.35
%
10.03
%
10.12
%
10.04
%
10.21
%
10.36
%
10.18
%
Average Balances (in thousands):
Total assets
$
12,360,899
$
12,361,500
$
12,784,470
$
12,283,303
$
11,942,905
$
11,960,111
$
11,426,056
$
11,255,956
Total earning assets
$
12,072,891
$
11,953,446
$
12,365,497
$
11,837,722
$
11,532,186
$
11,546,050
$
11,004,817
$
10,829,703
Total loans (3)
$
8,026,524
$
8,003,206
$
7,988,941
$
7,963,074
$
7,795,144
$
7,790,555
$
7,712,023
$
7,379,198
Total deposits
$
9,344,414
$
9,225,266
$
9,501,661
$
9,471,369
$
8,946,641
$
8,514,938
$
8,734,125
$
9,524,139
Total borrowings
$
1,654,736
$
1,721,283
$
1,832,947
$
1,401,917
$
1,646,179
$
2,102,507
$
1,359,463
$
411,060
Total shareholders’ equity
$
1,201,477
$
1,263,627
$
1,289,656
$
1,238,763
$
1,235,162
$
1,245,647
$
1,240,978
$
1,233,705
(1) A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures to the nearest GAAP measure is provided in the tables that accompany this document. (2) Computed by dividing noninterest expense by the sum of net interest income and noninterest income. (3) Excludes loans held for sale.
GAAP Reconciliation to Non-GAAP Financial Measures (unaudited)
(dollars in thousands, except per share data)
September 30,
June 30,
September 30,
2024
2024
2023
Tangible common equity
Common shareholders’ equity
$
1,225,424
$
1,169,459
$
1,215,884
Less: Intangible assets
(21
)
(129
)
(105,239
)
Tangible common equity
$
1,225,403
$
1,169,330
$
1,110,645
Tangible common equity ratio
Total assets
$
11,285,052
$
11,302,023
$
11,164,214
Less: Intangible assets
(21
)
(129
)
(105,239
)
Tangible assets
$
11,285,031
$
11,301,894
$
11,058,975
Tangible common equity ratio
10.86
%
10.35
%
10.04
%
Per share calculations
Book value per common share
$
40.61
$
38.75
$
40.64
Less: Intangible book value per common share
—
(0.01
)
(3.52
)
Tangible book value per common share
$
40.61
$
38.74
$
37.12
Shares outstanding at period end
30,173,200
30,180,482
29,917,982
Three Months Ended
September 30,
June 30,
September 30,
2024
2024
2023
Average tangible common equity
Average common shareholders’ equity
$
1,201,477
$
1,263,627
$
1,235,162
Less: Average intangible assets
(24
)
(99,827
)
(104,639
)
Average tangible common equity
$
1,201,453
$
1,163,800
$
1,130,523
Return on average tangible common equity
Net (loss) income
$
21,815
$
(83,802
)
$
27,383
Return on average tangible common equity
7.22
%
(28.96)%
9.61
%
Net (loss) income
$
21,815
$
(83,802
)
$
27,383
Add back of goodwill impairment
$
—
104,168
—
Operating net (loss) income (Non-GAAP)
21,815
20,366
27,383
Operating Return on average tangible common equity (Non-GAAP)
7.22
%
7.04
%
9.61
%
Efficiency ratio
Net interest income
$
71,843
$
71,353
$
70,719
Noninterest income
6,951
5,332
6,347
Operating revenue
$
78,794
$
76,685
$
77,066
Noninterest expense
$
43,614
$
146,491
$
37,633
Add back of goodwill impairment
—
(104,168
)
—
Operating Noninterest expense (Non-GAAP)
43,614
42,323
37,633
Efficiency ratio
55.35
%
191.03
%
48.83
%
Operating Efficiency ratio (Non-GAAP)
55.35
%
55.19
%
48.83
%
Pre-provision net revenue
Net interest income
$
71,843
$
71,353
$
70,719
Noninterest income
6,951
5,332
6,347
Less: Noninterest expense
(43,614
)
(146,491
)
(37,633
)
Pre-provision net revenue
$
35,180
$
(69,806
)
$
39,433
Pre-provision net revenue
$
35,180
$
(69,806
)
$
39,433
Add back of goodwill impairment
$
—
$
104,168
$
—
Operating Pre-provision net revenue (Non-GAAP)
$
35,180
$
34,362
$
39,433
Tangible common equity, tangible common equity to tangible assets (the “tangible common equity ratio”), tangible book value per common share, average tangible common equity, annualized return on average tangible common equity, and the operating annualized return on average tangible common equity are non-GAAP financial measures derived from GAAP based amounts. The Company calculates the tangible common equity ratio by excluding the balance of intangible assets from common shareholders’ equity, or tangible common equity, and dividing by tangible assets. The Company calculates tangible book value per common share by dividing tangible common equity by common shares outstanding, as compared to book value per common share, which the Company calculates by dividing common shareholders’ equity by common shares outstanding. The Company calculates the annualized return on average tangible common equity ratio by dividing net income available to common shareholders by average tangible common equity, which is calculated by excluding the average balance of intangible assets from the average common shareholders’ equity. The Company calculates the operating annualized return on average tangible common equity ratio by dividing operating net income available to common shareholders, which adds back the goodwill impairment, by average tangible common equity, which is calculated by excluding the average balance of intangible assets from the average common shareholders’ equity. The Company considers this information important to shareholders as the significant impact of the goodwill impairment is a one-time event that obscures the operating performance of the company. Further related to other measures, tangible equity is a measure that is consistent with the calculation of capital for bank regulatory purposes, which excludes intangible assets from the calculation of risk based ratios, and as such is useful for investors, regulators, management and others to evaluate capital adequacy and to compare against other financial institutions.
The efficiency ratio is a non-GAAP measure calculated by dividing GAAP noninterest expense by the sum of GAAP net interest income and GAAP noninterest income. The efficiency ratio measures a bank’s overhead as a percentage of its revenue. The Company believes that reporting the non-GAAP efficiency ratio more closely measures its effectiveness of controlling operational activities. Further, the operating efficiency ratio is measured by dividing non-GAAP noninterest expense, which excludes the goodwill impairment, by the sum of GAAP net interest income and GAAP noninterest income. The Company considers this information important to shareholders as the significant impact of the goodwill impairment is a one-time event that obscures the operating performance of the company.
Pre-provision net revenue is a non-GAAP financial measure calculated by subtracting noninterest expenses from the sum of net interest income and noninterest income. The Company considers this information important to shareholders because it illustrates revenue excluding the impact of provisions and reversals to the allowance for credit losses on loans. Operating pre-provision net revenue is a non-GAAP financial measure calculated by subtracting noninterest expenses with the impact of the goodwill impairment added back from the sum of net interest income and noninterest income. The Company considers this information important to shareholders as the significant impact of the goodwill impairment is a one-time event that obscures the operating performance of the company.
Three Months Ended
September 30,
June 30,
September 30,
2024
2024
2023
Net (loss) income
$
21,815
$
(83,802
)
$
27,383
Add back of goodwill impairment
—
104,168
—
Operating Net (loss) income (Non-GAAP)
$
21,815
$
20,366
$
27,383
(Loss) earnings per share (diluted)4
$
0.72
$
(2.78
)
$
0.91
Add back of goodwill impairment per share (diluted)
—
3.45
—
Operating earnings (loss) per share (diluted) (Non-GAAP)
$
0.72
$
0.67
$
0.91
Operating net (loss) income and operating (loss) earnings per share (diluted) are non-GAAP financial measures derived from GAAP based amounts. The Company calculates operating net (loss) income by excluding from net (loss) income the one-time goodwill impairment of $104.2 million. During the second quarter of 2024, the Company performed an annual impairment test as a result of management’s evaluation of current economic conditions, and concluded that goodwill had become impaired, which resulted in an impairment charge of $104.2 million to reduce the carrying value of the Company’s goodwill to zero. The Company calculates operating earnings (loss) per share (diluted) by dividing the one-time goodwill impairment of $104.2 million by the weighted average shares outstanding (diluted) for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024. The Company considers this information important to shareholders because operating net (loss) income and operating (loss) earnings per share (diluted) provides investors insight into how Company earnings changed exclusive of the impairment charge to allow investors to better compare the Company’s performance against historical periods. The table above provides a reconciliation of operating net income (loss) and operating earnings (loss) per share (diluted) to the nearest GAAP measure.
_______________ 1 A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures and the nearest GAAP measures is provided in the GAAP Reconciliation to Non-GAAP Financial Measure that accompany this document. 2 Calculated as the ACL attributable to loans collateralized by performing office properties as a percentage of total loans. 3 A reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures and the nearest GAAP measures is provided in the GAAP Reconciliation to Non-GAAP Financial Measure that accompany this document. 4 For periods ended with a net loss, anti-dilutive financial instruments have been excluded from the calculation of GAAP diluted EPS. Operating diluted EPS calculations include the impact of outstanding equity-based awards for all periods.
EAGLE BANCORP, INC. CONTACT: Eric R. Newell 240.497.1796
Attorney-General Judith Collins is travelling to Sydney to speak at Western Sydney University on the constitutional and rule of law challenges in the current uncertain global environment.
“It is timely to take the opportunity to discuss constitutional and rule of law challenges,” Ms Collins says.
“We find ourselves in increasingly complex times due to such things as an increase in conflict throughout the world, climate change, the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and new technologies. This presents new challenges to the rule of law and demonstrates its importance.”
Ms Collins will also speak to the ways New Zealand’s constitution has developed, and the differences in Australia and New Zealand’s constitutional structures.
“There is significant value in New Zealand and Australia being aware of and learning from each other’s constitutional experience,” Ms Collins says.
She will be joined by Western Sydney University Vice Chancellor Professor George Williams and Justice Michael Kirby, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia.
Ms Collins leaves New Zealand today and returns tomorrow.
Over the past year NREL researchers made critical advancements for the bioeconomy including recyclable wind turbine blades, converting carbon dioxide to formic acid, biobased and biodegradable polyesters, and wastewater resource recovery using algae. Photos by NREL
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) bioenergy research empowers the decarbonization of our nation’s industrial and transportation sectors and a circular bioeconomy through development and deployment of sustainable fuel, chemical, and polymer technologies.
NREL researchers have been uncovering secrets about interesting methods and technologies such as biodegradable plastics, phosphorus-eating algae for resource recovery, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and converting carbon dioxide (CO2) to value-added chemicals.
With National Bioenergy Day 2024 upon us, NREL reflects on some of the team’s scientific discoveries over the past year that have helped strengthen the bioeconomy.
Bioenergy Research Highlights From Fiscal Year 2024
Building Bridges Through Relationships and Photosynthesis Research
How do you bring together long-time research friends and help develop STEM collaboration with historically marginalized institutions and a DOE national laboratory all in a way that ignites passions and furthers bioenergy research? Through the DOE Office of Science Visiting Faculty Program (VFP) of course! Check out how the VFP brought together old friends and new, while mentoring a new generation of STEM students to understand the energy-generating mysteries of blue-green algae.
An NREL scientist holds small cubes of renewable biomass resin that can be used in wind turbine blades and can be recycled. Photo by Werner Slocum, NREL
Advancing Methods for Recyclable, Plant-Based Wind Turbine Blades
Researchers at NREL see a realistic path forward to the manufacture of wind turbine blades derived from renewable biomass. The chemical recycling process allows the components of the blades to be recaptured and reused again and again, allowing the remanufacture of the same product. This method has the potential to end the current practice of old blades winding up in landfills at the end of their useful life.
Tools To Investigate How Organisms Control Energy at the Electron-Level
In NREL’s Advanced Spin Resonance Facility there is a special technical capability called electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy that provides insight into the most basic energy carrier and unit, the electron. Demystifying the fundamental processes of how organisms control energy at the level of electrons is key to advancing the applied research and development of systems for generating sustainable low-carbon fuels, chemicals, and electricity.
New Device Architecture Enables Streamlined Production of Formic Acid From CO₂ Using Renewable Electricity
Formic acid is a potential intermediate chemical with many applications, especially as a raw material for the chemical or biomanufacturing industries and potential input for biological upgrading into SAF. A research team led by NREL developed a conversion pathway to produce formic acid from CO2 with high energy efficiency and durability while using renewable electricity. Analysis confirmed that this pathway is economically viable at scale and with use of commercially available components.
The novel perforated cation exchange membrane (CEM) architecture in a CO₂ electrolyzer to achieve energy-efficient and durable formic acid production has a patent by K.C. Neyerlin and Leiming Hu pending. Illustration by Elizabeth Stone, NREL
NREL Biomass Refining Technology a Cornerstone of SAFFiRE Renewables Biofuel Pilot Plant
SAFFiRE Renewables LLC broke ground in August 2024 on its biofuel pilot plant in Kansas to turn agriculture residue into a scalable biofuel business. The company has licensed an NREL technology that uses an alkaline bath and mechanical shredder to prepare corn stover for ethanol fermentation—essential steps for accessing the energy-dense sugars locked inside. The new plant will not only help DOE with its SAF goals, but using lignocellulosic corn leaves, stalks, and cobs can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 88% to 108% on a life-cycle basis compared to conventional jet fuel.
WaterPACT Project To Quantify and Reduce Plastic Waste in U.S. Rivers
With more than a million tons of plastic debris entering ocean-bound rivers, creeks, and sewer drains every year, it is essential to intercept this waste before it enters the ecosystems, communities, and ocean. To help solve this problem, the NREL-led Waterborne Plastics Assessment and Collection Technologies (WaterPACT) project is on a mission to develop renewable-energy-powered technologies that detect, quantify, and collect plastic from U.S. waterways.
The WaterPACT research team collected plastic and water samples near the mouths of the Columbia, Delaware, Los Angeles, and Mississippi rivers. Each river has a unique watershed (the area of land that drains water to it) and volume of plastics emissions. Illustration by Elizabeth Stone, NREL
The North Face Taps NREL-Led BOTTLE Consortium To Scale Biodegradable Polyester Alternative
Polyester-based clothing sheds and disperses tiny microplastic fibers throughout homes, soils, and waterways, taking centuries to degrade. One potential solution is replacing today’s petroleum-derived polyester with a nontoxic, biodegradable alternative made from polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). A team of BOTTLE consortium scientists from NREL and Colorado State University have developed a portfolio of PHAs that behave like conventional polyester but are biobased, biodegradable, and easier to recycle. In conjunction with The North Face, the BOTTLE team is scaling the process to produce several pounds of PHA fiber, which The North Face will test and evaluate for use in its product lines.
$15 Million Multilaboratory Effort To Advance Commercialization of CO2 Removal
Carbon dioxide removal technologies have potential to help mitigate climate change by addressing existing carbon emissions and removing them from the atmosphere. To achieve this goal, scientists must first establish robust scientific frameworks and methodologies to account for these efforts—giving governments and private buyers a unified approach to tracking the climate impacts of their investments. In support of this, DOE tapped NREL to support a new $15 million research effort to improve the measurement, reporting, and verification of CO2 removal technologies.
On the Ground in Colorado, NREL Is Simulating SAF Combustion During Flight
Public and private investments are helping accelerate production and use of SAF, an energy-dense, renewable fuel seen as essential for decarbonizing flight. Adopting SAF means proving the fuel is as safe and reliable as current fuels while being fully compatible with existing jet engines. NREL has developed computer simulations to predict how SAF performs during flight and provide insights on how to maximize its safety and performance. These simulated SAF combustion tests could determine if new fuels meet requirements before industry invests millions of dollars to produce large volumes for ASTM engine tests.
The Dynamics of Jet Fuel Combustion—Researchers from NREL’s Computational Science Center look at a detailed simulation of sustainable aviation fuel as it combusts in a “virtual jet engine.” Photo by Joe DelNero, NREL
NREL Researchers Produce First Macromolecular Model of Plant Secondary Cell Wall
Lignocellulosic biomass has potential as a feedstock for low-carbon biobased fuels and chemicals. However, this biomass type is difficult to break down during the conversion process due to three layers of biopolymers. NREL scientists quantitatively defined the relative positioning and structure of the three biopolymer layers in Populus wood using solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance and molecular modeling. Having a computer model of the interplay of these three biopolymers will help design more efficient deconstruction approaches to convert renewable lignocellulosic biomass into better biobased materials.
NREL Research Quantifies Losses From Cardboard, Paper Waste
Of the estimated 110 million metric tons of paper and cardboard waste tossed out across the United States in 2019, approximately 56% was landfilled and 38% was recycled. This category of waste includes everything from newspapers and magazines to books and napkins, from junk mail and photographs to pizza boxes and milk cartons. New research from NREL showed that the estimated value for recovered postconsumer paper and carboard from landfills is $4 billion. Understanding this value can guide policymakers toward sustainable waste management practices and help researchers study the impact of implementing new waste-management technologies.
Newly Identified Algal Strains Rich in Phosphorous Could Improve Wastewater Treatment
Phosphorus in wastewater is a major contributor to harmful algal blooms in water bodies around the globe, with the potential to harm wildlife, livestock, and humans. To prevent this, wastewater treatment plants often rely on chemical- and energy-intensive techniques to remove phosphorus before it can impact downstream water bodies. NREL researchers developed the Revolving Algal Biofilm system for phosphorus removal from wastewater by maximizing the ability of algae to harness solar energy to efficiently accumulate and remove phosphorus from water.
A close-up of algal biofilm on a RAB system is shown on the left. On the right is a dried algal fertilizer product produced from the system. Photos from Gross-Wen Technologies
Pick Your Polymer Properties and This NREL Tool Predicts How To Achieve Them With Biomass
Petroleum-based polymers form the building blocks of plastics. Plastics can be made out of renewable biomass and waste resources, but identifying the right chemistry to make biobased polymers more sustainable and higher performing is the challenge. An NREL machine learning tool, PolyID™: Polymer Inverse Design, makes it easier to identify biobased polymers for use in plastics. Using artificial intelligence, the tool can screen millions of possible biobased polymer designs to create a short list of candidates for a given application.
Source: Australian Government – Antarctic Division
A new state-of-the-art krill aquarium and research facility, being built in the Hobart suburb of Taroona, will be named after pioneering marine biologist, Dr Isobel Bennett. Dr Bennett AO (1909 – 2008) was a distinguished researcher who, among other things, undertook early studies of Australian plankton and wrote about the shores of sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island when she joined the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition (ANARE) in 1959.
The new facility is being built in collaboration with the University of Tasmania and will provide scientists with the systems required to conduct research on Antarctic krill and other vitally important Southern Ocean species. It will interface directly with RSV Nuyina’s containerised aquaria, providing a globally unique end-to-end research aquarium logistics system which extends live specimen research long after the duration of a single Antarctic voyage. “This facility will give us a step change in capability for the research we can do, not only on Antarctic krill but also on the related species in the ecosystem that are critically important for supporting the recovering populations of great whales, seals and seabirds,” the Australian Antarctic Division’s Krill Research Systems Manager, Rob King, said. “We’ve had a purpose-built aquarium for Antarctic krill for the last 23 years at the Australian Antarctic Division in Kingston. “It really was a prototype facility. It was the first of its kind to warm the water for filtration, which increased its capability. Now we’ve proven that works, we’ve run out of space because it works so well and we don’t have the floor area. This new aquarium will give us 18 seperate research labs where we currently only have three.” Due to be completed in 2028, the research centre will be known as the Dr Isobel Bennett Southern Ocean Research Aquarium. “Dr. Bennett was one of Australia’s most distinguished and prominent marine scientists who achieved a notable research record,” the Australian Antarctic Division’s Head of Division, Emma Campbell, said. “Her early work on plankton and studies ranging from the sub-Antarctic to the Great Barrier Reef paved the way for so many of todays’ marine scientists. “Australia leads the world in live Antarctic krill research and this facility will maintain that position.” The Federal Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, officially announced the name at the site on Wednesday 16 October, 2024. This content was last updated 8 hours ago on 24 October 2024.
Give us the tired, the distressed, the huddled founders yearning to break free, the glorious refuse of traditional venture capitalists.
AUCKLAND – 24 October 2024 – Voluntas Group is launching Voluntas Elevate, a strategic advisory firm that targets underserved tech founders. Voluntas Elevate is designed for early-stage founders, those with momentum and ready to scale, and those stalled between growth phases.
Voluntas Elevate’s core services are designed for growth and scaling, planning and governance, capital acquisition, and talent development and acquisition. The company already boasts 12 clients and holds an equity stake in three. While its core purpose is advisory services, it also helps raise capital for those within the Voluntas ecosystem. It’s currently raising NZ$11.3m for nine clients with an average raise of $1.25m.
Voluntas Elevate founding partner, Jason Holdsworth, and partner, Darren Ward.
“Not every opportunity must be a 10x or 100x unicorn. Our mission is to elevate tech founders who have struggled to access the support they need through the traditional venture capital model. There are a lot of good businesses that are simply overlooked because they may “only” demonstrate triple annual recurring revenue – that’s still a good sustainable business that can potentially scale rapidly,” says Jason Holdsworth, Founding Partner, Voluntas Group.
Many tech founders face hurdles in accessing capital and the strategic support necessary to achieve long-term growth and value. Voluntas Elevate recognises this gap and bridges it with comprehensive services and a global network, helping founders to strategically build and expand their businesses.
Voluntas Elevate is committed to fostering innovation and entrepreneurship, and is dedicated to empowering founders. These are people who tend to fall through the cracks of traditional VC models because they are struggling to manage growth or don’t have an existing track record of entrepreneurial success. Voluntas Elevate is here to provide these founders with an ecosystem of expertise, technology, and capital that propels growth and entry to global markets.
Voluntas Elevate is an international network with offices in Auckland, Sydney, Hong Kong, London, and Los Angeles. Using this network and its ecosystem of talent, Voluntas Elevate is launching with an advisory and investment network that includes:
Anthony Quirk Naomi Ballantyne John Catarinich Brett Roberts Brett O’Riley David Ding Nikolai Elmqvist Anthony McNamara
Globally, Voluntas Elevate plans to onboard about 70 clients and generate over $15m in capital raised for clients in the next financial year, while generating an additional $7 million in revenue for them.
“We take a holistic approach to supporting founders, starting with strategy execution, sales enablement, talent development, and when required, funding acquisition. The firm is deeply rooted in its core purpose of uplifting founders who may not fit the traditional VC mould. With Voluntas Elevate, founders receive the necessary guidance and resources to achieve rapid, sustainable growth,” says Darren Ward, Partner, Voluntas Group.
Overcoming the Founders’ Dilemma Many entrepreneurs face the “Founders’ Dilemma”. They sacrifice equity early and are left to spend funds on consultancy services that don’t offer the strategic and operational support they need. This model frequently leaves founders with less of their company, less operational capital, and without a roadmap to capitalise on their potential.
“Voluntas Elevate solves this dilemma by partnering with founders to take a long-term, holistic view of their journey. We place their aspirations at the forefront and minimise the outflow of equity. The firm helps them navigate crucial stages of growth, ensuring that equity is preserved and value is maximised. For our strategic advisory clients, we never seek more than a 10% stake in any venture we support,” adds Darren.
About Voluntas Elevate Voluntas Elevate is a strategic advisory firm dedicated to elevating tech founders who have not found the necessary support within the traditional VC model. With a focus on growth and scaling, planning and governance, capital acquisition, and talent development and acquisition, Voluntas Elevate partners with founders globally to achieve sustainable growth and long-term value. The firm is part of the Voluntas Group, which combines philanthropy, technology, and strategic support to create positive impact across individuals and communities. For more information, visit www.voluntaselevate.com.
Sydney Airport is excited to welcome new food and beverage brands at the T1 International terminal – EARL, BARista, East x West, and Sydney Coffee Trader offering travellers an array of high-quality dining options.
Launching in December 2024, EARL – renowned as ‘the best in the sandwich-making business’ will bring its premium fast-casual dining experience to Sydney’s international stage.
With dozens of sandwiches in their repertoire, alongside exclusive new combinations crafted for a Sydney-centric experience, passengers can also enjoy speciality beverages from EARL’s signature brew taps, featuring seasonal drinks like yuzu-spiked cold brew and matcha oat lattes.
Founded 15 years ago in Melbourne by former Sydneysiders Simon O’Regan and Jackie Middleton, EARL marks a return to the city where their hospitality careers began. “Sydney has always been our ‘fun town’, a place we love to visit and enjoy with friends and family, said Simon and Jackie.
“Opening EARL at Sydney Airport feels like a significant milestone in our journey, blending our passion for premium dining with a truly global audience.”
The established and much-loved EARL is known for its focus on quality and sustainability, aligning perfectly with Sydney Airport’s commitment to providing exceptional and responsible dining options.
Mark Zaouk, Group Executive Commercial at Sydney Airport, said: “We are continually innovating our food and beverage options to meet changing consumer tastes, elevating our wellbeing offering while keeping true to the fast-paced environment of our dining precincts.
“The introduction of these new brands reflects our commitment to enhancing the passenger experience and offering a diverse and dynamic range of dining choices. We are excited to see how BARista, EARL, East x West and Sydney Coffee Trader will contribute to making Sydney Airport a destination in itself.”
BARista will open its doors later in the month, offering international travellers a premium coffee experience alongside a selection of standout gourmet dishes including the Benedict Croissant, a signature cheeseburger and flavourful Katsu Sando (crispy chicken sandwich).
For those after a quick bite before their flight, classic favourites like the BLT and bacon and egg roll will also be available, while the Hokkaido Tarts will delight anyone with a sweet tooth. Whether you’re after a caffeine fix or a hearty meal, BARista promises a fresh and satisfying dining experience.
East x West, which is also set to open later this year, will offer a vibrant fusion of East Asian and Western culinary influences, perfectly reflecting its name. The venue will hero Ramen dishes accompanied by a sumptuous selection of spring rolls, dumplings, and handmade bao.
Passengers looking for something lighter can enjoy crunchy lotus chips and edamame paired perfectly with Sapporo Premium Black on tap, a rare find in Australia and exclusive to the East x West brand. Adding to the unique experience, East x West will feature a dedicated mixologist crafting expertly made cocktails, along with a curated menu of Japanese whiskies and fine wines.
Sydney Coffee Trader located within the bustling T1 International arrivals hall will showcase exceptional coffee in partnership with Seven Miles Coffee Roasters – a welcome sight for weary travellers. The menu highlights gourmet bagels loaded with fillings and oversized sandwiches complemented by freshly made salads and chia puddings. Whether travellers need a coffee pick-me-up or a wholesome meal, Sydney Coffee Trader offers the perfect blend of quality and convenience.
“As a local roaster, we’re excited to be partnering with Sydney Coffee Trader in showcasing our city’s vibrant coffee culture. I think this venue perfectly combines a distinctive menu of locally sourced flavours with a unique coffee experience that travellers and guests are going to love,” says James Bailey, General Manager of Seven Miles Coffee Roasters.
The new food offerings have been developed in partnership with Emirates Leisure Retail, who recently unveiled Gusto in the T1 International dining precinct which offers passengers a contemporary take on traditional Italian fare.
Emirates Leisure Retail also expressed their enthusiasm about expanding their partnership with Sydney Airport.
Davina Connell, Regional Director and General Manager ANZ Emirates Leisure Retail stated, “We are thrilled to build on our strong partnership with Sydney Airport as these diverse dining options are set to elevate the airport experience to new levels.
“Whether you’re a coffee connoisseur in search of a smooth brew to rival your favourite local café, or ready to unwind with high-street-quality Asian-inspired dishes or a quick bite, there is something to satisfy every craving.
“These new food brands represent a significant step forward in enhancing the airport’s culinary landscape, and we look forward to unveiling them in the coming months.”
Images of new dining options at Sydney Airport can be found here.
Notes to editor
Menu highlights
EARL – located in the T1 food court before security
Handmade sandwiches and salads
The Pork Belly – free-range pork belly, apple, fennel and kale coleslaw
Harissa Lamb – slow cooked harissa rubbed lamb, quince, herb yoghurt, green beans and almonds
Mushroom and Ricotta – roast field mushrooms, ricotta, EARL salsa verde, chestnuts and rocket
Sydney-exclusive sandwich combinations
Signature brew taps with seasonal drinks such as yuzu-spiked cold brew, matcha oat lattes and Single Origin batch brews
East x West – located in the T1 food court before security
Ramen
Handmade Bao
Spring Rolls
Dumplings
Crunchy Lotus Chips and Edamame
Sapporo Premium Black on tap along with other favourites
Japanese whiskies, fine wines and expertly crafted cocktails prepared by an in-house mixologist
Sydney Coffee Trader – located in T1 Arrivals
Freshly brewed coffee
Loaded gourmet bagels
Oversized sandwiches
Fresh, healthy salads
Chia puddings
BARista – located beyond security
Gourmet dishes from breakfast to classic favourites
The royal office said as well as attending CHOGM, the King’s programme in Samoa would be supportive of one of the meeting’s key themes, “a resilient environment”, and the meeting’s focus on oceans.
The King and Queen were to be formally welcomed by an ‘Ava Fa’atupu ceremony before meeting people at an engagement to highlight aspects of Samoan traditions and culture.
As we head towards Apia, we can’t wait to visit Samoa for the first time together and to experience the warmth of ancient traditions with your remarkable people. Feiloa’i ma le manuia! 🇼🇸
Charles will also attend the CHOGM Business Forum to hear about progress on sustainable urbanisation and investment in solutions to tackle climate change.
He will visit a mangrove forest, a National Park, and Samoa’s Botanical Garden, where he will plant a tree marking the opening of a new area within the site, which will be called ‘The King’s Garden’.
Queen Camilla’s engagements include visiting an aoga faifeau to see first-hand how pupils are taught to read and write, and will visiting the Samoa Victim Support Group, an organisation which assists survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse.
Page one: Thursday, 24th October 2024.
Photo: Junior S Ami / Samoa Observer Design: Terry Tovio / Samoa Observer
Since 1969, King Charles III has visited 44 of 53 Commonwealth countries, many of them on several occasions.
His visits to the Pacific — before he was King — included representing his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, at Fiji’s independence celebrations in 1970; and visiting Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand as part of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 2012.
Queen Elizabeth II visited the Pacific multiple times during her reign.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The City of Greater Bendigo’s annual Tulip Dig will take place at 9am on Thursday November 7, 2024 in the Conservatory Gardens.
City of Greater Bendigo Parks and Open Space Manager Chris Mitchell said the Tulip Dig is an extremely popular annual event with many gardeners keen to secure some bargain priced bulbs to display in their own gardens.
“Due to the popularity of this event there will again be a four-bag limit, with bags supplied by the City on entry at a cost of $5 per bag. It is a cashless event with payment by EFTPOS only,” Mr Mitchell said.
“Only small hand trowels and digging tools are permitted to retrieve bulbs as City staff will pre-loosen the soil in the garden beds.
“Therefore, no shovels or hoes can be brought into the gardens for safety reasons on the day.
“We are expecting big crowds of people of all ages on the day and ask all participants to show respect to others when digging for bulbs as aggressive behaviour will not be tolerated.”
A number of pre-bagged tulip bulbs will also be available for purchase from the City’s Heathcote Customer Service Centre on the same day for $5 per bag. A limit of one bag per person will apply.
Tulip Dig event details:
No BYO bags. Bags will be supplied by the City on entry at a cost of $5 each
There will be a limit of four bags per person
Payment to be made by EFTPOS only as this is a cashless event
Only small hand trowels and digging tools allowed. No shovels or hoes permitted for safety reasons
Lake Macquarie and Lake Munmorah communities are encouraged to take part in a new advisory committee set up to help inform the NSW Government’s remediation of sites containing coal ash repositories.
The government is establishing the committee to support its response to the ‘NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into costs for remediation of sites containing coal ash repositories’ available here.
In response to the Inquiry’s recommendations, NSW Health has commissioned a review of environmental data to determine whether people living close to power stations and coal ash dams are exposed to potentially harmful chemicals through air, water, soil or local fish and seafood.
The committee will allow open discussions between NSW Health and representatives of the local community, stakeholder groups and local councils on the potential health impacts of coal ash.
NSW Health is seeking applications from community members and those from local civic, professional, and environmental groups to apply to join the committee.
Committee members will contribute to committee discussions, attend around four meetings a year, and help communicate information about the coal ash study to the broader community
Those interested can obtain a nomination form by contacting independent Chair of the Community Advisory Committee: David Ross, at David.Ross@phoenixstrategic.com.au. Nominations close on 6 December 2024.
Minister for the Central Coast David Harris said:
“This new committee will allow us to gain a deeper understanding of the impacts of coal ash deposits on communities in Lake Macquarie and Lake Munmorah.
“I encourage interested residents in those areas to take this opportunity to donate their time and expertise to find a way forward to clean up these sites for the lasting benefit of their communities.”
The Albanese Government’s responsible budget strategy has seen Australia become one of the top ranked economies in the world for fiscal management in 2024, according to figures released by the International Monetary Fund.
Australia is expected to have the third strongest budget balance as a share of GDP among G20 countries in 2024, and up from 14th in 2021 under the Coalition according to the IMF Fiscal Monitor.
This is a big vote of confidence in Labor’s management of the nation’s finances.
From 14th to a podium finish in less than one term is a powerful demonstration of our responsible economic management.
Our budget has become one of the best in the world under the Albanese Government and that’s what this data shows.
We’re getting the budget in better nick and paying down billions of dollars of Liberal debt.
Our responsible economic management has helped in the fight against inflation and has helped make room in the budget for things that matter like healthcare, aged care, and defence.
Under the Albanese Government, Australia is ranked ahead of all G7 economies on budget management in 2024, including the US, UK, Canada, France and Germany.
Since the election, Australia has seen one of the biggest budget improvements of the G20.
Australia also has the fifth lowest gross debt to GDP ratio in the G20 in 2024, a position which improved in 2023, and has been maintained since then.
The 2024 budget balance ranking for Australia has also improved since the April projections.
This endorsement of Labor’s responsible economic management comes after the Final Budget Outcome for 2023‑24 which confirmed the Albanese Government delivered the first back‑to‑back surpluses in nearly two decades.
The underlying cash surplus of $15.8 billion (0.6 per cent of GDP) for 2023‑24 followed the $22.1 billion (0.9 per cent of GDP) surplus delivered in 2022‑23.
In dollar terms, these were the biggest back-to-back surpluses on record, meaning the Albanese Government has delivered the largest nominal improvement in the budget position in a Parliamentary term.
If we took the same approach as our predecessors, we wouldn’t have come close to delivering back-to-back surpluses.
The budget position has improved by $172.3 billion across the past two years compared to what we inherited from our predecessors.
The government’s budget strategy strikes the right balance between fighting inflation, rolling out responsible cost-of-living relief, supporting growth in our economy and strengthening public finances.
We’ve delivered two surpluses at the same time as we’ve rolled out responsible cost-of-living relief including tax cuts for every taxpayer, energy bill relief for every household, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care and the first consecutive real increases to the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance in three decades.
Our economic plan is all about easing the cost of living and fighting inflation at the same time as we lay the foundations for a stronger economy for the future, and back-to-back budget surpluses help on each of these fronts.
The Albanese Government is making Australia the hardest target for scammers – sending a clear message that this harmful practice won’t be tolerated here, and making sure victims know we have their backs.
Today, the government is announcing further steps by providing $14.7 million over two years to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) to establish a clear single pathway for scam victims to seek compensation.
The Government has already announced its intention to nominate AFCA to operate the external dispute resolution scheme for the first three designated sectors under the Scams Prevention Framework – banks, telecommunication service providers and digital platforms providing social media, paid search advertising and direct messaging.
Scams victims will be able to seek compensation through a single door if they have been unable to reach a satisfactory outcome through internal dispute resolution, even if the complaint is against multiple regulated industries.
This means if a person is the target of a scam on social media and loses money from their bank account, both the bank and the social media platform could be liable if they failed to put adequate protections in place.
Currently social media companies have no internal or external dispute resolution mechanism and redress is close to impossible.
This is a major uplift in consumer protections for scam activity.
Today’s announcement will support the significant expansion of AFCA’s remit involved with, adding scams complaints against telcos and certain digital platforms.
AFCA receives more than 100,000 complaints about financial firms each year. In 2023–24, approximately 11,000 of these were scam‑related complaints.
AFCA will continue to operate its existing EDR jurisdiction for non‑scam complaints in relation to financial services, as will the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman in relation to non‑scam complaints about telecommunications service providers.
This funding announcement builds on the government’s landmark Scams Prevention Framework legislation. The Framework creates core obligations designed to prevent, detect, disrupt, and respond to manipulation tactics used by scammers to target Australians.
Initially banks, telcos, and some digital platforms will be subject to mandatory sector‑specific codes and face significant penalties for non‑compliance.
Consultation on the exposure draft of the Framework legislation concluded on 4 October 2024. The Government is considering the feedback provided during consultation to inform development of a final bill for introduction to Parliament this year.
Quotes attributable to Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones
“Our scams crackdown will cut off the avenues scammers use to target Australians by setting a high bar for what businesses must do to prevent them.
“Scam victims will have a clear pathway for redress.
“We want victims of scams to know the Government has their backs, and we want businesses to understand that they have a responsibility to protect Australians from these often devastating scammers.”
Welcome back. Well, the Department of Finance has announced over $14 million worth of funding in an effort to make Australia the hardest target for scammers. The new proposals come as the government aims to crack down on fraud, ensuring victims are able to seek compensation through a new, streamlined service. For more Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones joins us now. Great to have you with us. So, how will this new funding benefit victims straight off?
STEPHEN JONES:
The situation at the moment is the law is really grey on what the obligations on banks, on telecommunications companies and social media platforms are to keep their customers safe. I’m introducing new laws into parliament in the next few weeks which will raise the bar significant new protections for consumers, but also ensuring they have a single front door to go through when something goes wrong and they’re unable to resolve their complaint. That front door will be the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. Significant uplift in funding, $14.7 million so they can deal with a caseload of complaints that they’re going to have to deal with. So, if I could put it simply, new obligations, new – new avenues for redress, Australian consumers better off.
SHIRVINGTON:
The main thing, I think, for most people when they get targeted and scammed is the speed of some sort of resolution. Is it going to speed that up?
JONES:
Absolutely. There’ll be stronger obligations on banks, dispute resolution processes and an independent tribunal if things can’t be resolved. And I’ll ensure that there’s a fast track process in there as well, to ensure that people can raise their complaints. A lot of it will be, I want my money back, but a lot of it will also be, can you pull down that fake webpage?
SHIRVINGTON:
Yes.
JONES:
That is impersonating me. That is impersonating a bank or a telecommunications company. Pull down that material because people are being lured into losing money through that. So, there’s a range of complaints, new avenues to be able to deal with that.
SHIRVINGTON:
That’s fantastic. Thank you so much for joining us. The other thing that piques my interest too is the SMS sender ID registry that you’re implementing, which will mean it won’t pop up on those SMS threads from the banks as well. Appreciate your time this morning.
It’s time for all Americans to grasp a hard truth: in a world that may be on the brink of World War III, our military budgets are inconsistent with the threats we face. This is especially the case with the budget of the Department of the Navy.
The bad news: the current Navy budget will not make a stronger military or a larger U.S. fleet a reality. The good news: through American innovation and more agile products, we can build a bigger and more efficient Navy.
However, President Biden’s proposed FY2025 budget of $257.6 billion for the Department of the Navy is well below inflation and does not provide for a more lethal Navy.
As both President Biden and President Trump certified, the most direct challenge facing the U.S. Navy today is from the People’s Republic of China. Therefore, strong investments must be made now to ensure the Navy, and most importantly the United States, can meet this threat head-on.
It comes as no shock to the reader that America and its allies and partners are facing an unprecedented deluge of maritime threats by the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese Navy alone has provoked a U.S. destroyer in the Taiwan Strait with dangerous maneuvers, harassed Taiwan with aggressive military exercises, entered America’s Exclusive Economic Zone in the Bering Sea, developed a jam-resistant submarine torpedo, and injured several Filipino sailors at and around Second Thomas Shoal.
These developments incrementally set the conditions for a direct conflict on the open seas. Meanwhile, Washington has been lulled into complacency by decades of maritime supremacy. Most concerning, the United States lacks the political resolve to shed the Navy’s Soviet-era mentality and adapt to the new era of great power competition.
To meet the moment’s maritime threats, America must choose between tough and tougher: make significant investments in our fleet or face the costs of inaction.
Section One: Expanding U.S. Shipbuilding Capacity and Cooperation with Allies
Our shipbuilding industrial base is grappling with significant delays and challenges, affecting major programs like the Columbia-class submarines, Constellation-class frigates, and Ford-class carriers. These delays are not only impacting the procurement of new ships, they are also impacting the ability to maintain the current fleet.
A great first step to combating the maritime threats our nation faces is to expand the physical footprint of the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
The U.S. shipbuilding industry is first in its class and the men and women that come to work every day in our nation’s shipyards build the world’s most lethal and capable warships. In states like South Carolina, there are a wealth of maritime industry suppliers and shipbuilders diligently producing the necessary components to construct our nation’s ships.
But that alone is not enough. China’s Bohai Shipyard boasts an annual capacity exceeding the total number of ships our Navy has launched since 2014.
In addition, China is rapidly expanding its existing shipyards and according to experts “has been investing so much in shipbuilding over the past 18 years that it can now build more ships in a month than the United States can in a year.”
By comparison, America only has four public shipyards and these yards focus on maintenance of submarines and aircraft carriers and not the construction of new vessels.
The Department of the Navy should look at states like South Carolina to build new shipyards to maximize the U.S. shipbuilding capacity and our maritime industry.
In addition, the Navy must expand maintenance capacity here in the states as well as in the Pacific. The U.S. Navy has already decided to augment its capacity by placing a submarine maintenance facility in Guam. This should be replicated for other vessels elsewhere.
It is clear that the need for more shipbuilding capacity is great and immediate. Investing here at home will certainly help address the need. At the same time, our nation should also not discount opportunities to work with others when the opportunity presents itself.
The U.S. Navy cannot afford to leave any stone unturned when thinking of innovative ways to grow the fleet as quickly as possible.
Section Two: Fleet Requirements and Capabilities
A fundamental step toward a 21st-century U.S. Navy is improving both the size and modernity of our existing fleet. The fleet currently consists of carriers, surface combatants, submarines, amphibious warships, combat logistics ships, fleet support vessels and mine warfare assets.
Yet this fleet is hardly agile or scalable enough to meet a Chinese maritime threat that includes drones, hypersonic missiles and other high-tech tools of warcraft.
Persistent gaps also remain in amphibious warfare and in contested logistics. Amphibious combat vehicles, landing vessels, and light warships are all needed in higher quantities for rapid and effective landings.
Unmanned and underwater systems are especially relevant to modern naval operations. Often at a fraction of the cost of manned vessels, these vessels – both large and small – perform intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance missions, logistics and strike operations.
They also relieve pressure on our high-demand, low-density assets while augmenting the fleet. The proof is in their success in Ukraine, where naval drones have successfully countered Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, forcing them into safe harbors and destroying dozens of Russian vessels.
In addition to their combat roles, unmanned systems are revolutionizing naval logistics. Unmanned logistics platforms can autonomously deliver supplies, ammunition, and fuel to forward-deployed forces, significantly extending the operational reach of our fleet.
These systems reduce the need for manned resupply missions, which are often vulnerable to enemy attacks, thereby enhancing the safety and efficiency of our operations. By integrating unmanned logistics into our naval strategy, we can maintain sustained operations in contested environments, ensuring our forces remain equipped and ready for extended engagements.
A possible way to advance the construction of these unmanned vessels is through an international partnership. Such a partnership could be modeled after the trilateral security partnership between the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia (AUKUS) for submarine production in Australia. An AUKUS-like agreement for unmanned systems could create a new pathway for faster construction of these unmanned platforms and increase the integration between partners.
China’s naval power is growing at an alarming rate, with close to 400 ships currently in service and projections of 435 by 2030. The impact of this expansion is worsened by our diminishing technology gap, as China advances its naval technology while the U.S. Navy struggles to build ships.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy’s latest shipbuilding assessment calls for 381 battle force ships (carriers, destroyers, amphibious ships, submarines, etc.) and 134 unmanned vehicles, totaling 515 vessels.
While it is great to have a roadmap, the U.S. Navy’s own shipbuilding plan projects that we would not reach 381 battle force ships until 2043 under the best scenario. This delay poses an unacceptable risk to our national security and could force our sailors into a fight they are underequipped to win.
To avoid that scenario and reduce the exposure of manned ships to enemy attacks, we must expedite shipbuilding with a focus on unmanned surface and subsurface systems that are affordable and quick to produce. America does not have to win a shipbuilding foot race, but we must strategically invest in both the capabilities and capacities to counter China’s growing maritime capabilities and protect our interests.
Section Three: Funding the Department of the Navy
The U.S. military budget is woefully underfunded for the threats our nation faces today. The U.S. is on target to spend only 3.1% of total GDP on defense in Fiscal Year 2025 and that percentage is projected to fall to a paltry 2.4% in 2034 under the Biden-Harris budget plan.
Budgetary “business as usual” will only widen the gap between U.S. and Chinese naval capabilities. With China’s defense budget growing in both size and sophistication, it is imperative the United States make greater, and smarter, investments of our own.
Increasing funding for the Navy’s ship procurement, known as the Shipbuilding and Conversion account, alone will not be enough. In order to address the shipbuilding problem, Congress should consider a comprehensive approach that includes strong and consistent funding across procurement, operations and maintenance, research and development, personnel and military construction accounts.
In order to do this, Congress will need to think outside the box as the current budgetary restraints limit the needed investments. Congress should form a “Fleet Investment Fund” – codifying the Navy’s entire budget growth at least 5% above inflation and more than the department’s topline request – covering all aspects of naval development and readiness.
Most importantly, this account should not be subject to any caps or restrictions within the president’s budget request to Congress each fiscal year. The formation of this account must be seen as a national imperative.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the costs of these investments are great and will require tradeoffs and significant political capital, but the costs of inaction will be far greater. History demonstrates that adversaries are emboldened by America’s hesitation and deterred by its resolve. History proves that the U.S. Navy can adapt to evolving defense needs.
Since 1945, America has served as the global guarantor of open seas and freedom of navigation in contested waterways and critical trade routes. President Theodore Roosevelt stated before Congress in 1902 that “a good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace.”
Morgan Ortagus is the founder of Polaris National Security and formerly served as the spokesperson for the U.S. State Department under President Trump.
Republican Lindsey Graham represents South Carolina in the United States Senate.
Source: Australian Ministers for Regional Development
The Albanese Government will commence a selection process for the next Deputy Chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in the coming weeks, with current Deputy Chair Ms Creina Chapman advising she is retiring and will not seek reappointment at the completion of her term. The Government acknowledges Ms Chapman for her outstanding leadership and contribution to the ACMA since her initial appointment in June 2018. As Deputy Chair, Ms Chapman has provided admirable leadership to the Authority and staff, and valuable advice to the Government on significant changes across the communications and media landscape. This has included overseeing the implementation of major Government reforms to improve consumer safety, protection and connectivity for all Australians. The selection process for the next ACMA Deputy Chair will be conducted by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts and is expected to commence next month. Ms Chapman’s term concludes on 10 December 2024. An interim Deputy Chair will be appointed while the selection process is finalised and will be announced in due course. Quotes attributable to Minister for Communications, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP:
“On behalf of the Australian Government, I would like to thank Ms Chapman for her exemplary leadership as Deputy Chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority over the past 6 years. “She has navigated the Authority through a time of significant change for the communications and media industries and contributed to reforms that make a real difference for Australians when it comes to consumer safety and connectivity. “In this way, Ms Chapman has made a positive and enduring contribution to the Australian communications and media landscape. We wish her well for the remainder of her term and her future endeavours.”
Each Unit Includes One Class A Ordinary Share and One Eagle Share Right to Receive 1/20th of a Class A Ordinary Share
Sponsor to Reduce Founder Shares in an Amount Equal to the Shares Underlying the Eagle Share Rights
NEW YORK, NY, Oct. 23, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bold Eagle Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), the ninth public acquisition vehicle sponsored by Eagle Equity Partners, which is led by Harry Sloan, Jeff Sagansky and Eli Baker, today announced the pricing on October 23, 2024 of its initial public offering of 25,000,000 units at a price of $10.00 per unit. Each unit consists of one Class A ordinary share and one Eagle Share Right to receive one twentieth of one Class A ordinary share upon the consummation of an initial business combination. There are no warrants issued publicly or privately in connection with this offering and, after the closing of the initial public offering, the Company’s sponsor will reduce its founder shares in an amount equal to the Class A ordinary shares underlying the Eagle Share Rights. An amount equal to $10.00 per unit will be deposited into a trust account upon the closing of the offering. The units will be listed on the Nasdaq Global Market (“Nasdaq”) and trade under the ticker symbol “BEAGU” beginning on October 24, 2024. After the securities comprising the units begin separate trading, the Class A ordinary shares and Eagle Share Rights are expected to be listed on Nasdaq under the symbols “BEAG” and “BEAGR,” respectively. The offering is expected to close on October 25, 2024.
Bold Eagle Acquisition Corp. is a blank check company whose business purpose is to effect a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The Company’s efforts to identify a prospective initial business combination target will not be limited to a particular industry, sector or geographic region. While the Company may pursue an initial business combination opportunity in any industry or sector, it intends to capitalize on the ability of its management team to identify and combine with a business or businesses that can benefit from its management team’s established global relationships and operating experience.
The Company’s sponsor is Eagle Equity Partners IV, LLC, of which Harry Sloan, Jeff Sagansky and Eli Baker are Managing Members. Harry Sloan and Jeff Sagansky are the Co-Chairmen of the Company. Joining Mr. Sloan and Mr. Sagansky in the management of the Company is Eli Baker, the Chief Executive Officer, who has served in various capacities in seven of Eagle Equity’s prior public acquisition vehicles, most recently as Chief Executive Officer of Screaming Eagle Acquisition Corp. Also joining Mr. Sloan, Mr. Sagansky and Mr. Baker in the management of the Company is Ryan O’Connor, the Chief Financial Officer, who previously served as the Vice President of Finance of Screaming Eagle Acquisition Corp.
UBS Investment Bank and Jefferies are acting as the representatives of the underwriters for the offering. The Company has granted the underwriters a 45-day option to purchase up to an additional 3,750,000 units at the initial public offering price to cover over-allotments, if any.
The offering is being made only by means of a prospectus. When available, copies of the prospectus may be obtained from UBS Securities LLC, Attention: Prospectus Department, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, by telephone at (888) 827-7275 or by email at ol-prospectusrequest@ubs.com or from Jefferies LLC, Attn: Equity Syndicate Prospectus Department, 520 Madison Avenue, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, by telephone: 877-821-7388 or by email: Prospectus_Department@Jefferies.com.
A registration statement relating to these securities has been declared effective by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on October 23, 2024. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any State or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such State or jurisdiction.
This press release contains statements that constitute “forward-looking statements,” including with respect to the initial public offering and search for an initial business combination. No assurance can be given that the offering discussed above will be completed on the terms described, or at all, or that the proceeds of the offering will be used as indicated. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous conditions, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, including those set forth in the Risk Factors section of the Company’s registration statement for the initial public offering filed with the SEC. Copies are available on the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. The Company undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release, except as required by law.
Source: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
The ACCC has published a Statement of Issues outlining preliminary competition concerns with Qube Holdings Limited’s (ASX:QUB) proposed acquisition of Melbourne International RoRo & Auto Terminal Pty Ltd (MIRRAT).
The ACCC is also seeking views on a court-enforceable undertaking offered by Qube, which it has put forward to remedy competition concerns.
MIRRAT operates the automotive/Roll-on Roll-off terminal at Webb Dock West in Melbourne. The proposed acquisition would permit Qube to acquire sole operating rights for roll-on roll-off trade through the Port of Melbourne.
Qube, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Australian Amalgamated Terminals Pty Ltd (AAT), operates automotive cargo terminals at the Port of Brisbane and Port Kembla, as well as a general cargo terminal at Appleton Dock at the Port of Melbourne.
Qube is Australia’s largest provider of import and export logistics services including port-related activities of terminal management, stevedoring, processing, pre-delivery inspection (PDI) and delivery.
Webb Dock West is the key facility for the processing of automotive and roll on-roll off cargo through the Port of Melbourne, according to feedback received by the ACCC.
“The proposed acquisition would result in Qube, which is one of Australia’s largest integrated terminal and freight logistics providers, owning a further interest in a critical component of the automotive delivery supply chain at the Port of Melbourne,” ACCC Commissioner Dr Philip Williams said.
“We are concerned that the proposed acquisition may have a significant effect on competition in downstream services such as automotive stevedoring and pre-delivery inspection (PDI) services.”
“If this transaction goes ahead, Qube would be operating the terminal while also being in active competition with other automotive stevedores or PDI providers,” Dr Williams said.
The ACCC is concerned that Qube could raise the costs of access for rival stevedores and PDI operators, preventing them from competing effectively.
Qube could do this by restricting access to the terminal or related services, raising prices and lowering the quality of terminal services.
Concerns were also raised with the ACCC that Qube would have access to rivals’ commercially sensitive information as the terminal operator.
Proposed undertaking
Qube’s proposed undertaking, which would vary the current court-enforceable undertakings in place at Port Kembla and Port Brisbane, would:
require AAT to not discriminate between terminal users in favour of its own interests in the automotive supply chain by providing for certain price and non-price dispute resolution processes, ring fencing certain confidential information and report periodically on its compliance with the undertaking
provide independent oversight (including by an independent auditor), and
impose restrictions on AAT’s ability to introduce or change certain tariffs.
“We are now seeking feedback on both the preliminary competition concerns associated with the acquisition identified in the Statement of Issues and the proposed undertaking, which has been put forward by Qube,” Dr Williams said.
“While the ACCC has decided to publicly consult on the undertaking, this should not be interpreted to mean that this or any undertaking will ultimately be accepted.”
The ACCC invites submissions in response to the Statement of Issues by 7 November 2024.
Background
MIRRAT’s ultimate parent company is Wallenius Wilhelmsen ASA (WW). WW is a Norway-based global provider of roll on roll off shipping and vehicle logistics and operates automotive terminals in Europe, the UK, the US and the Asia-Pacific. MIRRAT’s only operation in Australia is the automotive/RoRo terminal at Webb Dock West.
MIRRAT operates Webb Dock West subject to a section 87B undertaking accepted by the ACCC on 27 March 2014 (MIRRAT Undertaking). The MIRRAT Undertaking was accepted by the ACCC in relation to MIRRAT’s acquisition of a long-term lease to operate the Webb Dock West Roll on Roll off terminal at Port Melbourne. The MIRRAT Undertaking commenced on 1 January 2018. It expires when MIRRAT ceases to operate the Terminal, which may occur on or before 30 June 2040, and when the ACCC confirms this in writing.
The MIRRAT Undertaking includes a provision regarding change of control of MIRRAT’s business (that is, the operation of the Roll On Roll Off terminal at Webb Dock West). Under the change of control provision, control of the operation of the automotive terminal at Webb Dock West may only change to a new person or entity, if that person or entity has given a s87B undertaking to the ACCC that:
requires it to comply with the same obligations as are imposed on MIRRAT pursuant to the MIRRAT Undertaking, or
on terms that are otherwise acceptable to the ACCC,
unless the ACCC has notified MIRRAT in writing that a s87B undertaking under the change of control provision is not required.
Qube is Australia’s largest integrated provider of import and export logistics services. Its port-related activities include facilities management, stevedoring, processing, PDI and delivery. It manages and develops strategic properties such as inland rail terminals and related logistics facilities. It provides road and rail transport of freight to and from ports, operation of container parks, customs and quarantine services, warehousing, intermodal terminals, and international freight forwarding.
In addition to being a terminal operator, Qube provides general stevedoring, automotive stevedoring and PDI services at each of its eastern seaboard ports. It provides general and automotive stevedoring through its affiliated entity ‘Qube Ports’. Qube provides PDI services through its 50% interest in K Line Auto Logistics which owns and operates PrixCar.
AAT (Qube) operates automotive cargo terminals in Port of Brisbane and Port Kembla, as well as a general cargo terminal at Appleton Dock in Port of Melbourne. The facilities are operated under a s87B undertaking accepted by the ACCC in 2016 (AAT Undertaking).
The AAT Undertaking was accepted in relation to Qube’s acquisition of a 50 per cent shareholding in AAT, resulting in Qube holding 100 per cent of AAT. The AAT Undertaking commenced on 23 November 2016 (and was varied on 25 June 2018). It has no end date.
The AAT Undertaking requires that any stevedore or transport operator may apply to have access to the site to service their customers. The access is on a non-discriminatory basis so that all parties are provided services to the same level. Stevedores or transport operators seeking access to the terminal can apply through AAT who will provide a stevedore licence or permit access to approved applicants. The full text of the AAT Undertaking can also be found on the ACCC’s s87B undertakings register.
The proposed acquisition will give rise to a Change of Control for the purpose of the MIRRAT Undertaking. AAT does not propose to enter a section 87B undertaking with identical terms to the MIRRAT Undertaking. Instead, AAT (Qube) proposes that its operation of the Terminal would be subject to the AAT Undertaking already in place for its existing terminals with additional clauses including in relation to the Price Dispute Resolution Process.
When most people think about caring for their mental health, they may think about getting more exercise, getting more sleep and making sure they’re eating healthy. Increasingly, research is showing that spending time in nature surrounded by plants and wildlife can also contribute to preventing and treating mental illness.
Our research focuses on the importance of birds and trees in urban neighbourhoods in promoting mental well-being. In our study, we combined more than a decade of health and ecological data across 36 Canadian cities and found a positive association between greater bird and tree diversity and self-rated mental health.
The well-being benefits of healthy ecosystems will probably not come as a great surprise to urban dwellers who relish days out in the park or hiking in a nearby nature reserve. Still, the findings of our study speak to the potential of a nature-based urbanism that promotes the health of its citizens.
Across cultures and societies, people have strong connections with birds. The beauty of their bright song and colour have inspired art, music and poetry. Their contemporary cultural relevance has even earned them an affectionate, absurdist internet nickname: “birbs”.
There’s something magical about catching a glimpse of a bird and hearing birdsong. For many urbanites, birds are our daily connection to wildlife and a gateway to nature. In fact, even if we don’t realize it, humans and birds are intertwined. Birds provide us with many essential services — controlling insects, dispersing seeds and pollinating our crops.
People have similarly intimate connections with trees. The terms tree of life, family trees, even tree-hugger all demonstrate the central cultural importance trees have in many communities around the world. In cities, trees are a staple of efforts to bring beauty and tranquility.
Contact with nature and greenspace have a suite of mental health benefits.
Natural spaces reduce stress and offer places for recreation and relaxation for urban dwellers, but natural diversity is key. A growing amount of research shows that the extent of these benefits may be related to the diversity of different natural features.
Finally, we compared both of these data sets to a long-standing health survey that has interviewed approximately 65,000 Canadians each year for over two decades.
We found that living in a neighbourhood with higher than average bird diversity increased reporting of good mental health by about seven per cent. While living in a neighbourhood with higher than average tree diversity increased good mental health by about five per cent.
Importance of urban birds and trees
The results of our study, and those of others, show a connection between urban bird and tree diversity, healthy ecosystems and people’s mental well-being. This underscores the importance of urban biodiversity conservation as part of healthy living promotion.
Protecting wild areas in parks, planting pollinator gardens and reducing pesticide use could all be key strategies to protect urban wildlife and promote people’s well-being. Urban planners should take note.
We’re at a critical juncture: just as we are beginning to understand the well-being benefits of birds and trees, we’re losing species at a faster rate than ever before. It’s estimated that there are three billion fewer birds in North America compared to the 1970s and invasive pests will kill 1.4 million street trees over the next 30 years.
By promoting urban biodiversity, we can ensure a sustainable and healthy future for all species, including ourselves.
Rachel Buxton receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, National Institutes of Health, and Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Emma J. Hudgins received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et Technologies for this work. She currently receives funding from Plant Health Australia.
Stephanie Prince Ware has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luis M. García Marín, Postdoctoral Researcher, Brain & Mental Health Program, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
The human brain is a marvel of complexity. It contains specialised and interconnected structures controlling our thoughts, personality and behaviour.
The size and shape of our brains also play a crucial role in cognitive functions and mental health. For example, a slightly smaller hippocampus, the structure responsible for regulation of memory and emotion, is commonly seen in depression. In dementia, atrophy of the hippocampus is correlated with memory loss and cognitive decline.
Despite these insights, we have only scratched the surface of understanding the brain and its connection to mental health.
In collaboration with scientists around the world, we have conducted the world’s largest genetic study of the volume of regional structures of the brain. This study is now published in Nature Genetics.
We discovered hundreds of genetic variants that influence the size of structures such as the amygdala (the “processing centre” for emotions), the hippocampus and the thalamus (involved in movement and sensory signals).
We uncovered their potential overlap with genes known to influence the risk of certain developmental, psychiatric and neurological disorders.
More than 70,000 brains
To understand how the brain connects to mental health, scientists like ourselves engage in large-scale scientific studies that span the globe.
These studies, which involve thousands of volunteers, are the bedrock of modern biomedical research. They help us discover genes associated with brain size and mental health conditions. In turn, this can improve diagnostic precision and even pave the way for personalised medicine, which uses a person’s genetic test results to tailor treatments.
We screened the DNA and closely examined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans from more than 70,000 people across 19 countries. We wanted to find out if there are specific genetic variants influencing differences in brain size between individuals.
What we found was stunning. Some of these genes seem to act early in life, and many genes also increase the risk for conditions like attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Parkinson’s disease.
What did we find out?
Brain-related disorders are common, with an estimated 40% of Australians experiencing a mental health disorder in their lifetime.
Our genetic findings reveal that larger regional brain volumes (the size of specific parts of the brain) are associated with a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease. In comparison, smaller regional brain volumes are statistically linked with a higher risk of ADHD.
These insights suggest that genetic influences on brain size are fundamental to understanding the origins of mental health disorders. And understanding these genetic links is crucial. It shows how our genes can influence brain development and the risk of mental health conditions.
By investigating shared genetic causes, we could one day develop treatments that address multiple conditions simultaneously, providing more effective support for individuals with various conditions. This is especially important in mental health, where it is common for someone to experience more than one disorder at the same time.
Our study also revealed that genetic effects on brain structure are consistent across people from both European and non-European ancestry. This suggests that certain genetic factors have stuck around throughout human evolution.
Bridging the gaps
Our research also lays the groundwork for using genetic data to develop statistical models that predict disease risk based on a person’s genetic profile.
These advancements could lead to population screening, identifying those at higher risk for specific mental health disorders. Early intervention could then help prevent or delay the onset of these conditions.
In the future, our goal is to bridge the gaps between genetics, neuroscience, and medicine. This integration will help scientists answer critical questions about how genetic influences on brain structure affect behaviour and disease outcomes.
Understanding the genetics of brain structure and mental health susceptibility can help us better prevent, diagnose and treat these conditions.
The concept of the “human brain” first appeared in ancient Greece around 335 BCE. The philosopher Aristotle described it as a radiator that prevented the heart from overheating. While we now know Aristotle was wrong, the complexities of the brain and its links to mental health remain largely mysterious even today.
As we continue to unlock the genetic secrets of the brain, we move closer to unravelling these mysteries. This type of research has the potential to transform our understanding and treatment of mental health.
Luis M. García Marín receives funding from The University of Queensland (UQ).
Miguel E. Rentería receives funding from the Rebecca L Cooper Medical Research Foundation, the Shake It Up Australia Foundation, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research & the Medical Research Future Fund.