Burlington, Vermont – The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont stated that Gabriel Lopes Da Silva Santos, 27, of Brazil, has been charged by criminal complaint with illegal possession of a firearm by an alien unlawfully in the United States.
On April 16, 2025, Santos appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Kevin J. Doyle, who ordered that Santos be detained during the pendency of this matter.
According to court records, Santos illegally possessed an AR-15 style rifle on June 9, 2024, when law enforcement responded to an apartment complex in Ludlow, Vermont. A neighbor had reported that someone was shooting behind the complex. Law enforcement found Santos, who claimed ownership of the AR-15 style rifle and a shotgun that was also on scene. Law enforcement later discovered that Santos had overstayed his visa, which expired in September 2020.
The United States Attorney’s Office emphasizes that the complaint contains allegations only and that Santos is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. Santos faces up to 15 years of imprisonment if convicted. The actual sentence, however, would be determined by the District Court with guidance from the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines and the statutory sentencing factors.
Acting United States Attorney Michael P. Drescher commended the investigatory efforts of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The prosecutor is Assistant United States Attorney Joshua L. Banker. Santos is represented by Federal Public Defender’s Office for the District of Vermont.
This case is part of Operation Take Back America a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. For more information about Project Safe Neighborhoods, please visit Justice.gov/PSN.
LA JOLLA, Calif., April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Private Bancorp of America, Inc. (OTCQX:PBAM) (“Company”) and CalPrivate Bank (“Bank”) announced today the addition of a Montecito Office led by veteran banker, George Leis who will serve as Executive Vice President & Market President.
George Leis has been a long-standing admired member of the Santa Barbara community. George’s banking career spans more than 20 years in Santa Barbara County, including as President and CEO of both Santa Barbara Bank and Trust and Montecito Bank and Trust.
The extensive, trusting client relationships George has built over his career speak volumes to his dedication to provide extraordinary service and solutions to his clients, while his commitment to the local community is evident in his serving on numerous non-profit boards, including Channel Islands YMCA, California State University, Northridge, National Disaster Search Dog Foundation, Santa Barbara Historic Museum, Santa Barbara Humane Society, and as Chair of the National Board of the YMCA of the USA.
Joining Mr. Leis in the new Upper Village Montecito office is a team of highly experienced, dynamic local private bankers. Dan Glaeser and Sarah McLelland will lead the Relationship Management team, while Emily Strawn will oversee operations for the new office.
Rick Sowers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Bank stated, “We are thrilled to have such seasoned and respected individuals join the CalPrivate Team. Having known George for years and having served alongside him on the Board of Directors for the California Bankers Association, I know George to be a person of great character, with strong leadership qualities and an unwavering commitment to the greater Santa Barbara community. His approach to relationship banking is exactly what we provide at Cal Private Bank, and we couldn’t be more pleased to partner with him and this great group of bankers.”
“I am honored to be joining the CalPrivate Team, who bring creative, high touch, timely, customized solutions to their clients,” said Mr. Leis. “The core values of Relationships, Solutions and Trust align directly with the needs of our Santa Barbara Community and I’m eager to bring these unique services to our Clients to meet their personal needs and help them grow their organizations.”
Paul Azzi, Chief Banking Officer of CalPrivate Bank added, “The passion George and his team have for building strong, long-standing Client relationships and supporting their community is a perfect match for our Client-centric, Solution-driven approach. Together, we’re ecstatic to make a real difference and deliver exceptional client results in the greater Santa Barbara community.”
About Private Bancorp of America, Inc. Private Bancorp of America, Inc. (OTCQX: PBAM) PBAM is the holding company for CalPrivate Bank, which operates offices in Coronado, San Diego, La Jolla, Newport Beach, El Segundo, Beverly Hills, and soon Montecito, as well as through efficient digital banking services. CalPrivate Bank is driven by its core values of building client Relationships based on superior client Solutions, unparalleled Service, and mutual Trust. The Bank caters to high-net-worth individuals, professionals, closely held businesses, and real estate entrepreneurs, delivering a Distinctly Different™ personalized banking experience while leveraging cutting-edge technology to enhance our clients’ evolving needs. CalPrivate Bank is in the top tier of customer service survey ratings in the nation, scoring almost three times higher than the median domestic bank. The Bank offers comprehensive deposit and treasury services, rapid and creative loan options including various portfolio and government-guaranteed lending programs, cross border banking, and innovative, unique technologies that drive enhanced client performance. CalPrivate Bank has been recognized by Bank Director’s RankingBanking® as the 10th best bank in the country and the #1 bank in its asset class for both return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). CalPrivate Bank was also ranked in the top 5% of banks in the U.S. with assets between $2B and $10B by American Banker. Additionally, CalPrivate Bank is a Bauer Financial 5-star rated bank, an SBA Preferred Lender, and has been honored as Community BankSBA 504 Lender of the Year by the NADCO Community Impact Awards, exemplifying excellence in the banking industry. These prestigious rankings highlight the Bank’s commitment to delivering exceptional banking services and setting new industry standards.
Investor Relations Contact Rick Sowers President and CEO Private Bancorp of America, Inc. (424) 303-4894
Safe Harbor Paragraph This press release contains expressions of expectations, both implied and explicit, that are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of such term in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We caution you that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, especially given the current turmoil in the banking and financial markets. These factors include the effects of depositors withdrawing funds unexpectedly, counterparties being unable to provide liquidity sources that we believe should be available, loan losses, economic conditions and competition in the geographic and business areas in which Private Bancorp of America, Inc. operates, including competition in lending and deposit acquisition, the unpredictability of fee income from participation in SBA loan programs, the effects of bank failures, liquidations and mergers in our markets and nationally, our ability to successfully integrate and develop business through the addition of new personnel, whether our efforts to expand loan, product and service offerings will prove profitable, system failures and data security, whether we can effectively secure and implement new technology solutions, inflation, fluctuations in interest rates, legislation and governmental regulation. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and we undertake no obligation to update those statements whether as a result of changes in underlying factors, new information, future events or otherwise. These factors could cause actual results to differ materially from what we anticipate or project. You should not place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statement, which speaks only as of the date on which it was made. Although we, in good faith, believe the assumptions and bases supporting our forward-looking statements to be reasonable there can be no assurance that those assumptions and bases will prove accurate.
To remember the bittersweet moment when war ended in Europe 80 years ago, York residents are being encouraged to mark this significant day.
From the Bank Holiday on Monday 5 May, a week of celebrations and commemorations are being welcomed and supported across York, to bring people together to mark the day when peace returned to Europe, and to remember the many sacrifices made.
Victory in Europe Day (VE Day) took place on 8 May 1945. It was the long-awaited moment which ended nearly six years of war. Following the Allies advance and Adolf Hitler’s death, Nazi Germany officially surrendered. The conflict in Europe was over and people celebrated with street parties, dancing and singing.
In York, as will happen across the country, a week of events is being planned. The City Bars and the Walls will be lit in red, white and blue on the nights of Monday 5 to Thursday 8 May as a mark of respect for the sacrifices made by so many, to preserve and protect our way of life.
To bring that commemoration to York’s streets and communities, neighbours and families are invited to apply for a free temporary street closure for their events and street parties from Saturday 3 May up to and including Thursday 8 May. This covers the long Bank Holiday weekend up to and including the 80th anniversary itself.
Organisers might want to invite people to bring along old photographs and memorabilia to get everyone talking about VE Day and what the war and the peace following it means to us? Whether you sing ‘We’ll meet again’ or ‘There’ll be blue birds over’, serve Spam sandwiches or pop a cork, it’s all about bringing people together for a very special occasion.
York’s business community is being encouraged to host events for staff. Any organisation planning to charge for an event will need to pay for a road closure order as usual.
Cllr Pete Kilbane, Executive Member for Economy and Culture atCity of York Council, said:
The end of the war in Europe is a moment to celebrate. It also reminds us of the sacrifices people made so that we can be free today.
“So let’s come together in our streets, communities and workplaces and mark this 80th anniversary! Let’s talk about what it means to us now and remember with gratitude what our families did then, whether on active service or on the home front.
“These events will connect us to communities up and down the country who are also remembering and celebrating. They’re a chance for older residents who may have lived through the Second World War to choose to share their memories and for us to honour them.”
If you’d like to request a free temporary road closure for your community celebration, please submit the form at www.york.gov.uk/RoadClosures by Wednesday 30 April. Please submit applications for complex road closures as soon as possible so we can, hopefully, process them in time.
Businesses or organisations planning to charge attendees at their event must request and pay for a temporary road closure order in the usual way at www.york.gov.uk/RoadClosures.
The war in the Far East and the Second World War as a whole ended on 15 August 1945, when Japan surrendered on ‘Victory over Japan’ (VJ Day). Events are being planned to mark that 80th anniversary too and will be announced in the summer.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about artificial intelligence (AI) and cybersecurity.1 In the past, a skilled forger could pass a bad check by replicating a person’s signature. Now, advances in AI can do much more damage by replicating a person’s entire identity. This technology—known as deepfakes—has the potential to supercharge identity fraud. I’ve recently spoken about the importance of recognizing both the benefits and the risks of generative AI (Gen AI).2 Today, I’d like to focus more on the darker side of the technology—specifically how Gen AI has the potential to enable deepfake technology, and what we should be doing now to defend against this risk in finance. Escalating Threat of Gen-AI Facilitated CybercrimeCybercrime is on the rise, and cybercriminals are increasingly turning to Gen AI to facilitate their crimes. Criminal tactics are becoming more sophisticated and available to a broader range of criminals. Estimates of direct and indirect costs of cyber incidents range from 1 to 10 percent of global GDP.3 Deepfake attacks have seen a twentyfold increase over the last three years.4 Cybercrime with deepfakes involves the same cat and mouse game common to sophisticated criminal activity. Both cybercriminals and financial institutions are constantly trying to outdo each other. Criminals develop new attack methods, and companies respond with better defenses. Here, the same technological innovations that enable the bad actors can also help those fighting cybercrime. However, there is an asymmetry—the fraudsters can cast a wide net of approaches and target a wide number of victims, and they only need a small number to be successful. Their marginal cost is generally low, and individual failures matter little. Conversely, companies must undergo a rigorous review and testing process to mount effective cyber defenses and will thus be slower in developing their defenses. A single failure is very costly. As we consider this issue from a policy perspective, we need to take steps to make attacks less likely by raising the cost of the attack to the cybercriminals and lowering the costs of defense to financial institutions and law enforcement. Anatomy of a DeepfakeDeepfake attacks are those in which an attacker uses Gen AI to create a doppelganger with a person’s voice or image and uses this doppelganger to interact with individuals or institutions to commit fraud. Deepfake technology is a particularly pernicious vehicle for cybercrime.5 The process begins with voice synthesis, where Gen AI models can synthesize the speech of their victim not only in words, but also in phrase patterns, tone, and inflection. With just a short sample audio, for example, criminals assisted by Gen AI can impersonate a close relative in a crisis situation or a high-value bank client, seeking to complete a transaction at their bank.6 Criminals can also use Gen AI-generated videos to create believable depictions of individuals. For videos, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are the core technology behind most deepfake systems.7 GANs consist of two competing models, the generator and the discriminator, which compete with and improve each other. This competition results in increasingly realistic, indistinguishable fake images and videos.8 Deepfake technology can also be augmented by other AI tools; for instance, criminals can use AI to extract and organize extensive multimodal personal data to facilitate identity verification. Attackers can also turn to “dark web” tools, such as jailbroken versions of popular large language models, where the guardrails have been removed, to learn the deepfake trade and improve their attacks.9 Deepfakes in ActionI expect that many of you can recall examples of how deepfakes of politicians and prominent business executives have fooled the public and spread disinformation. Deepfakes are also being used to commit payment fraud. In one case in 2024, a sophisticated deepfake of the chief financial officer for British engineering and architectural firm Arup was reportedly deployed in a video meeting and convinced an Arup financial employee to transfer $25 million to thieves.10 In another case, an attacker attempted to undertake a highly convincing audio deepfake of the chief executive of Ferrari, down to mimicking his southern Italian accent.11 The recipient of the attack—another Ferrari executive—tested the caller with a personal question only the chief executive would know, which thankfully exposed the fraud. And these institutions and individuals are not alone—a 2024 survey finds that over 10 percent of companies reported experiencing deepfake fraud attempts, and few steps have been taken to mitigate the risks.12 Particularly since COVID, we conduct much of our professional and personal lives over video. When we see realistic and interactive video images of a loved one in trouble, we are disposed to trust them and do what we can to help. Identity verification standards at banks often use voice detection, which may become vulnerable to Gen AI tools. If this technology becomes cheaper and more broadly available to criminals—and fraud detection technology does not keep pace—we are all vulnerable to a deepfake attack. These attacks can have significant financial costs to the victims of the crime and can also pose costs to society, eroding trust in communications and in institutions. Defending Against DeepfakesSo what should we do? As I mentioned above, we should take steps to lessen the impact of attacks by making successful breaches less likely, while making each attack more resource-intensive for the attacker. Let me start with ways to make successful breaches less likely. A key step is to recognize the importance of strong, resilient financial institutions in preventing attacks. Banks are frontline defenders against deepfake-enabled fraud due to their direct involvement with financial transactions and customer data. To verify payors, banks maintain identity verification processes, including multi-factor authentication and account monitoring practices. To the extent deepfakes increase, bank identity verification processes should evolve in kind to include AI-powered advances such as facial recognition, voice analysis, and behavioral biometrics to detect potential deepfakes. Other techniques focus on assessing the probability that AI has been used in audio or video based on underlying metadata and then flagging the identity or transaction for further review using other verification. These technical solutions can detect subtle inconsistencies in video and audio that human observers may miss. Banks have two points of control over the transaction—confirming not only the sender’s identity, but also the legitimacy of the recipient address. They can scrutinize the recipients of large or unusual transactions, employing advanced analytics to flag suspicious patterns that could indicate fraudulent activities, and perform additional reviews before authorizing a payment to a recipient that raises flags. Banks also invest in their human controls by maintaining up-to-date training for staff on the emerging risks and incorporating the necessary security measures to mitigate the damages from breaches when they occur. And they are engaging with other financial institutions to help define the threat and identify appropriate controls and mitigants.13 Customers should do their part, enabling multi-factor authentication on their accounts and verifying unusual requests through a separate channel, even if the person making the request seems genuine. They should seek out education for themselves and their loved ones to help them detect and prevent fraud before it occurs.14 And customers should value strong security practices at their financial institutions, including those which may add some friction to the user experience. The customers that may be the highest-value targets for criminals are often those with the largest digital presence, and thus most susceptible to deepfakes. They are also the customers who may prefer the most frictionless user experience, making detecting deepfakes more difficult. When it comes to protecting our money, we ought to expect and appreciate a little friction. Regulators can help to reinforce the importance of cyber defenses in safe and sound banking through appropriate updates to guidance and regulation. As with all rules, we should be mindful of the impacts on smaller institutions and help ensure that rules are right-sized for the risk. In addition, we can work with core providers to understand the extent to which they are incorporating AI advancements in their products and services to help smaller banks defend against deepfakes and other emerging risks from the technology. Last, we can also highlight research and development for cybersecurity startups and research into tools to combat deepfakes and Gen AI-based fraud. Regulators should consider how we could leverage AI technologies ourselves, including to enhance our ability to monitor and detect patterns of fraudulent activity at regulated institutions in real time. This could help provide early warnings to affected institutions and broader industry participants, as well as to protect our own systems. In addition to preventing attacks, we should also explore ways of making attacks more costly. These may include coordination with domestic and global law enforcement, internationally consistent laws against cybercrime, and continued improvement on sharing threat intelligence and insights in real-time. The official sector and banks should continue efforts to improve fraud data sharing within the financial sector and help institutions respond more quickly to emerging Gen AI-driven threats. This will make it far harder for fraudsters to operate undetected, increasing the complexity and cost of their activities. But the sharing is only as good as the data, and banks must do their part. We should help ensure that banks and other regulated institutions meet their duties to report cyber incidents in a timely way, and regulators should too.15 Another way to disrupt the economics of cybercrime is by increasing penalties for attempting to use Gen AI to commit fraud and increasing investment in cybercrime enforcement. This includes targeting the upstream organizations that benefit from illegal action and strengthening anti-money-laundering laws to disrupt illicit fund flows and freeze assets related to cybercrime. The fear of severe legal consequences could help to deter bad actors from pursuing AI-driven fraud schemes in the first place. ConclusionDeepfakes are only one of many new techniques to facilitate cyberattacks, but they feel particularly salient because they are so personal. And they are on the rise. We will need financial institutions to adapt, collaborate, and innovate in the face of these emerging threats. Thank you.
1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text 2. Michael S. Barr, “Artificial Intelligence: Hypothetical Scenarios for the Future” (speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY, February 18, 2025); Michael S. Barr, “AI, Fintechs, and Banks” (speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, April 4, 2025). Return to text 3. International Monetary Fund, Global Financial Stability Report, chapter 3 (October 2024), See also, World Economic Forum, Why We Need Global Rules to Crack Down on Cybercrime (January 2023). Return to text 4. “Fraud attempts with deepfakes have increased by 2137% over the last three years,” Signicat, February 20, 2025, https://www.signicat.com/press-releases/fraud-attempts-with-deepfakes-have-increased-by-2137-over-the-last-three-year#:~:text=Evolving20AI2Dbased20techniques20pose,AI2DDriven20Identity20Fraud20report. Return to text 5. Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Criminals Use Generative Artificial Intelligence to Facilitate Financial Fraud,” public service announcement, December 3, 2024. Return to text 6. See note 5. Return to text 7. Tianxiang Shen, Ruixian Liu, Ju Bai, and Zheng Li, “Deep Fakes” Using Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) (PDF). McAfee, Beware the Artificial Impostor (May 2023), https://www.mcafee.com/content/dam/consumer/en-us/resources/cybersecurity/artificial-intelligence/rp-beware-the-artificial-impostor-report.pdf. Return to text 8. “What is a GAN?” AWS, https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/gan/#:~:text=A20generative20adversarial20network20(GAN,from20a20database20of20songs. Return to text 9. KELA, The State of Cybercrime 2025 Report (February 2025), https://www.kelacyber.com/resources/research/state-of-cybercrime-2025/. Return to text 10. Kathleen Magramo, “British Engineering Giant Arup Revealed as $25 Million Deepfake Scam Victim,” CNN Business, May 17, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/tech/arup-deepfake-scam-loss-hong-kong-intl-hnk/index.html. Return to text 11. Sandra Galletti and Massimo Pani, “How Ferrari Hit the Brakes on a Deepfake CEO,” MIT Sloan Management Review, January 27, 2025. Return to text 12. Chad Brooks, “1 in 10 Executives Say Their Companies Have Already Faced Deepfake Threats,” business.com, June 28, 2024, https://www.business.com/articles/deepfake-threats-study/. Return to text 13. See, for instance, FS-ISAC’s report on deepfake threats and risk management at https://www.fsisac.com/hubfs/Knowledge/AI/DeepfakesInTheFinancialSector-UnderstandingTheThreatsManagingTheRisks.pdf. Return to text 14. There are a variety of public and private resources that can help. See, for example, the National Security Agency/Central Security Service at https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/Press-Releases-Statements/Press-Release-View/Article/3523329/nsa-us-federal-agencies-advise-on-deepfake-threats/; and the National Cybersecurity Alliance at https://www.staysafeonline.org/articles/why-your-family-and-coworkers-need-a-safe-word-in-the-age-of-ai. Return to text 15. “Computer-Security Incident Notification Requirements for Banking Organizations and Their Bank Service Providers,” 86 Fed. Reg. 66,424 (November 23, 2021). Return to text
Today our Governing Council decided on monetary policy, determining what’s needed to return inflation to our 2% goal in a timely manner.
Listen to President Christine Lagarde present today’s decisions. The statement also covers:
• how the economy is performing
• how we expect prices to develop
• the risks to the economic outlook
• the dynamics behind financial and monetary conditions
Our monetary policy statement at a glance, 17 April 2025 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/press_conference/visual-mps/2025/html/mopo_statement_explained_april.en.html
Christine Lagarde, Luis de Guindos: Monetary policy statement, 17 April 2025 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/press_conference/monetary-policy-statement/2025/html/ecb.is250417~091c625eb6.en.html
Monetary policy decisions, 17 April 2025 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2025/html/ecb.mp250417~42727d0735.en.html
Combined monetary policy decisions and statement, 17 April 2025 chrome-https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/press_conference/monetary-policy-statement/shared/pdf/ecb.ds250417~e613e58d41.en.pdf?95a8c391ee55936072302d86e709bf0e
European Central Bank
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/html/index.en.html
You can also listen on all major podcast platforms.
Published and recorded during our press conference on 17 April 2025
SAN RAFAEL, Calif., April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Westamerica Bancorporation (Nasdaq: WABC), parent company of Westamerica Bank, generated net income for the first quarter 2025 of $31.0 million and diluted earnings per common share (“EPS”) of $1.16. First quarter 2025 results include a reversal of provision for credit losses of $550 Thousand, which increased EPS $0.01. These results compare to fourth quarter 2024 net income of $31.7 million and EPS of $1.19.
“Westamerica’s first quarter 2025 results benefited from the Company’s valuable low-cost deposit base, of which 46 percent was represented by non-interest bearing checking accounts during the quarter; the annualized cost of funding our loan and bond portfolios was 0.24 percent in the quarter. Operating expenses remained well controlled at 38 percent of total revenues and credit quality remained stable with nonperforming assets of $277 thousand at March 31, 2025,” said Chairman, President and CEO David Payne. “First quarter 2025 results generated an annualized 11.9 percent return on average common equity. Shareholders were paid a $0.44 per common share dividend during the first quarter 2025,” concluded Payne.
Net interest income on a fully-taxable equivalent (FTE) basis was $56.4 million for the first quarter 2025, compared to $59.2 million for the fourth quarter 2024. The annualized yield earned on loans, bonds and cash for the first quarter 2025 was 4.14 percent compared to 4.25 percent for the fourth quarter 2024. The annualized cost of funding the loan and bond portfolios was 0.24 percent for the first quarter 2025 unchanged from the fourth quarter 2024.
The Company recognized a $550 thousand reversal of provision for credit losses in the first quarter 2025. The Allowance for Credit Losses on Loans was $13.9 million at March 31, 2025.
Noninterest income for the first quarter 2025 totaled $10.3 million compared to $10.6 million for the fourth quarter 2024.
Noninterest expenses for the first quarter 2025 were $25.1 million compared to $25.9 million for the fourth quarter 2024. The decline in noninterest expense is primarily due to lower salaries and benefits expense due to fewer business days in the first quarter 2025 compared to the fourth quarter 2024, lower occupancy and equipment expense, and lower estimated operating losses from limited partnership investments.
The income tax provision (FTE) for the first quarter 2025 was $11.1 million compared to $12.3 million for the fourth quarter 2024. The fourth quarter 2024 income tax provision includes a $305 thousand increase to reconcile the 2023 income tax provision to the filed 2023 tax returns.
Westamerica Bancorporation’s wholly owned subsidiary Westamerica Bank, operates commercial banking and trust offices throughout Northern and Central California.
For additional information contact: Westamerica Bancorporation 1108 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 Robert A. Thorson – Investor Relations Contact 707-863-6090 investments@westamerica.com
FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION:
The following appears in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995:
This press release may contain forward-looking statements about the Company, including descriptions of plans or objectives of its management for future operations, products or services, and forecasts of its revenues, earnings or other measures of economic performance. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They often include the words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” or words of similar meaning, or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” or “may.”
Forward-looking statements, by their nature, are subject to risks and uncertainties. A number of factors — many of which are beyond the Company’s control — could cause actual conditions, events or results to differ significantly from those described in the forward-looking statements. The Company’s most recent reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the annual report for the year ended December 31, 2024 filed on Form 10-K and quarterly report for the quarter ended September 30, 2024 filed on Form 10-Q, describe some of these factors, including certain credit, interest rate, operational, liquidity and market risks associated with the Company’s business and operations. Other factors described in these reports include changes in business and economic conditions, competition, fiscal and monetary policies, disintermediation, cyber security risks, legislation including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, and mergers and acquisitions.
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. The Company does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date forward looking statements are made.
Public Information April 17, 2025
WESTAMERICA BANCORPORATION
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS
March 31, 2025
1. Net Income Summary.
(in thousands except per-share amounts)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Net Interest and Loan Fee
Income (FTE)
$
56,390
$
66,094
-14.7
%
$
59,247
(Reversal of ) Provision
for Credit Losses
(550
)
300
n/m
–
Noninterest Income
10,321
10,097
2.2
%
10,633
Noninterest Expense
25,127
26,099
-3.7
%
25,853
Income Before Taxes (FTE)
42,134
49,792
-15.4
%
44,027
Income Tax Provision (FTE)
11,097
13,375
-17.0
%
12,327
Net Income
$
31,037
$
36,417
-14.8
%
$
31,700
Average Common Shares
Outstanding
26,642
26,674
-0.1
%
26,699
Diluted Average Common
Shares Outstanding
26,642
26,675
-0.1
%
26,701
Operating Ratios:
Basic Earnings Per Common
Share
$
1.16
$
1.37
-15.3
%
$
1.19
Diluted Earnings Per
Common Share
1.16
1.37
-15.3
%
1.19
Return On Assets (a)
2.03
%
2.24
%
2.02
%
Return On Common
Equity (a)
11.9
%
15.2
%
12.1
%
Net Interest Margin (FTE) (a)
3.90
%
4.30
%
4.01
%
Efficiency Ratio (FTE)
37.7
%
34.3
%
37.0
%
Dividends Paid Per Common
Share
$
0.44
$
0.44
0.0
%
$
0.44
Common Dividend Payout
Ratio
38
%
32
%
37
%
2. Net Interest Income.
(dollars in thousands)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Interest and Loan Fee
Income (FTE)
$
59,786
$
69,095
-13.5
%
$
62,713
Interest Expense
3,396
3,001
13.2
%
3,466
Net Interest and Loan Fee
Income (FTE)
$
56,390
$
66,094
-14.7
%
$
59,247
Average Earning Assets
$
5,794,836
$
6,119,368
-5.3
%
$
5,850,620
Average Interest-Bearing
Liabilities
2,770,099
2,955,565
-6.3
%
2,796,675
Yield on Earning Assets
(FTE) (a)
4.14
%
4.50
%
4.25
%
Cost of Funds (a)
0.24
%
0.20
%
0.24
%
Net Interest Margin (FTE) (a)
3.90
%
4.30
%
4.01
%
Interest Expense /
Interest-Bearing
Liabilities (a)
0.50
%
0.41
%
0.49
%
Net Interest Spread (FTE) (a)
3.64
%
4.09
%
3.76
%
3. Loans & Other Earning Assets.
(average volume, dollars in thousands)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Total Assets
$
6,187,321
$
6,525,921
-5.2
%
$
6,243,799
Total Earning Assets
5,794,836
6,119,368
-5.3
%
5,850,620
Total Loans
789,935
853,553
-7.5
%
821,767
Commercial Loans
120,189
133,422
-9.9
%
131,088
Commercial Real Estate
Loans
497,379
488,989
1.7
%
503,546
Consumer Loans
172,367
231,142
-25.4
%
187,133
Total Investment Securities
4,395,565
5,098,539
-13.8
%
4,557,436
Debt Securities Available for
Sale
3,553,755
4,224,474
-15.9
%
3,710,378
Debt Securities Held to
Maturity
841,810
874,065
-3.7
%
847,058
Total Interest-Bearing Cash
609,336
167,276
264.3
%
471,417
Loans / Deposits
15.9
%
15.9
%
16.3
%
4. Deposits, Other Interest-Bearing Liabilities & Equity.
(average volume, dollars in thousands)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Total Deposits
$
4,958,554
$
5,379,060
-7.8
%
$
5,028,363
Noninterest Demand
2,293,059
2,532,381
-9.5
%
2,342,092
Interest-Bearing Transaction
935,054
1,058,292
-11.6
%
934,876
Savings
1,649,631
1,691,716
-2.5
%
1,666,542
Time greater than $100K
29,460
36,135
-18.5
%
31,541
Time less than $100K
51,350
60,536
-15.2
%
53,312
Total Short-Term Borrowings
104,604
108,886
-3.9
%
110,404
Bank Term Funding Program
Borrowings
–
62,582
n/m
–
Securities Sold under
Repurchase Agreements
104,604
46,304
125.9
%
110,404
Shareholders’ Equity
1,055,925
965,840
9.3
%
1,039,017
Demand Deposits /
Total Deposits
46.2
%
47.1
%
46.6
%
Transaction & Savings
Deposits / Total Deposits
98.4
%
98.2
%
98.3
%
5. Interest Yields Earned & Rates Paid.
(dollars in thousands)
Q1’2025
Average
Income/
Yield (a) /
Volume
Expense
Rate (a)
Interest & Loan Fee Income Earned:
Total Earning Assets (FTE)
$
5,794,836
$
59,786
4.14
%
Total Loans (FTE)
789,935
10,744
5.51
%
Commercial Loans (FTE)
120,189
1,845
6.21
%
Commercial Real Estate
Loans
497,379
6,473
5.28
%
Consumer Loans
172,367
2,426
5.70
%
Total Investments (FTE)
4,395,565
42,339
3.85
%
Total Debt Securities
Available for Sale (FTE)
3,553,755
33,753
3.80
%
Corporate Securities
1,991,278
13,522
2.72
%
Collateralized Loan
Obligations
915,873
14,422
6.30
%
Agency Mortgage Backed
Securities
254,126
2,034
3.20
%
Securities of U.S.
Government Sponsored
Entities
311,297
2,777
3.57
%
Obligations of States and
Political Subdivisions
(FTE)
62,651
496
3.17
%
U.S. Treasury Securities
4,303
54
5.13
%
Other Debt Securities
Available for Sale (FTE)
14,227
448
12.60
%
Total Debt Securities Held to
Maturity (FTE)
841,810
8,586
4.08
%
Agency Mortgage Backed
Securities
56,006
329
2.35
%
Corporate Securities
736,089
7,815
4.25
%
Obligations of States and
Political Subdivisions
(FTE)
49,715
442
3.56
%
Total Interest-Bearing Cash
609,336
6,703
4.40
%
Interest Expense Paid:
Total Earning Assets
5,794,836
3,396
0.24
%
Total Interest-Bearing
Liabilities
2,770,099
3,396
0.50
%
Total Interest-Bearing
Deposits
2,665,495
3,229
0.49
%
Interest-Bearing Transaction
935,054
46
0.02
%
Savings
1,649,631
3,128
0.77
%
Time less than $100K
51,350
38
0.30
%
Time greater than $100K
29,460
17
0.24
%
Total Short-Term Borrowings
104,604
167
0.65
%
Securities Sold under
Repurchase Agreements
104,604
167
0.65
%
Net Interest Income and
Margin (FTE)
$
56,390
3.90
%
(dollars in thousands)
Q1’2024
Average
Income/
Yield (a) /
Volume
Expense
Rate (a)
Interest & Loan Fee Income Earned:
Total Earning Assets (FTE)
$
6,119,368
$
69,095
4.50
%
Total Loans (FTE)
853,553
11,413
5.38
%
Commercial Loans (FTE)
133,422
2,385
7.19
%
Commercial Real Estate
Loans
488,989
5,911
4.86
%
Consumer Loans
231,142
3,117
5.42
%
Total Investments (FTE)
5,098,539
55,399
4.32
%
Total Debt Securities
Available for Sale (FTE)
4,224,474
46,552
4.38
%
Corporate Securities
2,114,861
14,555
2.75
%
Collateralized Loan
Obligations
1,461,182
26,700
7.23
%
Agency Mortgage Backed
Securities
252,828
1,552
2.45
%
Securities of U.S.
Government sponsored
entities
308,807
2,777
3.60
%
Obligations of States and
Political Subdivisions
(FTE)
72,569
544
3.00
%
Other Debt Securities
Available for Sale (FTE)
14,227
424
11.92
%
Total Debt Securities Held to
Maturity (FTE)
874,065
8,847
4.05
%
Agency Mortgage Backed
Securities
76,062
427
2.25
%
Corporate Securities
729,273
7,816
4.29
%
Obligations of States and
Political Subdivisions
(FTE)
68,730
604
3.52
%
Total Interest-Bearing Cash
167,276
2,283
5.40
%
Interest Expense Paid:
Total Earning Assets
6,119,368
3,001
0.20
%
Total Interest-Bearing
Liabilities
2,955,565
3,001
0.41
%
Total Interest-Bearing
Deposits
2,846,679
2,106
0.30
%
Interest-Bearing Transaction
1,058,292
119
0.05
%
Savings
1,691,716
1,917
0.46
%
Time less than $100K
60,536
49
0.33
%
Time greater than $100K
36,135
21
0.23
%
Total Short-Term Borrowings
108,886
895
3.30
%
Bank Term Funding Program
Borrowings
62,582
843
5.40
%
Securities Sold under
Repurchase Agreements
46,304
52
0.45
%
Net Interest Income and
Margin (FTE)
$
66,094
4.30
%
6. Noninterest Income.
(dollars in thousands except per-share amounts)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Service Charges on Deposit
Accounts
$
3,381
$
3,470
-2.6
%
$
3,501
Merchant Processing
Services
2,733
2,507
9.0
%
2,735
Debit Card Fees
1,581
1,543
2.5
%
1,902
Trust Fees
899
794
13.2
%
867
ATM Processing Fees
463
591
-21.7
%
506
Other Service Fees
429
438
-2.1
%
428
Life Insurance Gains
102
–
n/m
–
Other Noninterest Income
733
754
-2.8
%
694
Total Noninterest Income
$
10,321
$
10,097
2.2
%
$
10,633
Operating Ratios:
Total Revenue (FTE)
$
66,711
$
76,191
-12.4
%
$
69,880
Noninterest Income /
Revenue (FTE)
15.5
%
13.3
%
15.2
%
Service Charges /
Avg. Deposits (a)
0.28
%
0.26
%
0.28
%
Total Revenue (FTE) Per
Avg. Common Share (a)
$
10.16
$
11.49
-11.6
%
$
10.41
7. Noninterest Expense.
(dollars in thousands)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Salaries and Related Benefits
$
12,126
$
12,586
-3.7
%
$
12,461
Occupancy and Equipment
5,038
5,040
-0.0
%
5,219
Outsourced Data Processing
2,697
2,536
6.3
%
2,610
Limited Partnership
Operating Losses
915
1,440
-36.5
%
1,095
Professional Fees
395
402
-1.7
%
369
Courier Service
688
649
6.0
%
692
Other Noninterest Expense
3,268
3,446
-5.2
%
3,407
Total Noninterest Expense
$
25,127
$
26,099
-3.7
%
$
25,853
Operating Ratios:
Noninterest Expense /
Avg. Earning Assets (a)
1.76
%
1.72
%
1.76
%
Noninterest Expense /
Revenues (FTE)
37.7
%
34.3
%
37.0
%
8. Allowance for Credit Losses.
(dollars in thousands)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Average Total Loans
$
789,935
$
853,553
-7.5
%
$
821,767
Beginning of Period
Allowance for Credit
Losses on Loans (ACLL)
$
14,780
$
16,867
-12.4
%
$
15,318
(Reversal of ) Provision
for Credit Losses
(550
)
300
n/m
–
Net ACLL Losses
(316
)
(1,288
)
-75.5
%
(538
)
End of Period ACLL
$
13,914
$
15,879
-12.4
%
$
14,780
Gross ACLL Recoveries /
Gross ACLL Losses
82
%
36
%
63
%
Net ACLL Losses /
Avg. Total Loans (a)
-0.16
%
-0.61
%
-0.26
%
(dollars in thousands)
%
3/31/25
3/31/24
Change
12/31/24
Allowance for Credit Losses
on Loans
$
13,914
$
15,879
-12.4
%
$
14,780
Allowance for Credit Losses
on Held to Maturity
Securities
1
1
0.0
%
1
Total Allowance for Credit
Losses
$
13,915
$
15,880
-12.4
%
$
14,781
Allowance for Unfunded
Credit Commitments
$
201
$
201
0.0
%
$
201
9. Credit Quality.
(dollars in thousands)
%
3/31/25
3/31/24
Change
12/31/24
Nonperforming Loans:
Nonperforming Nonaccrual
Loans
$
–
$
957
n/m
$
201
Performing Nonaccrual
Loans
–
1
n/m
–
Total Nonaccrual Loans
–
958
n/m
201
Accruing Loans 90+ Days
Past Due
277
525
-47.2
%
534
Total Nonperforming Loans
$
277
$
1,483
-81.3
%
$
735
Total Loans Outstanding
$
771,030
$
844,677
-8.7
%
$
820,300
Total Assets
5,966,624
6,464,685
-7.7
%
6,076,274
Loans:
Allowance for Credit Losses
on Loans
$
13,914
$
15,879
-12.4
%
$
14,780
Allowance for Credit Losses
on Loans / Loans
1.80
%
1.88
%
1.80
%
Nonperforming Loans /
Total Loans
0.04
%
0.18
%
0.09
%
10. Liquidity.
At March 31, 2025, the Company had $727,336 thousand in cash balances. During the twelve months ending March 31, 2026, the Company expects to receive $265,000 thousand in principal payments from its debt securities. If additional operational liquidity is required, the Company can pledge debt securities as collateral for borrowing purposes; at March 31, 2025, the Company’s debt securities which qualify as collateral for borrowing totaled $3,498,151 thousand. In the ordinary course of business, the Company pledges debt securities as collateral for certain depository customers; at March 31, 2025, the Company had pledged $713,752 thousand in debt securities for depository customers. In the ordinary course of business, the Company pledges debt securities as collateral for borrowing from the Federal Reserve Bank; at March 31, 2025, the Company had pledged $724,966 thousand in debt securities at the Federal Reserve Bank. During the three months ended March 31, 2025, the Company’s average borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank and other correspondent banks were $-0- thousand and $-0- thousand, respectively, and at March 31, 2025, the Company had no borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank or other correspondent banks. At March 31, 2025, the Company had access to borrowing from the Federal Reserve up to $724,966 thousand based on collateral pledged at March 31, 2025. At March 31, 2025, the Company’s estimated unpledged collateral qualifying debt securities totaled $1,615,433 thousand. Debt securities eligible as collateral are shown at market value.
(in thousands)
3/31/25
Debt Securities Eligible as
Collateral:
Corporate Securities
$
2,517,299
Collateralized Loan
Obligations rated AAA
269,817
Obligations of States and
Political Subdivisions
109,065
Agency Mortgage Backed
Securities
302,248
Securities of U.S. Government
Sponsored Entities
299,722
Total Debt Securities Eligible
as Collateral
$
3,498,151
Debt Securities Pledged
as Collateral:
Debt Securities Pledged
at the Federal Reserve Bank
($
724,966
)
Deposits by Public Entities
(713,752
)
Securities Sold under
Repurchase Agreements
(439,287
)
Other
(4,713
)
Total Debt Securities Pledged
as Collateral
($
1,882,718
)
Estimated Debt Securities
Available to Pledge
$
1,615,433
11. Capital.
(in thousands, except per-share amounts)
%
3/31/25
3/31/24
Change
12/31/24
Shareholders’ Equity
$
923,138
$
791,691
16.6
%
$
889,957
Total Assets
5,966,624
6,464,685
-7.7
%
6,076,274
Shareholders’ Equity/
Total Assets
15.47
%
12.25
%
14.65
%
Shareholders’ Equity/
Total Loans
119.73
%
93.73
%
108.49
%
Tangible Common Equity
Ratio
13.71
%
10.56
%
12.90
%
Common Shares Outstanding
26,360
26,678
-1.2
%
26,708
Common Equity Per Share
$
35.02
$
29.68
18.0
%
$
33.32
Market Value Per Common
Share
50.63
48.88
3.6
%
52.46
(shares in thousands)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Share Retirements (Issuances):
Total Shares Retired
361
4
n/m
–
Average Retirement Price
$
50.96
$
45.58
n/m
$
–
Net Shares Retired (Issued)
348
(7
)
n/m
(22
)
12. Period-End Balance Sheets.
(unaudited, dollars in thousands)
%
3/31/25
3/31/24
Change
12/31/24
Assets:
Cash and Due from Banks
$
727,336
$
434,250
67.5
%
$
601,494
Debt Securities Available for
Sale:
Corporate Securities
1,802,791
1,879,980
-4.1
%
1,835,937
Collateralized Loan
Obligations
822,111
1,420,584
-42.1
%
982,589
Agency Mortgage Backed
Securities
250,844
225,564
11.2
%
218,026
Securities of U.S.
Government Sponsored
Entities
299,722
292,583
2.4
%
292,117
Obligations of States and
Political Subdivisions
60,581
70,466
-14.0
%
62,186
U.S. Treasury Securities
–
–
n/m
4,955
Total Debt Securities
Available for Sale
3,236,049
3,889,177
-16.8
%
3,395,810
Debt Securities Held to
Maturity:
Agency Mortgage Backed
Securities
53,528
73,023
-26.7
%
57,927
Corporate Securities
737,146
730,350
0.9
%
735,447
Obligations of States and
Political Subdivisions (1)
48,674
65,352
-25.5
%
51,260
Total Debt Securities
Held to Maturity (1)
839,348
868,725
-3.4
%
844,634
Loans
771,030
844,677
-8.7
%
820,300
Allowance For Credit Losses
on Loans
(13,914
)
(15,879
)
-12.4
%
(14,780
)
Total Loans, net
757,116
828,798
-8.6
%
805,520
Premises and Equipment, net
25,722
26,458
-2.8
%
26,133
Identifiable Intangibles, net
72
291
-75.2
%
125
Goodwill
121,673
121,673
0.0
%
121,673
Other Assets
259,308
295,313
-12.2
%
280,885
Total Assets
$
5,966,624
$
6,464,685
-7.7
%
$
6,076,274
Liabilities and Shareholders’
Equity:
Deposits:
Noninterest-Bearing
$
2,241,802
$
2,514,161
-10.8
%
$
2,333,389
Interest-Bearing Transaction
920,461
1,066,038
-13.7
%
953,863
Savings
1,633,445
1,681,921
-2.9
%
1,642,360
Time
78,387
92,805
-15.5
%
82,238
Total Deposits
4,874,095
5,354,925
-9.0
%
5,011,850
Bank Term Funding
Program Borrowings
–
200,000
n/m
–
Securities Sold under
Repurchase Agreements
113,219
50,334
124.9
%
120,322
Total Short-Term
Borrowed Funds
113,219
250,334
-54.8
%
120,322
Other Liabilities
56,172
67,735
-17.1
%
54,145
Total Liabilities
5,043,486
5,672,994
-11.1
%
5,186,317
Shareholders’ Equity:
Common Equity:
Paid-In Capital
470,844
473,989
-0.7
%
476,506
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive Loss
(136,768
)
(196,857
)
-30.5
%
(168,104
)
Retained Earnings
589,062
514,559
14.5
%
581,555
Total Shareholders’ Equity
923,138
791,691
16.6
%
889,957
Total Liabilities and
Shareholders’ Equity
$
5,966,624
$
6,464,685
-7.7
%
$
6,076,274
13. Income Statements.
(unaudited, in thousands except per-share amounts)
%
Q1’2025
Q1’2024
Change
Q4’2024
Interest and Loan Fee Income:
Loans
$
10,669
$
11,324
-5.8
%
$
11,167
Equity Securities
195
174
12.1
%
195
Debt Securities Available
for Sale
33,430
46,243
-27.7
%
36,843
Debt Securities Held to
Maturity
8,494
8,722
-2.6
%
8,538
Interest-Bearing Cash
6,703
2,283
193.6
%
5,659
Total Interest and Loan
Fee Income
59,491
68,746
-13.5
%
62,402
Interest Expense:
Transaction Deposits
46
119
-61.3
%
46
Savings Deposits
3,128
1,917
63.2
%
3,148
Time Deposits
55
70
-21.4
%
68
Bank Term Funding Program
Borrowings
–
843
n/m
–
Securities Sold under
Repurchase Agreements
167
52
222.1
%
204
Total Interest Expense
3,396
3,001
13.2
%
3,466
Net Interest and Loan
Fee Income
56,095
65,745
-14.7
%
58,936
(Reversal of) Provision
for Credit Losses
(550
)
300
n/m
–
Noninterest Income:
Service Charges on Deposit
Accounts
3,381
3,470
-2.6
%
3,501
Merchant Processing
Services
2,733
2,507
9.0
%
2,735
Debit Card Fees
1,581
1,543
2.5
%
1,902
Trust Fees
899
794
13.2
%
867
ATM Processing Fees
463
591
-21.7
%
506
Other Service Fees
429
438
-2.1
%
428
Life Insurance Gains
102
–
n/m
–
Other Noninterest Income
733
754
-2.8
%
694
Total Noninterest Income
10,321
10,097
2.2
%
10,633
Noninterest Expense:
Salaries and Related Benefits
12,126
12,586
-3.7
%
12,461
Occupancy and Equipment
5,038
5,040
-0.0
%
5,219
Outsourced Data Processing
2,697
2,536
6.3
%
2,610
Limited Partnership
Operating Losses
915
1,440
-36.5
%
1,095
Professional Fees
395
402
-1.7
%
369
Courier Service
688
649
6.0
%
692
Other Noninterest Expense
3,268
3,446
-5.2
%
3,407
Total Noninterest Expense
25,127
26,099
-3.7
%
25,853
Income Before Income Taxes
41,839
49,443
-15.4
%
43,716
Income Tax Provision
10,802
13,026
-17.1
%
12,016
Net Income
$
31,037
$
36,417
-14.8
%
$
31,700
Average Common Shares
Outstanding
26,642
26,674
-0.1
%
26,699
Diluted Average Common
Shares Outstanding
26,642
26,675
-0.1
%
26,701
Per Common Share Data:
Basic Earnings
$
1.16
$
1.37
-15.3
%
$
1.19
Diluted Earnings
1.16
1.37
-15.3
%
1.19
Dividends Paid
0.44
0.44
0.0
%
0.44
Footnotes and Abbreviations:
(1) Debt Securities Held To Maturity and Obligations of States and Political Subdivisions are net of related reserve for expected credit losses of $1 thousand at March 31, 2025, December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024.
(FTE) Fully Taxable Equivalent. The Company presents its net interest margin and net interest income on a FTE basis using the current statutory federal tax rate. Management believes the FTE basis is valuable to the reader because the Company’s loan and investment securities portfolios contain a portion of municipal loans and securities that are federally tax exempt. The Company’s tax exempt loans and securities composition may not be similar to that of other banks, therefore in order to reflect the impact of the federally tax exempt loans and securities on the net interest margin and net interest income for comparability with other banks, the Company presents its net interest margin and net interest income on a FTE basis.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Speech
The UK is deeply concerned by the destabilising activities of Libyan security actors and armed groups: UK statement at the UN Security Council
Statement by Ambassador Barbara Woodward, UK Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council meeting on Libya.
President I would like to make three points.
First, Libya’s economic trajectory is alarming.
With no unified budget and, as SRSG Tetteh said, no oversight, present levels of public spending by Libyan authorities risk rapidly diminishing the nation’s wealth.
Competition for state resources is putting Libya’s institutions under grave pressure, and risks fuelling renewed conflict.
Libya has the resources to build a prosperous future. But to achieve it, Libya’s leaders must put aside narrow interests and agree on a unified economic framework in the national interest.
We welcome the return of the World Bank to Tripoli to support this work.
Second, the UK is deeply concerned by the destabilising activities of Libyan security actors and armed groups.
This includes reports of unlawful and arbitrary detentions, kidnappings, imprisonment without due process and assassination attempts.
There needs to be accountability for such acts, to support civic space and trust in Libya’s law enforcement.
The recent closure of humanitarian organisations’ offices and detention of their employees is particularly troubling.
We urge Libyan authorities to work with international NGOs and resolve differences through dialogue.
Humanitarian organisations are an indispensable part of our collective efforts to support Libya, including to help address the Libyan authority’s concerns about illegal migration.
Third, Libya’s economic and security challenges underscore the urgent need for progress on the political track.
Libya needs a comprehensive, inclusive political process which will provide the foundation for sound economic governance, rule of law and accountability, and help tackle corruption.
The UK strongly supports UNSMIL’s efforts and commends SRSG Tetteh for her leadership.
A revitalised political process, flowing from the Advisory Committee’s deliberations, presents a real opportunity to chart a path towards the peace, stability and prosperity that the Libyan people deserve and yearn for, as I heard during my own visit to Libya and in more recent exchanges with young Libyans.
So we urge all Libyan actors to engage constructively with the UN’s efforts and the Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
NOTICE is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of the trust deed dated 30 November 2012 (as amended), constituting the Issuer’s ETP securities under its Programme, between (1) the Issuer, (2) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation p.l.c. and (3) WisdomTree Multi Asset Management Limited, that:
The Determination Agent in respect of the Programme will be changed from WisdomTree Europe Limited to WisdomTree UK Limited on 17 April 2025.
Notice is also given that the Issuer has appointed WisdomTree UK Limited to act as its process agent in respect of certain documents related to the Programme; this change shall be effective on 17 April 2025.
Terms used in this announcement and not otherwise defined bear the meanings given in the Prospectus.
For further information, please contact:
WisdomTree Multi Asset Issuer plc europesupport@wisdomtree.com.
AGOURA HILLS, CALIFORNIA, April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — MultiCorp International, Inc. (OTC Markets PINK: MCIC) Multicorp International, Inc. is pleased to announce that Neoforma Inc. has received the $2,000,000,000 credit transfer receipt from Airavata Developers Corporation’s top 10 European Bank this morning.
Multicorp International, Inc.’s alliance with 40 Brightwater LLC’s Global Financial Consortium inclusive of Neoforma Inc. and now Airavata Developers Corporation has expanded immediate access to greater liquidity, which will be added to the previously announced financings from Edwards Capital N.A. correspondent bank.
In turn, Neoforma Inc. will provide a line of credit to MultiCorp International, Inc. in an amount of up to $1,800,000,000 (one billion eight hundred million USD), to be utilized to execute all transactions previously announced with Global X Cryptocurrency Stablecoin Tokens (GBP-pegged), Bitcoin, and gold-backed Cryptocurrency Tokens, as well as to perfect the newly-targeted acquisition of a mineral property in Michigan and to cover all required corporate expenditures.
MultiCorp International, Inc., a diversified leader in health, energy, and agriculture, announces a series of strategic initiatives aimed at accelerating its growth and expanding its market presence. The company is actively pursuing joint ventures and acquisitions, is fortifying its organizational infrastructure, and is preparing for significant advancements in the stock market.
Neoforma Inc. is a Minnesota based privately held corporation and a global leader in Software & Technology. The company has now diversified into International finance including private equity and has operations globally, including India, the UAE, the UK, Mexico and the United States and serves clients globally. Its client base includes numerous global corporations as well as government entities.
Airavata Developers Corporation is a prominent international construction firm that has carved a niche for itself in the design and construction of commercial and industrial infrastructure. With a commitment to excellence, we specialize in a wide array of services that encompass every phase of the construction process, including comprehensive pre-construction planning, meticulous project management, and effective general contracting. Each of these services is tailored to meet the specific needs and demands of our diverse clientele, ensuring that we not only meet but exceed their expectations.
At the helm of our organization are the highly respected Principal Partners, Alan Khara, who serves as the Chief Executive Director and Chairman, and David D. Brannon, the Executive Financial Director. Together, they bring a wealth of experience and knowledge to the company. Their unwavering dedication extends beyond just business; they are passionately committed to fostering community excellence. This commitment is demonstrated through substantial efforts in promoting global economic development while simultaneously focusing on job creation within the communities we operate. Their leadership style emphasizes ethical practices, innovative thinking, and a deep responsibility toward societal well-being.
Airavata Developers Corporation has set forth an ambitious goal: to emerge as the global leader within this ever-evolving and dynamic construction industry. To achieve this vision, we place a strong emphasis on delivering exceptional service that stands out in a competitive marketplace. This is complemented by our proactive approach in integrating cutting-edge technology and state-of-the-art materials into our projects. By continually investing in the latest advancements in construction techniques and environmental sustainability, we ensure that our infrastructure not only meets current industry standards but also anticipates future demands.
Our commitment to quality, sustainability, and innovation drives every project we undertake, ensuring that we consistently remain at the forefront of industry trends and client expectations.
David Brannon Chief Financial Director/ Partner
About 40 Brightwater LLC:
40 Brightwater LLC is a private holding company focusing specifically on acquiring private entities and merging its holdings with public companies by leveraging its financial network and resources through its Managing Member, President & CEO Shannon Newby.
Disclaimer: This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or solicit an offer to buy, nor will there be any sale of these securities in any jurisdiction where such an offer, solicitation, or sale would be unlawful before registration or qualification under applicable securities laws. Any offer will be made only through a prospectus supplement and accompanying base prospectus as part of an effective registration statement.
This press release is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to purchase securities. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. These statements are based on current expectations and could differ materially from actual events
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — via IBN — The 37th Annual ROTH Conference welcomed thousands of participants from around the globe to Dana Point, California, where the event has been proudly hosted for the past 25 years. This year marked more than just another successful gathering of institutional investors, company executives, and industry visionaries. It was also a milestone in Roth Capital Partners, LLC’s (ROTH) enduring commitment to the local community that has helped shape the event’s identity over the last quarter-century.
One of the most meaningful moments of the conference took place on March 17, when the City of Dana Point formally recognized Bryon Roth, Ted Roth, and Gordon Roth for their 25-year contribution to the city’s cultural, economic, and philanthropic landscape. The recognition ceremony, coordinated by the Eco Yacht Group in collaboration with Dana Point officials, brought together mayors, community leaders, nonprofit founders, and ROTH team members to celebrate the positive local impact made possible by this long-standing partnership. Mayor Matthew Pagano and Mayor Pro Tem John Gabbard presented official certificates of recognition, applauding the Roth family’s dedication to fostering opportunity, economic development, and charitable contributions since the conference began its residency in Dana Point.
The honorees received custom gift baskets curated with premium items from local and sponsor partners including El Septimo cigars and cognac, Kindred Wines, Hook Hand Rum, Perduret Champagne, Once Upon A Coconut premium beverages, and several other thoughtful tokens of appreciation that reflect both the spirit of Dana Point and the caliber of the “ROTH Experience”.
Throughout the weekend, the conference’s connection to the Dana Point community was woven into a number of thoughtfully planned experiences. In partnership with the City of Dana Point, Visit Dana Point, the Dana Point Chamber of Commerce, and local businesses such as the Dana Cliffs Marriott, attendees were welcomed not just as guests, but as contributors to a shared community story. ROTH worked with a local artist to create a custom welcome card that was placed in each hotel room, offering a heartfelt introduction to Dana Point’s coastal heritage and creative spirit. A Dana Point Heritage Walk, held in conjunction with the Challenged Athletes Foundation charity event, gave guests the chance to explore the town’s cultural and historical landmarks while engaging directly with local partners.
The spirit of giving was further highlighted through support of the California Love Drop initiative, which provides meals and supplies to first responders and communities affected by California wildfires. ROTH’s support of this initiative was represented by longtime partner Wing Lam, founder of Wahoo’s Fish Tacos, and exemplifies the company’s ongoing dedication to social impact initiatives that extend far beyond the financial sector.
Two signature gatherings helped deepen the sense of connection between conference attendees and community leaders. The Eco Yacht Group’s VIP “Tide to Table” Dinner at Glasspar Seafood & Steakhouse and the Tide to Table Yacht Luncheon in Dana Point Harbor brought together a diverse group of innovators, creatives, ocean conservationists, and executives. These experiences were supported by local sponsors including Once Upon A Coconut, Luxicon, and Stillwater Spirits & Sounds. Guests enjoyed meaningful conversations around sustainability, entrepreneurship, and shared responsibility in a setting that was both elegant and grounded in community values.
Among the many distinguished guests in attendance were ROTH CEO Sagar Sheth, CMO Isabel Mattson-Pain, ROTH Sustainability Banking Senior Advisor John Cavalier, Meta World Peace, Roma Stibravy, President of NGO Sustainability and UN Advisor to ROTH, Herbert (Beto) Bedolfe III, Founder of OCEANA, Executive Director of the Marisla Foundation, and Board Member of SIMA, Scott Kitcher, CEO of Sustain SoCal, Grammy-winning producer Jimmy Thomas, and leadership from organizations including Hollo.ai, Cox Communications, the Plastic Pollution Coalition, and the Surf Industry Manufacturers Association. Their presence spoke volumes about the type of environment ROTH continues to foster—one that blends innovation and investment with purpose and connection.
“The Dana Point community has been an incredible partner to us over the last 25 years,” said ROTH CFO Gordon Roth. “We are honored and deeply grateful for the recognition from the city. But more importantly, we are proud of the meaningful relationships we’ve built and the positive impact we’ve been able to make together. From local nonprofits and small businesses to civic leaders and artists, this conference is a success because of the people who come together to make it so.”
The ROTH Conference continues to be one of the premier investor events in the country, yet its strength lies in the relationships it cultivates—both in boardrooms and in the heart of Dana Point. As ROTH looks ahead to the next chapter, it remains committed to growing those relationships and deepening its impact as a partner, neighbor, and responsible corporate citizen.
About ROTH ROTH is a relationship-driven investment bank focused on serving growth companies and their investors. Our full-service platform provides capital raising, high-impact equity research, macroeconomics, sales and trading, technical insights, derivatives strategies, M&A advisory, and corporate access. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, ROTH is a privately held, employee-owned organization and maintains offices throughout the U.S. For more information on ROTH, please visit www.roth.com.
Investor Contact: Roth Capital Partners Isabel Mattson-Pain Managing Director, Chief Marketing Officer 949.720.7117, imattson-pain@roth.com ROTH – Member FINRA/SIPC – www.roth.com
TIBURON, Calif., April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — OvationCXM, a global leader in customer experience management (CXM), today announces the findings of the 2025 Business Banking Customer Experience Report, an in-depth look at the experiences and expectations of business banking customers across the U.S.
Business banking customers are clearly voicing their frustrations, and this comprehensive study of over 800 business owners underscores the severity. A staggering 41% report significant pain from interacting with multiple people and organizations to resolve a single issue, while another 45% are plagued by long wait times and delayed responses. The report pinpoints a primary driver of this dissatisfaction: fragmented customer journeys stemming from siloed technology and disjointed functional teams. Addressing this underlying issue presents significant opportunities to drive more revenue, enhance customer satisfaction, reduce churn, and improve crucial onboarding and activation journeys.
More Survey Highlights:
Just 31% of businesses said onboarding was seamless.
25% abandoned onboarding and never used the banking product they signed up for.
56% have to interact with 2–3 teams to resolve a single issue.
91% are asked to repeat information to different people in the bank constantly.
41% of businesses expect their bank or credit union to resolve issues within 24 hours; 82% will move on if their problem isn’t resolved in three days.
38% want proactive product recommendations, but only 44% feel their financial provider strongly understands their needs.
60% of businesses are comfortable using AI chat and voice bots for banking, but a significant minority remain reluctant.
“Our 2025 Business Banking CX Report confirms what banking clients tell us — decade-old legacy systems and data silos make it nearly impossible to provide seamless experiences to customers,” said Alfred Kahn IV, CEO and founder of OvationCXM. “They’re telling us loud and clear that the fragmented experiences caused by internal and external partner silos are no longer acceptable. As the report shows, personalization isn’t a luxury; it’s an expectation. Operational chaos must be resolved through the strategic implementation of journey orchestration. This report isn’t just data; it’s a mandate for banks to break down walls and truly deliver on the promise of a customer-centric experience.”
Journey Orchestration as a Competitive Advantage
The research underscores the critical need to thread valuable customer interaction data points across the bank’s ecosystem (internal systems, departments, and third-party partners) into one enterprise view using journey orchestration technology. Institutions can then act on the insights using AI-led journey-building tools to reduce customer frustration and delays. The business outcomes are reduced attrition, increased revenue, stronger customer loyalty and improved insights into how best to meet customer needs.
To access the full 2025 Business Banking Customer Experience Report, visit here.
About OvationCXM
OvationCXM is the premier customer journey orchestration platform that is purpose-built to help banks, credit unions, payment providers and others in the banking industry simplify and optimize customer experiences. OvationCXM enables banking providers and their ecosystem partners to create seamless onboarding and support journeys by aggregating uncoordinated data stored in a variety of systems in real time and leveraging AI to extract insights that optimize operations. By bridging gaps between systems, teams, and external partners, OvationCXM empowers financial providers to deliver personalized and proactive customer service at speed and scale. To learn more, visit www.ovationcxm.com.
Samsung, India’s largest consumer electronics brand, today announced the launch of the Galaxy M56 5G, the slimmest smartphone in its segment. The latest addition to the popular Galaxy M series offers users a superior smartphone experience with Gorilla Glass Victus+ protection on both the front and back, a 50MP Triple camera with OIS and 12 MP Front HDR camera and advanced AI editing tools.
“As part of our unwavering commitment to delivering meaningful innovations, we are proud to announce the Galaxy M56 5G — a powerful blend of style, durability, and performance like never before. It’s the slimmest phone in its segment, yet built to last, featuring Gorilla Glass Victus+ protection on both the front and back, making it the toughest M series phone ever. Whether you’re capturing memories with the Front HDR camera or exploring creative possibilities with advanced AI editing tools, the Galaxy M56 5G, with its power-packed features, is designed to redefine the smartphone experience,” said Akshay S Rao, Director, MX Business, Samsung India.
Premium Design and Display
With a premium glass back and metal camera deco, Galaxy M56 5G brings a refreshing and premium design upgrade to the Galaxy M Series. Being the slimmest in the segment, Galaxy M56 5G is only 7.2mm slim and will feature Corning® Gorilla® Glass Victus® protection on both front and back—making it as tough as it is sleek. Featuring a 6.7” Full HD+ Super AMOLED+ display, Galaxy M56 5G offers consumers stunning visuals and an elevated viewing experience. The large display comes with 1200 nits of High Brightness Mode (HBM) and Vision Booster technology ensuring users effortlessly enjoy their favourite content even under bright sunlight. The 120Hz refresh rate makes scrolling through social media feed a breeze for tech-savvy Gen-Z and millennial customers. Galaxy M56 5G will come in two mesmerizing colours – Light Green and Black.
Advanced Photography
Galaxy M56 5G comes with a 50MP OIS triple camera to shoot high-resolution and shake-free videos and photos, eliminating blurred images caused by hand tremors or accidental shakes. It features flagship-grade 12MP HDR front camera for rich and vibrant selfies. Galaxy M56 5G will enable users to record 4K 30 FPS videos in 10-bit HDR, capturing a wide range of colours for true-to-life output. The cameras are designed for vivid photos and videos—even in low light, thanks to its Big Pixel Technology, Low Noise Mode and AI ISP taking its Nightography to a different level. The camera system also features Portrait 2.0 with 2X zoom on the rear camera which enables crisp and natural bokeh effect. It will also feature advanced AI-powered editing tools like object eraser, edit suggestions that make every shot social-ready.
Monster Processor
Galaxy M56 5G is powered by 4nm based Exynos 1480 processor with LPDDR5X making it fast and power-efficient, allowing users to multi-task smoothly. The processor delivers a monster mobile gaming experience with its flagship level vapor cooling chamber along with high-quality audio and visuals. With the ultimate speed and connectivity of 5G, users will be able to stay fully connected wherever they go, experiencing faster downloads, smoother streaming, and uninterrupted browsing.
Monster Battery with Fast Charging
Galaxy M56 5G packs in 5000mAh battery that enables long sessions of browsing, gaming and binge watching. Galaxy M56 5G allows users to stay, connected, entertained and productive without interruption. Galaxy M56 5G supports 45W super-fast charging giving more power in less time.
Galaxy Experiences
Setting new industry benchmarks, Galaxy M56 5G will offer segment’s best 6 generations of Android upgrades and 6 years of security updates, ensuring a future-ready experience. Galaxy M56 5G will come with One UI 7 out of the box. One UI 7 comes with a simple, impactful and emotive design, bringing streamlined and cohesive experience to Galaxy users. A simplified home screen, redesigned One UI widgets and lock screen allow users to intuitively and seamlessly customize their devices.
For added convenience, Now Bar provides real-time updates that matter most right on the lock screen. So, during a morning run, users can easily check their progress and see what song is playing in your Galaxy Buds — all with a simple swipe, without unlocking their phone. Additionally, with deeper Google Gemini integration, controlling the device is as easy as speaking to a friend.
Galaxy M56 5G will also feature one of Samsung’s most innovative security features: Samsung Knox Vault. The hardware-based security system offers comprehensive protection against both hardware and software attacks.
Product
Variant
Introductory Price
Offers
Galaxy M56 5G
8GB+128GB
INR 24999
Including INR 3000 Instant Bank Discount
8GB+256GB
INR 27999
Including INR 3000 Instant Bank Discount
NEW YORK, April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Medallion Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: MFIN, the “Company”), a specialty finance company that originates and services loans in various consumer and commercial industries, as well as loan products and services offered through fintech strategic partners, announced today that it will report its results for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, after the market closes on Wednesday, April 30, 2025.
CONFERENCE CALL AND WEBCAST INFORMATION
A conference call to discuss the financial results will be held the next morning, May 1, 2025.
A link to the live audio webcast of the conference call will also be available at the Company’s IR website.
Replay Information
The webcast replay will be available at the Company’s IR website until the next quarter’s results are announced.
The conference call replay will be available following the end of the call through Thursday, May 8.
U.S. dial-in number: (844) 512-2921
International dial-in number: (412) 317-6671
Passcode: 1019 8552
INDIVIDUAL MEETING INFORMATION
To increase relations with institutional investors, management has dedicated time to hosting individual meetings with portfolio managers and analysts after its earnings conference call. If you are interested in scheduling a meeting with management, please contact investorrelations@medallion.com or (212) 328-2176.
About Medallion Financial Corp.
Medallion Financial Corp. (NASDAQ:MFIN) and its subsidiaries originate and service a growing portfolio of consumer loans and mezzanine loans in various industries, and loan products and services offered through fintech strategic partners. Key industries served include recreation (towable RVs and marine) and home improvement (replacement roofs, swimming pools, and windows). Medallion Financial Corp. is headquartered in New York City, NY, and its largest subsidiary, Medallion Bank, is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, please visit www.medallion.com.
Fully diluted EPS of $0.63, a 14.5% increase over the same period in 2024
Return on assets rises to over 1.00%.
Net interest margin increased 30 basis points vs. the prior quarter and 11 basis points over the prior year.
Loans grew at a 13.5% annualized rate during the first quarter.
Capital continues to improve on increased earnings and lower AOCI adjustment.
HONESDALE, Pa., April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Norwood Financial Corp (Nasdaq Global Market-NWFL) and its subsidiary, Wayne Bank, announced results for the three months March 31, 2025.
Jim Donnelly, President and Chief Executive Officer of Norwood Financial Corp and Wayne Bank, stated, “The actions that we took in December 2024 to improve our capital and earnings have given us a great start to 2025. The portfolio repositioning has improved our net interest margin. That, coupled with strong annualized growth in loans and deposits, put us on a positive trajectory for 2025. We continue to benefit from lower deposit costs together with higher assets yields and our deposit growth has allowed us to lower our use of wholesale borrowings.”
Mr. Donnelly continued, “The capital that we raised in December 2024, has strengthened our balance sheet and will allow our Company to better weather any headwinds that come with global uncertainty. Although we do not have any international business per se, we do have customers who may have exposure to developing trade conditions. Because we are a community bank we are contacting our customers to determine how we can best assist them, if necessary. Additionally, we are being prudent regarding the opportunities in front of us, taking the time to assess the effects of changing economic circumstances.”
Selected Financial Highlights
(dollars in thousands, except per share data)
Year-Over Year
Linked Quarter
Adjusted Linked Quarter1
3 Months Ended
3 Months Ended
3 Months Ended
Mar-25
Mar-24
Change
Dec-24
Change
Dec-24
Change
Net interest income
17,857
14,710
3,147
16,625
1,232
16,625
1,232
Net interest spread (fte)
2.61%
2.08%
53 bps
2.31%
30 bps
2.31%
30 bps
Net interest margin (fte)
3.30%
2.80%
50 bps
3.04%
26 bps
3.04%
26 bps
Net income (loss)
5,773
4,433
1,340
(12,651)
18,424
3,119
2,654
Diluted earnings per share
0.63
0.55
0.08
-1.54
-2.09
0.38
0.25
Return on average assets
1.01%
0.80%
21 bps
-2.19%
320 bps
0.54%
47 bps
Return on tangible equity
12.40%
11.65%
75 bps
-30.77%
(4,317 bps)
7.59%
481 bps
1 – The above table includes non-GAAP financial measures excluding the one-time $20.0 million net realized loss incurred in the fourth quarter as a result of the repositioning of our investment portfolio. Please see “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” below for a reconciliation of all non-GAAP financial measures.
Discussion of financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2025:
The Company had net income of $5.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2025, an increase $1.3 million over the same period last year.
Net interest income increased during the first quarter of 2025 compared to the first quarter of 2024 due to increases in asset yields which outpaced increases in yields on liabilities.
Correspondingly, the net interest margin in the first quarter of 2025 was 3.30% compared to 2.80% in the first quarter of 2024.
The efficiency ratio for the first quarter of 2025 was 59.7% compared to 70.6% in the first quarter of 2024.
As of March 31, 2025, total assets were $2.376 billion, compared to $2.260 billion at March 31, 2024, an increase of 5.07%.
Loans receivable were $1.771 billion at March 31 2025, compared to $1.621 billion at March 31, 2024, an increase of 9.24%.
Total deposits were $2.004 billion at March 31 2025, compared to $1.839 billion at March 31, 2024, an increase of 9.00%.
Tangible Common Equity was 8.16% as of March 31, 2025, versus 6.80% at March 31, 2024.
Tangible Book Value per share increased $0.81 from $19.85 at December 31, 2024 to $20.66 at March 31, 2025.
Norwood Financial Corp is the parent company of Wayne Bank, which operates from sixteen offices throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania and fourteen offices in Delaware, Sullivan, Ontario, Otsego and Yates Counties, New York. The Company’s stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “NWFL”.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
This release references adjusted net income, adjusted diluted earnings per share, adjusted return on average assets and adjusted return on tangible equity, all of which are non-GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) financial measures. Adjusted values were derived by reversing the effect of loss on sale of securities in December 2024 along with the attendant tax effect. We believe the presentation of adjusted net income, adjusted diluted earnings per share, adjusted return on average assets and adjusted return on tangible equity ensures comparability of these measures as the portfolio restructuring is not something the Company expects to be a recurring event.
Adjusted Return on Average Assets
(Dollars in thousands)
Three Months Ended
December 31, 2024
Net (loss) income
$
(12,651)
Average assets
2,299,732
Return on average assets (annualized)
-2.19
%
Net (loss) income
(12,651)
Net realized losses on sale of securities
19,962
Tax effect at 21%
(4,192)
Adjusted Net Income (Non-GAAP)
3,119
Average assets
2,299,732
Adjusted return on average assets (annualized)
(Non-GAAP)
0.54
%
Adjusted Return on Average Tangible Shareholders’ Equity
(Dollars in thousands)
Three Months Ended
December 31, 2024
Net (loss) income
$
(12,651)
Average shareholders’ equity
192,981
Average intangible assets
29,424
Average tangible shareholders’ equity
163,557
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (annualized)
-30.77
%
Net (loss) income
(12,651)
Net realized losses on sale of securities
19,962
Tax effect at 21%
(4,192)
Adjusted Net Income (Non-GAAP)
3,119
Average tangible shareholders’ equity
163,557
Adjusted return on average shareholders’ equity (annualized)
(Non-GAAP)
7.59
%
Adjusted Earnings Per Share
(Dollars in thousands)
Three Months Ended
December 31, 2024
GAAP-Based Earnings Per Share, Basic
$
(1.54)
GAAP-Based Earnings Per Share, Diluted
$
(1.54)
Net (Loss) Income
(12,651)
Net realized losses on sale of securities
19,962
Tax effect at 21%
(4,192)
Adjusted Net Income (Non-GAAP)
3,119
Adjusted Earnings per Share, Basic (Non-GAAP)
$
0.38
Adjusted Earnings per Share, Diluted (Non-GAAP)
$
0.38
The following table reconciles average equity to average tangible equity:
For the Period Ended
(dollars in thousands)
March 31
2025
2024
Average equity
$
218,194
$
182,088
Average goodwill and other intangibles
(29,409
)
(29,476
)
Average tangible equity
$
188,785
$
152,612
Forward-Looking Statements
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 contains safe harbor provisions regarding forward-looking statements. When used in this discussion, the words “believes”, “anticipates”, “contemplates”, “expects”, “bode”, “future performance” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Those risks and uncertainties include, among other things, changes in federal and state laws, changes in interest rates, our ability to maintain strong credit quality metrics, our ability to have future performance, our ability to control core operating expenses and costs, demand for real estate, government fiscal and trade policies, cybersecurity and general economic conditions. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the results of any revisions to those forward-looking statements which may be made to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
Contact: John M. McCaffery Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer NORWOOD FINANCIAL CORP 272-304-3003 www.waynebank.com
NORWOOD FINANCIAL CORP
Consolidated Balance Sheets
(dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)
(unaudited)
March 31
2025
2024
ASSETS
Cash and due from banks
$
31,729
$
19,519
Interest-bearing deposits with banks
43,678
92,444
Cash and cash equivalents
75,407
111,963
Securities available for sale
408,742
398,374
Loans receivable
1,771,269
1,621,448
Less: Allowance for credit losses
20,442
18,020
Net loans receivable
1,750,827
1,603,428
Regulatory stock, at cost
7,616
6,545
Bank premises and equipment, net
20,273
18,057
Bank owned life insurance
46,914
45,869
Foreclosed real estate owned
–
97
Accrued interest receivable
8,587
8,135
Deferred tax assets, net
17,859
21,642
Goodwill
29,266
29,266
Other intangible assets
136
202
Other assets
10,417
16,845
TOTAL ASSETS
$
2,376,044
$
2,260,423
LIABILITIES
Deposits:
Non-interest bearing demand
$
391,377
$
383,362
Interest-bearing
1,613,071
1,455,636
Total deposits
2,004,448
1,838,998
Short-term borrowings
–
60,055
Other borrowings
118,590
151,179
Accrued interest payable
13,864
11,737
Other liabilities
18,435
17,241
TOTAL LIABILITIES
2,155,337
2,079,210
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Preferred Stock, no par value per share, authorized 5,000,000 shares
Barclays and JP Morgan were the top mergers and acquisitions (M&A) financial advisers in the technology, media, and telecom sector during the first quarter (Q1) of 2025 by value and volume, respectively, according to the latest financial advisers league table by GlobalData, which ranks financial advisers by the value and volume of M&A deals on which they advised.
Based on its Deals Database, the leading data and analytics company has revealed that Barclays achieved its leading position in terms of value by advising on $44.1 billion worth of deals. Meanwhile, JP Morgan led in terms of volume by advising on a total of 17 deals.
Aurojyoti Bose, Lead Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “JP Morgan registered growth in the total number of deals advised by it during Q1 2025 compared to Q1 2024, and consequently its ranking by volume also improved from fourth to the top position. Of the deals advised by JP Morgan during Q1 2025, nine were billion-dollar deals*, which helped it occupy the third position by value as well during Q1 2025.
“Meanwhile, Barclays, despite involvement in a relatively much lesser number of deals, managed to top the chart by value in Q1 2025. Involvement in the $32 billion Google-Wiz M&A deal played a pivotal role for Barclays in securing the top position.”
An analysis of GlobalData’s Deals Database reveals that Goldman Sachs occupied the second position in terms of value, by advising on $38.6 billion worth of deals, followed by JP Morgan with $31.7 billion, Morgan Stanley with $21.6 billion, and Bank of America with $16.5 billion.
Meanwhile, Houlihan Lokey occupied the second position in terms of volume with 16 deals, followed by Goldman Sachs with 14 deals, Canaccord Genuity Group with 11 deals, and Raymond James Financial with 11 deals.
OGDEN, Utah, April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — TAB Bank closed a $4 million asset-based lending (ABL) and $2.5 million equipment loan with HydroEdge Solutions, a leading water transfer and fluid management services provider for the energy industry. This capital will allow HydroEdge Solutions to expand its operations, furthering its commitment to efficiency, safety and sustainability.
HydroEdge Solutions, based in Canonsburg, PA, specializes in delivering fluid management solutions, ensuring the seamless transfer of fluids from the source to the destination without leaks, interruptions or incidents. The company’s services include automation, trucking and water transfer with a focus on safety and environmental responsibility.
“We are excited to partner with HydroEdge Solutions in providing tailored financial solutions to support its growth,” said Bill Bahls, Vice President of Business Development at TAB Bank. “TAB Bank specializes in supporting innovative companies like HydroEdge with a combination of working capital and equipment financing. The right balance of financing types allows companies to acquire the necessary equipment while maintaining the liquidity they need for operational and scalable growth.”
TAB Bank structured the deal as an accounts receivable (AR)-only ABL facility, with an initial funding of $4.4 million—comprised of both ABL and new equipment funding lines. This working capital and equipment financing will support HydroEdge Solutions’ growth trajectory, strengthening operational stability and supporting expansion.
“We have really enjoyed working with the team from TAB Bank,” said John Folino, CFO of Myers Water Transfer, LLC dba HydroEdge Solutions. “They have been instrumental in crafting a credit solution unique to our company’s needs that will prove to be vital as we scale. We look forward to continuing to work with them in the months and years to come as a trusted financial partner.”
TAB Bank offers customized financial solutions to small and midsized businesses across various industries, specializing in asset-based lending, equipment financing and working capital solutions. By partnering with companies like HydroEdge Solutions, TAB Bank reaffirms its mission—building value by providing bold financial solutions that lift and empower.
About TAB Bank At TAB Bank, our mission is to unlock dreams with bold financial solutions that empower individuals and businesses nationwide. We are committed to making financial success accessible to everyone through our innovative banking products. Our dedication drives us to continuously improve, ensuring that we meet the evolving needs of our clients with excellence and agility. For over 25 years, we have remained steadfast in offering tailored, technology-enabled solutions designed to simplify and enhance the banking experience.
For more information about how we can help you achieve your financial dreams, visit www.TABBank.com.
GOLDEN, Colo. and SOLANA BEACH, Calif., April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — SHF Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Safe Harbor Financial (Safe Harbor) (Nasdaq: SHFS), a fintech leader in facilitating financial services and credit facilities to the regulated cannabis industry, announced a strategic partnership with FundCanna, the leading provider of flexible capital solutions for cannabis operators. Through a mutual referral agreement, the two companies will collaborate to bring accessible, transparent funding options and compliant banking services to cannabis-related businesses (CRBs) across the United States.
This partnership enables FundCanna to introduce clients to Safe Harbor; and Safe Harbor to introduce qualified clients to FundCanna for working capital, equipment financing and other credit-based solutions. Under the agreement, all FundCanna-approved clients referred by Safe Harbor will be onboarded to deposit loan proceeds directly into Safe Harbor-managed bank accounts, ensuring full regulatory compliance and transparency.
“As the cannabis industry continues to face limitations from traditional financial institutions, this partnership delivers a practical, scalable solution that puts the financial needs of cannabis operators first,” said Terry Mendez, CEO of Safe Harbor Financial. “By onboarding FundCanna into our Safe Harbor Lends ecosystem, we’re able to enhance our ability to connect our clients to the capital they need—empowering them to grow their businesses, manage cash flow and pursue new opportunities in an industry still largely underserved.”
“Our partnership with Safe Harbor Financial brings together two trusted platforms dedicated to solving persistent financial barriers in cannabis,” said Adam Stettner, founder and CEO of FundCanna. “We’re focused on helping cannabis businesses succeed with smart, simple capital solutions. This collaboration expands our reach and strengthens our commitment to supporting operators through every step of their financial journey—from funding solutions to banking.”
The partnership comes at a critical time for cannabis operators, with many facing cash constraints due to ongoing regulatory hurdles and limited access to traditional capital. Together, FundCanna and Safe Harbor aim to close this gap by offering cannabis businesses an end-to-end solution for their financing and banking needs.
About FundCanna FundCanna is the leading source of debt capital to the cannabis industry. The funding products FundCanna offers are customizable, flexible, renewable and reliable. The financing offered is designed exclusively for cannabis operations and the ancillary companies that support the industry.
For more than 20 years, their team of financial experts has provided $20 billion in funding to underserved businesses and individuals across the country. Adam Stettner, founder and CEO, has successfully founded and run finance companies for the past 20 plus years, earning numerous national awards and recognition notably including EY’s Entrepreneur of the Year and seven showings on the Inc. 500/5000.
Stettner and his team have focused their efforts exclusively on financing licensed cannabis operators and ancillary providers since 2021. For more information about cannabis financing, visit FundCanna.com.
About Safe Harbor: Safe Harbor (Nasdaq: SHFS) is among the first service providers to offer compliance, monitoring and validation services to financial institutions that provide traditional banking services to cannabis, hemp, CBD and ancillary operators, making communities safer, driving growth in local economies and fostering long-term partnerships. Safe Harbor, through its financial institution clients, implements high standards of accountability, transparency, monitoring, reporting and risk mitigation measures while meeting Bank Secrecy Act obligations in line with FinCEN guidance on cannabis-related businesses. Over the past decade, Safe Harbor has facilitated more than $25 billion in deposit transactions for businesses with operations spanning more than 41 states and U.S. territories with regulated cannabis markets. For more information, visit www.shfinancial.org.
Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements: Certain information contained in this press release may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements other than statements of historical facts included herein may constitute forward-looking statements and are not guarantees of future performance or results and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements may include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to trends in the cannabis industry, including proposed changes in U.S and state laws, rules, regulations and guidance relating to Safe Harbor’s services; Safe Harbor’s growth prospects and Safe Harbor’s market size; Safe Harbor’s projected financial and operational performance, including relative to its competitors and historical performance; success or viability of new product and service offerings Safe Harbor may introduce in the future; the impact volatility in the capital markets, which may adversely affect the price of Safe Harbor’s securities; the outcome of any legal proceedings that have been or may be brought by or against Safe Harbor; and other statements regarding Safe Harbor’s expectations, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future. In addition, any statements that refer to projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intends,” “outlook,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “would,” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements are predictions, projections and other statements about future events that are based on current expectations and assumptions and, as a result, are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those described from time to time in Safe Harbor’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Safe Harbor undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statement made herein. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release.
Safe Harbor Investor Relations Contact: Mike Regan, Head of Safe Harbor Investor Relations and Data Science ir@SHFinancial.org
Safe Harbor Media Relations Contact: Ellen Mellody 570-209-2947 safeharbor@kcsa.com
BEIJING, April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — KE Holdings Inc. (“Beike” or the “Company”) (NYSE: BEKE; HKEX: 2423), a leading integrated online and offline platform for housing transactions and services, today announced that it will hold an annual general meeting of the Company’s shareholders (the “AGM”) at 10:00 a.m. Beijing time on Friday, June 13, 2025 at Oriental Electronic Technology Building, No. 2 Chuangye Road, Haidian District, Beijing, PRC, for the purposes of considering and, if thought fit, passing each of the Proposed Resolutions as defined and set forth in the notice of the AGM (the “AGM Notice”). A circular of the Company dated April 17, 2025 in relation to the AGM, the AGM Notice and the form of proxy for the AGM are available on the Company’s website at https://investors.ke.com/. The board of directors of the Company fully supports the Proposed Resolutions and recommends that shareholders and holders of American depositary shares (“ADSs”) of the Company vote in favor of the Proposed Resolutions.
Holders of record of the Company’s ordinary shares as of the close of business on May 13, 2025, Hong Kong time, are entitled to receive notice of, and to attend and vote at, the AGM or any adjournment or postponement thereof. Holders of record of ADSs as of the close of business on May 13, 2025, New York time, who wish to exercise their voting rights for the underlying Class A ordinary shares must give voting instructions to The Bank of New York Mellon, the depositary of the ADSs, if the ADSs are held by holders on the books and records of the depositary, or indirectly through a bank, brokerage or other securities intermediary, if the ADSs are held by any of them on behalf of holders of the ADSs.
The Company has filed its annual report on Form 20-F, including its audited financial statements, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Company’s annual report on Form 20-F can be accessed on the Company’s website at https://investors.ke.com/ and on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.
About KE Holdings Inc.
KE Holdings Inc. is a leading integrated online and offline platform for housing transactions and services. The Company is a pioneer in building infrastructure and standards to reinvent how service providers and customers efficiently navigate and complete housing transactions and services in China, ranging from existing and new home sales, home rentals, to home renovation and furnishing, and other services. The Company owns and operates Lianjia, China’s leading real estate brokerage brand and an integral part of its Beike platform. With more than 23 years of operating experience through Lianjia since its inception in 2001, the Company believes the success and proven track record of Lianjia pave the way for it to build its infrastructure and standards and drive the rapid and sustainable growth of Beike.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains statements that may constitute “forward-looking” statements pursuant to the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as “will,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “aims,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates,” “likely to,” and similar statements. Beike may also make written or oral forward-looking statements in its periodic reports to the SEC and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Hong Kong Stock Exchange”), in its annual report to shareholders, in press releases and other written materials and in oral statements made by its officers, directors or employees to third parties. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about KE Holdings Inc.’s beliefs, plans, and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement, including but not limited to the following: Beike’s goals and strategies; Beike’s future business development, financial condition and results of operations; expected changes in the Company’s revenues, costs or expenditures; Beike’s ability to empower services and facilitate transactions on Beike platform; competition in the industry in which Beike operates; relevant government policies and regulations relating to the industry; Beike’s ability to protect the Company’s systems and infrastructures from cyber-attacks; Beike’s dependence on the integrity of brokerage brands, stores and agents on the Company’s platform; general economic and business conditions in China and globally; and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing. Further information regarding these and other risks is included in KE Holdings Inc.’s filings with the SEC and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. All information provided in this press release is as of the date of this press release, and KE Holdings Inc. does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, except as required under applicable law.
ECB President Christine Lagarde explains the Governing Council’s monetary policy decisions and will answer questions from journalists at the Governing Council press conference to be held on 17 April 2025 at 14:45 CET in Frankfurt am Main.
Source: State University Higher School of Economics – State University Higher School of Economics –
Within the framework XXV Yasinsky (April) International Scientific Conference The former head of the Bank of Russia, professor of the Department of Finance and Credit of the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, Sergei Dubinin, gave an honorary report. He spoke about the transformation of the global monetary and financial system and the Russian economy.
As Sergey Dubinin noted, one of the main trends that became noticeable after the pandemic and is observed now is the fragmentation of the global world economy. “This fragmentation today constitutes some stage, a phase of globalization. It was initially understood as deglobalization, complete collapse, but it quickly became clear that the situation is not quite like that,” the speaker noted. Fragmentation leads to a slowdown in international trade, and to an increase in barriers to the movement of goods, services, labor, and restrictions on the spread of technology. These trends are causing concern among many experts.
Fragmentation is very noticeable in the relations between countries. Blocks are being created that are oriented towards the US and China. There are also so-called neutral states, intermediary countries. For example, India or Mexico, they “want to be intermediaries in both trade and financial transactions,” says Sergey Dubinin. “Economic relations are developing more actively within the blocks. Both trade [transactions] and capital movement between the blocks are facing restrictions, in particular tariffs,” he says. At the same time, the latest news about the increase in tariffs by US President Donald Trump is strengthening these trends, the expert notes.
Against the backdrop of events in the global economy, confidence in American securities has declined. “It was a safe haven,” notes Sergei Dubinin. “And that was the advantage of the American financial market system, when even in the conditions of a crisis that began on the US market, US government securities were considered the best insurance asset. And very large amounts of money were directed there.” And in recent years, there has been a noticeable decline in investments in these securities.
“Right now there is an acute phase in the relationship between China and the United States. It can lead to various consequences, both for political and economic life,” the expert notes. And here it is important to understand what position Russia wants to take. “Recently, we have heard a lot of talk about Russian-American joint economic projects,” says Sergey Dubinin. One point of view is that it is better to take the position of an intermediary country than to unilaterally focus on one country.
The former head of the Central Bank also spoke about the state of the Russian financial sector. He noted that despite numerous sanctions, the position of banks remains stable. The volume of net profit of banks in 2024 reached more than 4 trillion rubles. According to him, there are currently just over 300 credit institutions left on the market, and only 35 banks were unprofitable. He recalled that “during the period from 2010 to 2020, 681 banks were closed.”
As a result, according to Sergei Dubinin, a “highly concentrated and fairly stable” system has now emerged. The top ten largest Russian banks, which include systemically important players, account for almost 80% of the banking system’s assets. At the same time, “quality indicators remain quite good.”
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
First quarter 2025 net income of$47.0 millionand net income available to common stockholders of$42.7 million, or$0.92per diluted share
Strong balance sheet growth with total deposits increasing 9% and total loans growing 7% year-over-year
Book Value and Tangible Book Value(1)per share both increasing 11% year-over-year, reaching record levels
Capital ratios continue to be strong, including11.6%CET1 and15.6%Total Capital
DALLAS, April 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCBI), the parent company of Texas Capital Bank, announced operating results for the first quarter of 2025.
“We continue to leverage our diversified product suite and financially resilient balance sheet to effectively support our clients’ objectives,” said Rob C. Holmes, Chairman, President & CEO. “With significant year-over-year improvements to many key financial and operating metrics, we remain focused on achieving published financial targets in the back-half of this year.”
1st Quarter
4th Quarter
1st Quarter
(dollars in thousands except per share data)
2025
2024
2024
OPERATING RESULTS
Net income
$
47,047
$
71,023
$
26,142
Net income available to common stockholders
$
42,734
$
66,711
$
21,829
Pre-provision net revenue(3)
$
77,458
$
111,522
$
53,935
Diluted earnings per common share
$
0.92
$
1.43
$
0.46
Diluted common shares
46,616,704
46,770,961
47,711,192
Return on average assets
0.61
%
0.88
%
0.36
%
Return on average common equity
5.56
%
8.50
%
3.03
%
OPERATING RESULTS, ADJUSTED(2)
Net income
$
47,047
$
71,023
$
33,898
Net income available to common stockholders
$
42,734
$
66,711
$
29,585
Pre-provision net revenue(3)
$
77,458
$
111,522
$
63,953
Diluted earnings per common share
$
0.92
$
1.43
$
0.62
Diluted common shares
46,616,704
46,770,961
47,711,192
Return on average assets
0.61
%
0.88
%
0.47
%
Return on average common equity
5.56
%
8.50
%
4.11
%
BALANCE SHEET
Loans held for investment
$
17,654,243
$
17,234,492
$
16,677,691
Loans held for investment, mortgage finance
4,725,541
5,215,574
4,153,313
Total loans held for investment
22,379,784
22,450,066
20,831,004
Loans held for sale
—
—
37,750
Total assets
31,375,749
30,731,883
29,180,585
Non-interest bearing deposits
7,874,780
7,485,428
8,478,215
Total deposits
26,053,034
25,238,599
23,954,037
Stockholders’ equity
3,429,774
3,367,936
3,170,662
(1) Stockholders’ equity excluding preferred stock, less goodwill and intangibles, divided by shares outstanding at period end. (2) These adjusted measures are non-GAAP measures. Please refer to “GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations” for the computations of these adjusted measures and the reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure. (3) Net interest income plus non-interest income, less non-interest expense.
FIRSTQUARTER2025COMPARED TOFOURTHQUARTER 2024
For the first quarter of 2025, net income available to common stockholders was $42.7 million, or $0.92 per diluted share, compared to $66.7 million, or $1.43 per diluted share, for the fourth quarter of 2024.
Provision for credit losses for the first quarter of 2025 was $17.0 million, compared to $18.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024. The $17.0 million provision for credit losses recorded in the first quarter of 2025 resulted primarily from an increase in criticized loans and $9.8 million in net charge-offs, as well as uncertainty in the economic outlook.
Net interest income was $236.0 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $229.6 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, as a decrease in funding costs was partially offset by a decrease in average earning assets. Net interest margin for the first quarter of 2025 was 3.19%, an increase of 26 basis points from the fourth quarter of 2024. LHI, excluding mortgage finance, yields increased 3 basis points from the fourth quarter of 2024 and LHI, mortgage finance, yields increased 20 basis points from the fourth quarter of 2024. Total cost of deposits was 2.76% for the first quarter of 2025, a 5 basis point decrease from the fourth quarter of 2024.
Non-interest income for the first quarter of 2025 decreased $9.6 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2024 primarily due to a decrease in investment banking and advisory fees.
Non-interest expense for the first quarter of 2025 increased $30.9 million, or 18%, compared to the fourth quarter of 2024, primarily due to an increase in salaries and benefits, primarily as a result of the effect of seasonal payroll expenses that peak in the first quarter.
FIRSTQUARTER2025COMPARED TOFIRSTQUARTER2024
Net income available to common stockholders was $42.7 million, or $0.92 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $21.8 million, or $0.46 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2024.
The first quarter of 2025 included a $17.0 million provision for credit losses, reflecting an increase in criticized loans, $9.8 million in net charge-offs and uncertainty in the economic outlook, compared to a $19.0 million provision for credit losses for the first quarter of 2024.
Net interest income increased to $236.0 million for the first quarter of 2025, compared to $215.0 million for the first quarter of 2024, primarily due to an increase in average total LHI and a decrease in funding costs, partially offset by an increase in average interest bearing liabilities and a decrease in earning asset yields. Net interest margin increased 16 basis points to 3.19% for the first quarter of 2025, as compared to the first quarter of 2024. LHI, excluding mortgage finance, yields decreased 41 basis points compared to the first quarter of 2024 and LHI, mortgage finance yields increased 33 basis points from the first quarter of 2024. Total cost of deposits decreased 21 basis points compared to the first quarter of 2024.
Non-interest income for the first quarter of 2025 increased $3.1 million compared to the first quarter of 2024 primarily due to increases in service charges on deposit accounts, trading income and other non-interest income, partially offset by a decrease in investment banking and advisory fees.
Non-interest expense for the first quarter of 2025 increased $627,000 compared to the first quarter of 2024, primarily due to increases in salaries and benefits and communications and technology expense, partially offset by a decrease in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) expense. The first quarter of 2024 included $3.0 million in additional FDIC special assessment expense.
CREDIT QUALITY
Net charge-offs of $9.8 million were recorded during the first quarter of 2025, compared to net charge-offs of $12.1 million and $10.8 million during the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2024, respectively. Criticized loans totaled $762.9 million at March 31, 2025, compared to $714.0 million at December 31, 2024 and $859.5 million at March 31, 2024. Non-accrual LHI totaled $93.6 million at March 31, 2025, compared to $111.2 million at December 31, 2024 and $92.8 million at March 31, 2024. The ratio of non-accrual LHI to total LHI for the first quarter of 2025 was 0.42%, compared to 0.50% for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 0.45% for the first quarter of 2024. The ratio of total allowance for credit losses to total LHI was 1.48% at March 31, 2025, compared to 1.45% and 1.46% at December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2024, respectively.
REGULATORY RATIOS AND CAPITAL
All regulatory ratios continue to be in excess of “well capitalized” requirements as of March 31, 2025. CET1, tier 1 capital, total capital and leverage ratios were 11.6%, 13.1%, 15.6% and 11.8%, respectively, at March 31, 2025, compared to 11.4%, 12.8%, 15.4% and 11.3%, respectively, at December 31, 2024 and 12.4%, 13.9%, 16.6% and 12.4%, respectively, at March 31, 2024. At March 31, 2025, our ratio of tangible common equity to total tangible assets was 10.0%, compared to 10.0% at December 31, 2024 and 9.8% at March 31, 2024.
During the first quarter of 2025, the Company repurchased 396,106 shares of its common stock for an aggregate purchase price, including excise tax expense, of $31.2 million, at a weighted average price of $78.25 per share.
About Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc.
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ®: TCBI), a member of the Russell 2000®Index and the S&P MidCap 400®, is the parent company of Texas Capital Bank (“TCB”). Texas Capital is the collective brand name for TCB and its separate, non-bank affiliates and wholly-owned subsidiaries. Texas Capital is a full-service financial services firm that delivers customized solutions to businesses, entrepreneurs and individual customers. Founded in 1998, the institution is headquartered in Dallas with offices in Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth, and has built a network of clients across the country. With the ability to service clients through their entire lifecycles, Texas Capital has established commercial banking, consumer banking, investment banking and wealth management capabilities.
Forward Looking Statements
This communication contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of and pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding, among other things, TCBI’s financial condition, results of operations, business plans and future performance. These statements are not historical in nature and may often be identified by the use of words such as “believes,” “projects,” “expects,” “may,” “estimates,” “should,” “plans,” “targets,” “intends” “could,” “would,” “anticipates,” “potential,” “confident,” “optimistic” or the negative thereof, or other variations thereon, or comparable terminology, or by discussions of strategy, objectives, estimates, trends, guidance, expectations and future plans.
Because forward-looking statements relate to future results and occurrences, they are subject to inherent and various uncertainties, risks, and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict, may change over time, are based on management’s expectations and assumptions at the time the statements are made and are not guarantees of future results. Numerous risks and other factors, many of which are beyond management’s control, could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. While there can be no assurance that any list of risks is complete, important risks and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: economic or business conditions in Texas, the United States or globally that impact TCBI or its customers; negative credit quality developments arising from the foregoing or other factors, including recent trade policies and their impact on our customers; TCBI’s ability to effectively manage its liquidity and maintain adequate regulatory capital to support its businesses; TCBI’s ability to pursue and execute upon growth plans, whether as a function of capital, liquidity or other limitations; TCBI’s ability to successfully execute its business strategy, including its strategic plan and developing and executing new lines of business and new products and services and potential strategic acquisitions; the extensive regulations to which TCBI is subject and its ability to comply with applicable governmental regulations, including legislative and regulatory changes; TCBI’s ability to effectively manage information technology systems, including third party vendors, cyber or data privacy incidents or other failures, disruptions or security breaches; TCBI’s ability to use technology to provide products and services to its customers; risks related to the development and use of artificial intelligence; changes in interest rates, including the impact of interest rates on TCBI’s securities portfolio and funding costs, as well as related balance sheet implications stemming from the fair value of our assets and liabilities; the effectiveness of TCBI’s risk management processes strategies and monitoring; fluctuations in commercial and residential real estate values, especially as they relate to the value of collateral supporting TCBI’s loans; the failure to identify, attract and retain key personnel and other employees; adverse developments in the banking industry and the potential impact of such developments on customer confidence, liquidity and regulatory responses to these developments, including in the context of regulatory examinations and related findings and actions; negative press and social media attention with respect to the banking industry or TCBI, in particular; claims, litigation or regulatory investigations and actions that TCBI may become subject to; severe weather, natural disasters, climate change, acts of war, terrorism, global conflict (including those already reported by the media, as well as others that may arise), or other external events, as well as related legislative and regulatory initiatives; and the risks and factors more fully described in TCBI’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other documents and filings with the SEC. The information contained in this communication speaks only as of its date. Except to the extent required by applicable law or regulation, we disclaim any obligation to update such factors or to publicly announce the results of any revisions to any of the forward-looking statements included herein to reflect future events or developments.
TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.
SELECTED FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (UNAUDITED)
(dollars in thousands except per share data)
1st Quarter
4th Quarter
3rd Quarter
2nd Quarter
1st Quarter
2025
2024
2024
2024
2024
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
Interest income
$
427,289
$
437,571
$
452,533
$
422,068
$
417,378
Interest expense
191,255
207,964
212,431
205,486
202,369
Net interest income
236,034
229,607
240,102
216,582
215,009
Provision for credit losses
17,000
18,000
10,000
20,000
19,000
Net interest income after provision for credit losses
219,034
211,607
230,102
196,582
196,009
Non-interest income
44,444
54,074
(114,771
)
50,424
41,319
Non-interest expense
203,020
172,159
195,324
188,409
202,393
Income/(loss) before income taxes
60,458
93,522
(79,993
)
58,597
34,935
Income tax expense/(benefit)
13,411
22,499
(18,674
)
16,935
8,793
Net income/(loss)
47,047
71,023
(61,319
)
41,662
26,142
Preferred stock dividends
4,313
4,312
4,313
4,312
4,313
Net income/(loss) available to common stockholders
$
42,734
$
66,711
$
(65,632
)
$
37,350
$
21,829
Diluted earnings/(loss) per common share
$
0.92
$
1.43
$
(1.41
)
$
0.80
$
0.46
Diluted common shares
46,616,704
46,770,961
46,608,742
46,872,498
47,711,192
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET DATA
Total assets
$
31,375,749
$
30,731,883
$
31,629,299
$
29,854,994
$
29,180,585
Loans held for investment
17,654,243
17,234,492
16,764,512
16,700,569
16,677,691
Loans held for investment, mortgage finance
4,725,541
5,215,574
5,529,659
5,078,161
4,153,313
Loans held for sale
—
—
9,022
36,785
37,750
Interest bearing cash and cash equivalents
3,600,969
3,012,307
3,894,537
2,691,352
3,148,157
Investment securities
4,531,219
4,396,115
4,405,520
4,388,976
4,414,280
Non-interest bearing deposits
7,874,780
7,485,428
9,070,804
7,987,715
8,478,215
Total deposits
26,053,034
25,238,599
25,865,255
23,818,327
23,954,037
Short-term borrowings
750,000
885,000
1,035,000
1,675,000
750,000
Long-term debt
660,521
660,346
660,172
659,997
859,823
Stockholders’ equity
3,429,774
3,367,936
3,354,044
3,175,601
3,170,662
End of period shares outstanding
46,024,933
46,233,812
46,207,757
46,188,078
46,986,275
Book value per share
$
68.00
$
66.36
$
66.09
$
62.26
$
61.10
Tangible book value per share(1)
$
67.97
$
66.32
$
66.06
$
62.23
$
61.06
SELECTED FINANCIAL RATIOS
Net interest margin
3.19
%
2.93
%
3.16
%
3.01
%
3.03
%
Return on average assets
0.61
%
0.88
%
(0.78
)%
0.56
%
0.36
%
Return on average assets, adjusted(4)
0.61
%
0.88
%
1.00
%
0.57
%
0.47
%
Return on average common equity
5.56
%
8.50
%
(8.87
)%
5.26
%
3.03
%
Return on average common equity, adjusted(4)
5.56
%
8.50
%
10.04
%
5.31
%
4.11
%
Efficiency ratio(2)
72.4
%
60.7
%
155.8
%
70.6
%
79.0
%
Efficiency ratio, adjusted(2)(4)
72.4
%
60.7
%
62.3
%
70.4
%
75.1
%
Non-interest income to average earning assets
0.60
%
0.69
%
(1.52
)%
0.71
%
0.59
%
Non-interest income to average earning assets, adjusted(4)
0.60
%
0.69
%
0.86
%
0.71
%
0.59
%
Non-interest expense to average earning assets
2.75
%
2.21
%
2.59
%
2.65
%
2.89
%
Non-interest expense to average earning assets, adjusted(4)
2.75
%
2.21
%
2.52
%
2.65
%
2.74
%
Common equity to total assets
10.0
%
10.0
%
9.7
%
9.6
%
9.8
%
Tangible common equity to total tangible assets(3)
10.0
%
10.0
%
9.7
%
9.6
%
9.8
%
Common Equity Tier 1
11.6
%
11.4
%
11.2
%
11.6
%
12.4
%
Tier 1 capital
13.1
%
12.8
%
12.6
%
13.1
%
13.9
%
Total capital
15.6
%
15.4
%
15.2
%
15.7
%
16.6
%
Leverage
11.8
%
11.3
%
11.4
%
12.2
%
12.4
%
(1) Stockholders’ equity excluding preferred stock, less goodwill and intangibles, divided by shares outstanding at period end. (2) Non-interest expense divided by the sum of net interest income and non-interest income. (3) Stockholders’ equity excluding preferred stock, less goodwill and intangibles, divided by total assets, less goodwill and intangibles. (4) These adjusted measures are non-GAAP measures. Please refer to “GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations” for the computations of these adjusted measures and the reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure.
TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)
(dollars in thousands)
March 31, 2025
December 31, 2024
September 30, 2024
June 30, 2024
March 31, 2024
Assets
Cash and due from banks
$
201,504
$
176,501
$
297,048
$
221,727
$
167,985
Interest bearing cash and cash equivalents
3,600,969
3,012,307
3,894,537
2,691,352
3,148,157
Available-for-sale debt securities
3,678,378
3,524,686
3,518,662
3,483,231
3,491,510
Held-to-maturity debt securities
779,354
796,168
812,432
831,513
849,283
Equity securities
71,679
75,261
74,426
74,232
73,487
Trading securities
1,808
—
—
—
—
Investment securities
4,531,219
4,396,115
4,405,520
4,388,976
4,414,280
Loans held for sale
—
—
9,022
36,785
37,750
Loans held for investment, mortgage finance
4,725,541
5,215,574
5,529,659
5,078,161
4,153,313
Loans held for investment
17,654,243
17,234,492
16,764,512
16,700,569
16,677,691
Less: Allowance for credit losses on loans
278,379
271,709
273,143
267,297
263,962
Loans held for investment, net
22,101,405
22,178,357
22,021,028
21,511,433
20,567,042
Premises and equipment, net
84,575
85,443
81,577
69,464
49,899
Accrued interest receivable and other assets
854,581
881,664
919,071
933,761
793,976
Goodwill and intangibles, net
1,496
1,496
1,496
1,496
1,496
Total assets
$
31,375,749
$
30,731,883
$
31,629,299
$
29,854,994
$
29,180,585
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Liabilities:
Non-interest bearing deposits
$
7,874,780
$
7,485,428
$
9,070,804
$
7,987,715
$
8,478,215
Interest bearing deposits
18,178,254
17,753,171
16,794,451
15,830,612
15,475,822
Total deposits
26,053,034
25,238,599
25,865,255
23,818,327
23,954,037
Accrued interest payable
25,270
23,680
18,679
23,841
32,352
Other liabilities
457,150
556,322
696,149
502,228
413,711
Short-term borrowings
750,000
885,000
1,035,000
1,675,000
750,000
Long-term debt
660,521
660,346
660,172
659,997
859,823
Total liabilities
27,945,975
27,363,947
28,275,255
26,679,393
26,009,923
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, $.01 par value, $1,000 liquidation value:
Authorized shares – 10,000,000
Issued shares(1)
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
Common stock, $.01 par value:
Authorized shares – 100,000,000
Issued shares(2)
517
515
515
515
514
Additional paid-in capital
1,060,028
1,056,719
1,054,614
1,050,114
1,044,669
Retained earnings
2,538,385
2,495,651
2,428,940
2,494,572
2,457,222
Treasury stock(3)
(332,994
)
(301,842
)
(301,868
)
(301,868
)
(251,857
)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of taxes
(136,162
)
(183,107
)
(128,157
)
(367,732
)
(379,886
)
Total stockholders’ equity
3,429,774
3,367,936
3,354,044
3,175,601
3,170,662
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity
$
31,375,749
$
30,731,883
$
31,629,299
$
29,854,994
$
29,180,585
(1)Preferred stock – issued shares
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
(2)Common stock – issued shares
51,707,542
51,520,315
51,494,260
51,474,581
51,420,680
(3)Treasury stock – shares at cost
5,682,609
5,286,503
5,286,503
5,286,503
4,434,405
TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (UNAUDITED)
(dollars in thousands except per share data)
Three Months Ended March 31,
2025
2024
Interest income
Interest and fees on loans
$
334,150
$
330,879
Investment securities
46,565
32,144
Interest bearing cash and cash equivalents
46,574
54,355
Total interest income
427,289
417,378
Interest expense
Deposits
174,936
175,600
Short-term borrowings
8,246
12,783
Long-term debt
8,073
13,986
Total interest expense
191,255
202,369
Net interest income
236,034
215,009
Provision for credit losses
17,000
19,000
Net interest income after provision for credit losses
219,034
196,009
Non-interest income
Service charges on deposit accounts
7,840
6,339
Wealth management and trust fee income
3,964
3,567
Brokered loan fees
1,949
1,911
Investment banking and advisory fees
16,478
18,424
Trading income
5,939
4,712
Other
8,274
6,366
Total non-interest income
44,444
41,319
Non-interest expense
Salaries and benefits
131,641
128,727
Occupancy expense
10,844
9,737
Marketing
5,009
6,036
Legal and professional
14,989
16,195
Communications and technology
23,642
21,114
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance assessment
5,341
8,421
Other
11,554
12,163
Total non-interest expense
203,020
202,393
Income before income taxes
60,458
34,935
Income tax expense
13,411
8,793
Net income
47,047
26,142
Preferred stock dividends
4,313
4,313
Net income available to common stockholders
$
42,734
$
21,829
Basic earnings per common share
$
0.93
$
0.46
Diluted earnings per common share
$
0.92
$
0.46
TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.
SUMMARY OF CREDIT LOSS EXPERIENCE
(dollars in thousands)
1st Quarter
4th Quarter
3rd Quarter
2nd Quarter
1st Quarter
2025
2024
2024
2024
2024
Allowance for credit losses on loans:
Beginning balance
$
271,709
$
273,143
$
267,297
$
263,962
$
249,973
Allowance established for acquired purchase credit deterioration loans
—
—
2,579
—
—
Loans charged-off:
Commercial
10,197
14,100
6,120
9,997
7,544
Commercial real estate
500
2,566
262
2,111
3,325
Consumer
—
—
30
—
—
Total charge-offs
10,697
16,666
6,412
12,108
10,869
Recoveries:
Commercial
483
4,562
329
153
105
Commercial real estate
413
18
—
—
—
Consumer
4
15
—
—
—
Total recoveries
900
4,595
329
153
105
Net charge-offs
9,797
12,071
6,083
11,955
10,764
Provision for credit losses on loans
16,467
10,637
9,350
15,290
24,753
Ending balance
$
278,379
$
271,709
$
273,143
$
267,297
$
263,962
Allowance for off-balance sheet credit losses:
Beginning balance
$
53,332
$
45,969
$
45,319
$
40,609
$
46,362
Provision for off-balance sheet credit losses
533
7,363
650
4,710
(5,753
)
Ending balance
$
53,865
$
53,332
$
45,969
$
45,319
$
40,609
Total allowance for credit losses
$
332,244
$
325,041
$
319,112
$
312,616
$
304,571
Total provision for credit losses
$
17,000
$
18,000
$
10,000
$
20,000
$
19,000
Allowance for credit losses on loans to total loans held for investment
1.24
%
1.21
%
1.23
%
1.23
%
1.27
%
Allowance for credit losses on loans to average total loans held for investment
1.29
%
1.22
%
1.24
%
1.27
%
1.32
%
Net charge-offs to average total loans held for investment(1)
0.18
%
0.22
%
0.11
%
0.23
%
0.22
%
Net charge-offs to average total loans held for investment for last 12 months(1)
0.18
%
0.19
%
0.20
%
0.22
%
0.20
%
Total provision for credit losses to average total loans held for investment(1)
0.32
%
0.32
%
0.18
%
0.38
%
0.38
%
Total allowance for credit losses to total loans held for investment
1.48
%
1.45
%
1.43
%
1.44
%
1.46
%
(1) Interim period ratios are annualized.
TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.
NON-PERFORMING ASSETS, PAST DUE LOANS AND CRITICIZED LOANS
(dollars in thousands)
1st Quarter
4th Quarter
3rd Quarter
2nd Quarter
1st Quarter
2025
2024
2024
2024
2024
NON-PERFORMING ASSETS
Non-accrual loans held for investment
$
93,565
$
111,165
$
88,960
$
85,021
$
92,849
Non-accrual loans held for sale(1)
—
—
—
—
9,250
Other real estate owned
—
—
—
—
—
Total non-performing assets
$
93,565
$
111,165
$
88,960
$
85,021
$
102,099
Non-accrual loans held for investment to total loans held for investment
0.42
%
0.50
%
0.40
%
0.39
%
0.45
%
Total non-performing assets to total assets
0.30
%
0.36
%
0.28
%
0.28
%
0.35
%
Allowance for credit losses on loans to non-accrual loans held for investment
3.0x
2.4x
3.1x
3.1x
2.8x
Total allowance for credit losses to non-accrual loans held for investment
3.6x
2.9x
3.6x
3.7x
3.3x
LOANS PAST DUE
Loans held for investment past due 90 days and still accruing
$
791
$
4,265
$
5,281
$
286
$
3,674
Loans held for investment past due 90 days to total loans held for investment
—
%
0.02
%
0.02
%
—
%
0.02
%
Loans held for sale past due 90 days and still accruing
$
—
$
—
$
—
$
64
$
147
CRITICIZED LOANS
Criticized loans
$
762,887
$
713,951
$
897,727
$
859,671
$
859,539
Criticized loans to total loans held for investment
3.41
%
3.18
%
4.03
%
3.95
%
4.13
%
Special mention loans
$
484,165
$
435,626
$
579,802
$
593,305
$
584,528
Special mention loans to total loans held for investment
2.16
%
1.94
%
2.60
%
2.72
%
2.81
%
(1) First quarter 2024 includes one non-accrual loan previously reported in loans held for investment that was transferred at fair value to held for sale as of March 31, 2024.
TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (UNAUDITED)
(dollars in thousands)
1st Quarter
4th Quarter
3rd Quarter
2nd Quarter
1st Quarter
2025
2024
2024
2024
2024
Interest income
Interest and fees on loans
$
334,150
$
340,388
$
361,407
$
345,251
$
330,879
Investment securities
46,565
44,102
38,389
33,584
32,144
Interest bearing deposits in other banks
46,574
53,081
52,737
43,233
54,355
Total interest income
427,289
437,571
452,533
422,068
417,378
Interest expense
Deposits
174,936
189,061
190,255
181,280
175,600
Short-term borrowings
8,246
10,678
13,784
12,749
12,783
Long-term debt
8,073
8,225
8,392
11,457
13,986
Total interest expense
191,255
207,964
212,431
205,486
202,369
Net interest income
236,034
229,607
240,102
216,582
215,009
Provision for credit losses
17,000
18,000
10,000
20,000
19,000
Net interest income after provision for credit losses
219,034
211,607
230,102
196,582
196,009
Non-interest income
Service charges on deposit accounts
7,840
6,989
6,307
5,911
6,339
Wealth management and trust fee income
3,964
4,009
4,040
3,699
3,567
Brokered loan fees
1,949
2,519
2,400
2,131
1,911
Investment banking and advisory fees
16,478
26,740
34,753
25,048
18,424
Trading income
5,939
5,487
5,786
5,650
4,712
Available-for-sale debt securities losses, net
—
—
(179,581
)
—
—
Other
8,274
8,330
11,524
7,985
6,366
Total non-interest income
44,444
54,074
(114,771
)
50,424
41,319
Non-interest expense
Salaries and benefits
131,641
97,873
121,138
118,840
128,727
Occupancy expense
10,844
11,926
12,937
10,666
9,737
Marketing
5,009
4,454
5,863
5,996
6,036
Legal and professional
14,989
15,180
11,135
11,273
16,195
Communications and technology
23,642
24,007
25,951
22,013
21,114
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance assessment
5,341
4,454
4,906
5,570
8,421
Other
11,554
14,265
13,394
14,051
12,163
Total non-interest expense
203,020
172,159
195,324
188,409
202,393
Income/(loss) before income taxes
60,458
93,522
(79,993
)
58,597
34,935
Income tax expense/(benefit)
13,411
22,499
(18,674
)
16,935
8,793
Net income/(loss)
47,047
71,023
(61,319
)
41,662
26,142
Preferred stock dividends
4,313
4,312
4,313
4,312
4,313
Net income/(loss) available to common shareholders
$
42,734
$
66,711
$
(65,632
)
$
37,350
$
21,829
TEXAS CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.
TAXABLE EQUIVALENT NET INTEREST INCOME ANALYSIS (UNAUDITED)(1)
(dollars in thousands)
1st Quarter 2025
4th Quarter 2024
1st Quarter 2024
Average Balance
Income/ Expense
Yield/ Rate
Average Balance
Income/ Expense
Yield/ Rate
Average Balance
Income/ Expense
Yield/ Rate
Assets
Investment securities(2)
$
4,463,876
$
46,565
4.10
%
$
4,504,101
$
44,102
3.79
%
$
4,299,368
$
32,144
2.77
%
Interest bearing cash and cash equivalents
4,255,796
46,574
4.44
%
4,472,772
53,081
4.72
%
4,051,627
54,355
5.40
%
Loans held for sale
335
2
2.97
%
—
—
—
%
51,164
1,184
9.31
%
Loans held for investment, mortgage finance
3,972,106
38,527
3.93
%
5,409,980
50,685
3.73
%
3,517,707
31,455
3.60
%
Loans held for investment(3)
17,527,070
296,091
6.85
%
16,919,925
289,916
6.82
%
16,522,089
298,306
7.26
%
Less: Allowance for credit losses on loans
272,758
—
—
%
272,975
—
—
249,936
—
—
%
Loans held for investment, net
21,226,418
334,618
6.39
%
22,056,930
340,601
6.14
%
19,789,860
329,761
6.70
%
Total earning assets
29,946,425
427,759
5.76
%
31,033,803
437,784
5.59
%
28,192,019
417,444
5.88
%
Cash and other assets
1,157,184
1,178,284
1,058,463
Total assets
$
31,103,609
$
32,212,087
$
29,250,482
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Transaction deposits
$
2,163,250
$
13,908
2.61
%
$
2,141,739
$
15,403
2.86
%
$
2,006,493
$
16,858
3.38
%
Savings deposits
13,357,243
133,577
4.06
%
12,932,458
144,393
4.44
%
11,409,677
136,790
4.82
%
Time deposits
2,329,384
27,451
4.78
%
2,331,009
29,265
4.99
%
1,719,325
21,952
5.14
%
Total interest bearing deposits
17,849,877
174,936
3.97
%
17,405,206
189,061
4.32
%
15,135,495
175,600
4.67
%
Short-term borrowings
751,500
8,246
4.45
%
883,326
10,678
4.81
%
912,088
12,783
5.64
%
Long-term debt
660,445
8,073
4.96
%
660,270
8,225
4.96
%
859,509
13,986
6.54
%
Total interest bearing liabilities
19,261,822
191,255
4.03
%
18,948,802
207,964
4.37
%
16,907,092
202,369
4.81
%
Non-interest bearing deposits
7,875,244
9,319,711
8,637,775
Other liabilities
552,154
522,641
509,286
Stockholders’ equity
3,414,389
3,420,933
3,196,329
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity
$
31,103,609
$
32,212,087
$
29,250,482
Net interest income
$
236,504
$
229,820
$
215,075
Net interest margin
3.19
%
2.93
%
3.03
%
(1) Taxable equivalent rates used where applicable. (2) Yields on investment securities are calculated using available-for-sale securities at amortized cost. (3) Average balances include non-accrual loans.
GAAP TO NON-GAAP RECONCILIATIONS
The following items are non-GAAP financial measures: adjusted non-interest income, adjusted non-interest expense, adjusted net income, adjusted net income available to common stockholders, adjusted pre-provision net revenue (“PPNR”), adjusted diluted earnings/(loss) per common share, adjusted return on average assets, adjusted return on average common equity, adjusted efficiency ratio, adjusted non-interest income to average earning assets and adjusted non-interest expense to average earning assets. These are not measures recognized under GAAP and therefore are considered non-GAAP financial measures. The table below provides a reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP measures.
These non-GAAP financial measures are adjusted for certain items, listed below, that management believes are non-operating in nature and not representative of its actual operating performance. Management believes that these non-GAAP financial measures provide meaningful additional information about Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. to assist management and investors in evaluating operating results, financial strength, business performance and capital position. Non-GAAP financial measures have inherent limitations, are not required to be uniformly applied and are not audited. As such, these non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for analyses of operating results or capital position as reported under GAAP.
Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures
(dollars in thousands except per share data)
1st Quarter 2025
4th Quarter 2024
3rd Quarter 2024
2nd Quarter 2024
1st Quarter 2024
Net interest income
$
236,034
$
229,607
$
240,102
$
216,582
$
215,009
Non-interest income
44,444
54,074
(114,771
)
50,424
41,319
Available-for-sale debt securities losses, net
—
—
179,581
—
—
Non-interest income, adjusted
44,444
54,074
64,810
50,424
41,319
Non-interest expense
203,020
172,159
195,324
188,409
202,393
FDIC special assessment
—
—
651
(462
)
(3,000
)
Restructuring expenses
—
—
(5,923
)
—
(2,018
)
Legal Settlement
—
—
—
—
(5,000
)
Non-interest expense, adjusted
203,020
172,159
190,052
187,947
192,375
Provision for credit losses
17,000
18,000
10,000
20,000
19,000
Income tax expense/(benefit)
13,411
22,499
(18,674
)
16,935
8,793
Tax effect of adjustments
—
—
44,880
104
2,262
Income tax expense/(benefit), adjusted
13,411
22,499
26,206
17,039
11,055
Net income/(loss)(1)
$
47,047
$
71,023
$
(61,319
)
$
41,662
$
26,142
Net income/(loss), adjusted(1)
$
47,047
$
71,023
$
78,654
$
42,020
$
33,898
Preferred stock dividends
4,313
4,312
4,313
4,312
4,313
Net income/(loss) to common stockholders(2)
$
42,734
$
66,711
$
(65,632
)
$
37,350
$
21,829
Net income/(loss) to common stockholders, adjusted(2)
$
42,734
$
66,711
$
74,341
$
37,708
$
29,585
PPNR(3)
$
77,458
$
111,522
$
(69,993
)
$
78,597
$
53,935
PPNR(3), adjusted
$
77,458
$
111,522
$
114,860
$
79,059
$
63,953
Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted
46,616,704
46,770,961
46,608,742
46,872,498
47,711,192
Diluted earnings/(loss) per common share
$
0.92
$
1.43
$
(1.41
)
$
0.80
$
0.46
Diluted earnings/(loss) per common share, adjusted
$
0.92
$
1.43
$
1.59
$
0.80
$
0.62
Average total assets
$
31,103,609
$
32,212,087
$
31,215,173
$
29,750,852
$
29,250,482
Return on average assets
0.61
%
0.88
%
(0.78
)%
0.56
%
0.36
%
Return on average assets, adjusted
0.61
%
0.88
%
1.00
%
0.57
%
0.47
%
Average common equity
$
3,114,389
$
3,120,933
$
2,945,238
$
2,857,661
$
2,896,329
Return on average common equity
5.56
%
8.50
%
(8.87
)%
5.26
%
3.03
%
Return on average common equity, adjusted
5.56
%
8.50
%
10.04
%
5.31
%
4.11
%
Efficiency ratio(4)
72.4
%
60.7
%
155.8
%
70.6
%
79.0
%
Efficiency ratio, adjusted(4)
72.4
%
60.7
%
62.3
%
70.4
%
75.1
%
Average earning assets
$
29,946,425
$
31,033,803
$
29,975,318
$
28,573,791
$
28,192,019
Non-interest income to average earning assets
0.60
%
0.69
%
(1.52
)%
0.71
%
0.59
%
Non-interest income to average earning assets, adjusted
0.60
%
0.69
%
0.86
%
0.71
%
0.59
%
Non-interest expense to average earning assets
2.75
%
2.21
%
2.59
%
2.65
%
2.89
%
Non-interest expense to average earning assets, adjusted
2.75
%
2.21
%
2.52
%
2.65
%
2.74
%
(1) Net interest income plus non-interest income, less non-interest expense, provision for credit losses and income tax expense/(benefit). On an adjusted basis, net interest income plus non-interest income, adjusted, less non-interest expense, adjusted, provision for credit losses and income tax expense/(benefit), adjusted. (2) Net income/(loss), less preferred stock dividends. On an adjusted basis, net income/(loss), adjusted, less preferred stock dividends. (3) Net interest income plus non-interest income, less non-interest expense. On an adjusted basis, net interest income plus non-interest income, adjusted, less non-interest expense, adjusted. (4) Non-interest expense divided by the sum of net interest income and non-interest income. On an adjusted basis, non-interest expense, adjusted, divided by the sum of net interest income and non-interest income, adjusted.
I. Current Situation of Economic Activity and Prices
A. Current Economic Developments Abroad
I would like to begin my speech by taking a look at the current situation of overseas economies (Chart 1). Regarding global business sentiment, as of March 2025, the Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) for the manufacturing industry has been at around 50 – the breakeven point between improvement and deterioration – and the PMI for the services industry has continued to improve. In the January 2025 World Economic Outlook (WEO) Update, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected that the growth rate of the global economy would be in the range of 3.0-3.5 percent for both 2025 and 2026, which is broadly in line with the average growth rate since 1980. The IMF will release the next quarterly update of the WEO this month, and attention is warranted on its assessment of the future path of trade policies in each jurisdiction and global developments in economic activity and prices affected by such policies.
B. Current Economic Developments in Japan
I will now turn to the current situation of Japan’s economy. The Bank of Japan judges that the economy has recovered moderately, although some weakness has been seen in part. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that there are high uncertainties regarding trade policies in each jurisdiction and developments in overseas economic activity and prices affected by such policies. I will come back to this later.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
News story
Reappointment of the Ministry of Justice Lead Non-Executive Director
The Lord Chancellor has approved the reappointment of Mark Rawlinson as the Ministry of Justice Lead Non-Executive Director.
The Lord Chancellor has approved the reappointment of Mark Rawlinson as the Ministry of Justice Lead Non-Executive Director for 12 months from 4 March 2025 to 3 March 2026.
The Lead Non-Executive Director is a senior figure from outside the department who brings expertise and skills from outside of the department. They:
support the Secretary of State in their role as Chair of the Board
give guidance and advice to MOJ leaders and ministers
support and challenge management on the department’s strategic direction
provide support in monitoring and reviewing progress
The appointment of the Lead Non-Executive Director is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the reappointment process complies with the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments.
Biography
Mark Rawlinson was first appointed Ministry of Justice Lead Non-Executive Board Member on 4 June 2018.
Mark has over 30 years of commercial experience as an adviser – from 2016 to 2021 as Chairman of UK Investment Banking at Morgan Stanley and prior to that as a corporate partner for 25 years at international law firm, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
Operation Gomorrah may have been the most cynical event of World War Two (WW2). Not only did the name fully convey the intent of the war crimes about to be committed, it, also represented the single biggest 24-hour murder toll for the European war that I have come across.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
On the night of 27 July 1943, the RAF murdered 35,000, mostly working-class civilian residents living in the most densely populated part of Hamburg; a planned firebombing which started a sequence of events – a holocaust if not The Holocaust – that ended in Nagasaki on 9 August 1945. (Note The bombing of Hamburg foreshadowed the horrors of Hiroshima, National Geographic, 23 July 2021.) A holocaust is a “destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war” (Oxford Dictionary). [In The Holocaust, 31,000 Jews were shot dead in Kyiv in a single day in 1941; the worst single day of The Holocaust, I understand.]
Hamburg was, literally, a dry run for what came later; the aim was to maximise the number of barbecued civilians by, among other things, choosing perfect weather conditions for an experiment in incendiary murder. (Yes, I am literally using inflammatory language.) While the total death toll of the week-long operation has been estimated to be over 40,000, the toll arising from the night of 27/28 July 1943 represents about 85% of the total.
The Gomorrah chapter of Peter Hitchens’ The Phoney Victory, 2018, gives a documented account of the moral duplicity surrounding Churchill’s bombing campaign. For a full story of the Allies’ firestorm holocaust, see Black Snow: Curtis LeMay, the Firebombing of Tokyo, and the Road to the Atomic Bomb, 2022, by James M Scott. (John Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, is a survivor of the Tokyo episode, the raid that killed more people – over 100,000 – than any other in a single arsonous assault.)
Sodom and Gomorrah
These twin ‘cities of the plain’, which, if they ever existed, are now either under the Dead Sea or east of there, in modern Jordan. The key chapter in the bible (Genesis, ch.19) mainly emphasises Sodom, though Gomorrah was reputedly as ‘sinful’. The biblical story is ghastly, in its misogyny as well as its extollation of extermination of ‘others’.
Genesis (ch.19) tells us, when Lot (Abraham’s nephew) found himself, in Sodom, hosting two Angels/men, ‘the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.”‘ The secret to understanding this is the biblical meaning of the word ‘know’; in this case the events took place in Sodom, and the guests had the appearance of ‘men’.
Lot replies: ‘”I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men …”.’ While the men of Sodom did not take up the offer – they favoured Lot himself – the angel-men saved Lot and his family. Then ‘When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city.”‘ …
‘When they had brought [the four of] them outside, [the angel-men] said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.” … Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.’ …
After the three survivors settled in a cave: ‘the firstborn [daughter] said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” … ‘Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father.’ (Thus, the East Bank [of the River Jordan] was repopulated!!)
Hamburg came to be equated with biblical Sodom, as deserving victims for a particularly barbaric form of mass murder. Neither Churchill, nor his bomber commander Arthur Harris, could know that only 35,000 Hamburgers would die as a result of that night’s operation. There is reason to believe that Churchill and his savants were looking for many more than hundreds of thousands of Germans to be ‘de-housed’ over the incendiary bombing campaign. (Dehousing was the euphemism used by Churchill’s men; compare with ‘resettlement’ for the trip that the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto made to Treblinka.)
Hamburg and the Gomorrah holocaust
Why Hamburg? Basically, because it was there. Though it was/is a large industrial and mercantile port city, the terror target was workers, not the works which employed them. The National Geographic article notes, with gallows-humour irony: “After noticing that Brits whose homes were struck by bombs were less likely to show up to work, analysts determined that destroying Germany’s largest cities and towns would likely cripple Germany’s war efforts.” Hamburg was close to England, and could be reached without flying over occupied land. And Hamburg was defended by a radar system of sorts, though not as sophisticated as British radar. The first British bombing raid on Hamburg was very much a technology test-run; refer The Woman Whose Invention Helped Win a War – and Still Baffles Weathermen, Irena Fischer-Hwang, 28 November 2018, Smithsonian Magazine. The second British raid on Hamburg was the real thing, a particularly dry run to really get the Gomorrah holocaust underway.
Hitchens (p.178) says: “Winston Churchill speculated in a letter of 8 July I940 to his friend and Minister of Aircraft Production, the press magnate Lord (Max) Beaverbrook, that an ‘absolutely devastating exterminating [my emphasis] attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland would help to bring Hitler down’. Arthur Harris, later the chief of RAF Bomber Command, realised the significance of these extraordinary words … he kept a copy of this letter.”
Hitchens (p.181) citing Bishop Bell speaking in February 1944 in the House of Lords: “Hamburg has a population of between one and two million people. It contains targets of immense military and industrial importance. It also happens to be the most democratic town in Germany where the Anti-Nazi opposition was strongest. … Practically all the buildings, cultural, military, residential, industrial, religious – including the famous University Library with its 800,000 volumes, of which three-quarters have perished – were razed to the ground.” While dead and dazed people may have low morale, and therefore have an arguable incentive to wage a civil war against their own government, they – especially the dead – are uniquely unable to overthrow a ruthlessly militarised government.
We might note Hamburg’s anthropological links to England. At a time of high racial – indeed racist – sensibilities, Anglo-Saxon supremacy was a very real thing. The area of Germany around Hamburg is the ‘Hawaiki’ of the Anglo-Saxon people; Lower Saxony is the ancestral motherland of the English. The class-consciousness and revengeful bloodlust of the English political class outweighed their ethnic consciousness. This was not true for the German Nazis, for whom the English were racial equals; Hitler and his crew really did not want to kill English people. Nazi Germany wanted the United Kingdom to become a neutral country, as Ireland was, and as the United States was before December 1941. Nazi Germany’s policy was to enslave, resettle, and murder Slavs and Jews and Gypsies; not to kill or dehouse Englishmen and their families.
The ‘elephant in the room’ was Josef Stalin.
Hitchens (p.191): “There is little doubt that much of the bombing of Germany was done to please and appease Josef Stalin. Stalin jeered at Churchill for his failure to open a Second Front and to fight Hitler’s armies in Europe, and ceaselessly pressed him to open such a front – something Churchill was politically and militarily reluctant to do. Bombing Germany, though it did not satisfy Stalin’s demands for an invasion, at least reassured him that we were doing something, and so lessened his pressure to open a second front.”
Hitchens (p.198): “Overy [in The Bombing War 2014] recounts how on 28 March 1945 Winston Churchill, clearly growing sick of the violence he had unleashed as victory approached and the excuses for it grew thinner, referred (in a memorandum) to Harris’s bombing tactics using these exact words. He urged, none too soon, that attacks turn instead to oil and transport. Harris paid no attention, and right up until 24th April 1945, his bombers continued to drop incendiaries and high explosives on German cities, turning many thousands of civilians into corpses.” [Hitler committed suicide on 30 April 1945, and VE Day was 8 May.]
Point of Interest: Churchill contested three elections, all after VE Day, all using Great Britain’s ‘first-past-the-post’ plurality system. He won just one of those three, though even then – in 1951 – his party got fewer votes than a Labour Party seeking re-election at a time of great difficulty for left-wing parties worldwide. Churchill’s Conservative Party got way-fewer votes than Labour in 1945 and 1950. The pressure on Prime Minister Clement Attlee to call the UK snap election of 1951 (one-third of the way through the term of his elected Labour government) can be understood as a successful example of political cunning on the part of the British establishment; literally a King’s coup.
A Scale of ‘Evil’?
While I generally hesitate to use the word ‘evil’, it may still be useful to grade very powerful people on a zero-to-ten scale of malevolence. On zero we might have the pacifist version of Jesus. On ten would be some very powerful person who actively sought nuclear ‘Armageddon’ (which would destroy life, not just humanity). After recently reading some quite difficult literature about World War Two, this is where I would place five powerful leaders:
9: Josef Stalin
8: Adolf Hitler
7: Benito Mussolini, Winston Churchill
6: Harry Truman
I need to read more about Truman; though, his legacy seems to have been airbrushed much as Churchill’s has been, and I might decide to upgrade him to a 7.
I would also note that these leaders had their close and powerful henchmen, whose ‘evilness’ can also be rated on such a scale, for example:
9.5: Lavrenty Beria
9: Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler
Overall regimes can be better or worse than their leaders. I would rate both Stalin’s ‘Communists’ and Hitler’s ‘Nazis’ as both 8.5. Thus, Stalin’s regime was not quite as bad as its two most notorious figures. And Hitler’s regime was even worse than Hitler; that’s certainly not being kind to Hitler! (Stalin’s atrocities, the equal of Hitlers, were mostly committed in peacetime; the vast majority of Hitler’s were committed in wartime.)
‘Favourites’ as intimate (though not necessarily sexual) friends of powerful leaders
Churchill’s regime was not as bad as Churchill. Though Churchill had two favourites, both active members of his regime – especially his ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ – who were worse than him (possibly worse in one case, and definitely worse in the other). The ‘possibly worse’ one was Brendan Bracken, Minister for Information. Bracken, the prototype for ‘Big Brother’ in George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four, was Churchill’s Goebbels. Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ was a conflation of the Ministry of Information and Orwell’s wartime employer, the BBC. (Born in Ireland, Bracken was sometimes rumoured to have been Churchill’s ‘love child’, though that supposition is most likely untrue.) Surprisingly little has been written about BB.
The ‘definitely worse’ favourite was German born (Baden Baden) and educated (Darmstadt and Berlin) scientist, Frederick A Lindemann; who was granted the title Lord Cherwell in 1941. He built his career in Britain at Oxford University, becoming Professor of Physics there in 1919. He also became a bit of a wartime ‘test pilot’, managing to establish his loyalty to the United Kingdom. His close friendship with Churchill lasted decades, beginning in 1921.
Frederick Lindemann, aka Lord Cherwell
In my assessment, Lindemann is the closest individual yet to a ten-out-of-ten on the above-suggested scale of malevolence. Let’s say that, if World War Three comes and someone like Lindemann has as much access to the levers of power as Lindemann actually had, then the world would be a goner. (In Lindemann’s defence, it has been noted that he was fond of children and animals. Likewise, another man; one with a famous moustache.)
Frederick Lindemann exerted a beguiling influence over Churchill. When Churchill was not in power, in the 1930s, Lindemann ran a private think-tank for Churchill. In the 1930s he allegedly undermined the scientific development of radar, which proved critical to the defence of Britain from Luftwaffe attacks; indeed, Lindemann seems to have shown a lack of interest in military defence; his thing was the elimination or dehumanisation of ‘others’. Lindemann “was one of the first to urge the importance of atom bomb research” (Where to Read about Professor Lindemann, The Churchill Project, 6 May 2015); indeed “Following his 1945 return to the Clarendon Laboratory, Lindemann created the [United Kingdom] Atomic Energy Authority”, Wikipedia.)
I will illustrate the Lindemann problem with quotes from these three sources; some may argue that I have made a biased selection, but so be it:
Mukerjee: “Known as the Prof to admirers (because of his academic credentials and his brilliance) and as Baron Berlin to detractors (thanks to his German accent and aristocratic tastes), Lindeman was responsible for the government’s scientific decisions.”
Mukerjee: “Lindemann attended meetings of the War Cabinet, accompanied the prime minister on conferences abroad, and sent him an average of one missive a day. He saw Churchill almost daily for the duration of the war and wielded more influence than any other civilian adviser.”
Gladwell: “I think that’s the crucial fact about Lindemann. One time he’s asked for his definition of morality and he answers, ‘I define a moral action as one that brings advantage to my friends.’ … The man who defined a moral action as ‘One that brings advantage to my friends,’ was best friends with Winston Churchill.”
Gladwell: “Lindemann becomes a kind of gatekeeper to Churchill’s mind.”
Mukerjee: “On most matters Lindemann’s and Churchill’s opinions converged; and when they did not, the scientist worked ceaselessly to change his friend’s mind.”
Mukerjee: “The mission of the S branch [Churchill’s nearest equivalent to DOGE] was to provide rationales for whichever course the prime minister, as interpreted by the Prof, wished to follow.”
Mukerjee: “Department heads ‘began to realize that, like it or not, the Prof was the man whom Churchill trusted most, and that all their refutations, aspersions, innuendos or attempts at exposure would not shift Churchill from his undeviating loyalty to the Prof by one hair’s breadth,’ wrote [economist] Harrod. So it was that the Prof would pronounce judgment on the best use of shipping space, the profligacy of the army, the inadequacy of British supplies, the optimal size of the mustard gas stockpile, the necessity of bombing German houses – and, when the time came, the pointlessness of sending famine relief to Bengal.”
Gladwell: “An argument took place at the highest reaches of British government. The question was what was the best use of the royal air force against the Germans? … One school of thought says, ‘Let’s use our bombers to support military activities, protecting ships against German U-boats, destroying German factories.’ The other school of thought argues that bombing ought to serve a bigger, strategic purpose. In other words, ‘Let’s use bombing to break the will of the German people, let’s make their lives so miserable that they give up.’”
Wikipedia: On dehousing, Lindemann says “bombing must be directed to working class houses. Middle class houses have too much space round them, so are bound to waste bombs”.
Gladwell on Lindemann’s dishonesty: “Lindemann’s memo to Churchill. It’s very matter of fact; it’s all about what the data says except for one thing. That’s not what the data says. The Birmingham-Hull study reached the exact opposite conclusion [about working-class morale] that Lindemann did.”
Gladwell: “Other experts [eg Henry Tizard] in the government, critics of strategic bombing, point out immediately that Lindemann’s numbers are ridiculous, five or six times too high, based on obvious errors.” [Hitchens (p.205) claims that the numbers of civilian casualties were only ten percent of what Lindemann had promised. If you multiply by ten the number of civilians – mostly workers, their families, slaves, and refugees – killed in the totality of the Gomorrah holocaust, you get a number bigger than deaths in The Holocaust; this would be a measure of Lindemann’s intent.]
Gladwell: “One of Lindemann’s friends said, ‘He would not shrink from using an argument which he knew to be wrong if, by so doing, he could tie up one of his professional opponents.’ Lindemann wanted strategic bombing, so Churchill went ahead and ordered the bombing of German cities.”
Gladwell: “Most historians agree that strategic bombing was a disaster. 160,000 US and English airmen and hundreds of thousands of German civilians were killed in those bombing campaigns. Many of Europe’s most beautiful cities were destroyed and German morale didn’t crack; the Germans fought to the bitter end. After the war, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Patrick Blackett wrote a devastating essay where he said that the war could have been won six months or even a year earlier, if only the British had used their bombers more intelligently.” [Note that the whole Gomorrah holocaust killed more Japanese civilians than German civilians; as noted in Black Snow: Curtis LeMay, the Firebombing of Tokyo, and the Road to the Atomic Bomb, the Hamburg dry run led more-or-less directly to the fire-bombings of almost every urban centre in Japan.]
Mukerjee: “‘Love me, love my dog, and if you don’t love my dog you damn well can’t love me,’ muttered a furious Churchill in 1941, after a member of the House of Commons had raised questions about the Prof’s influence.” [Gladwell: that “row occurred in 1942 and it occurred over strategic bombing”.]
Mukerjee: “Cherwell believed that a small circle of the intelligent and the aristocratic should run the world. ‘Those who succeed in getting what everyone wants must be the ablest,’ he asserted. The Prof regarded the masses as ‘very stupid,’ considered Australians to be inferior to Britons, advocated ‘harshness’ toward homosexuals, and thought criminals should be treated cruelly because ‘the amount of pleasure derived by other people from the knowledge that a malefactor is being punished far exceeds in sum total the amount of pain inflicted on a malefactor by his punishment.’” [Enjoyment arising from the punishment of the wretched outweighs the suffering of those wretched!]
Mukerjee: “Eugenic ideas also feature in a lecture that Lord Cherwell (then known as Professor Lindemann) had delivered more than once, probably in the early 1930s. He had detailed a science-based solution to a challenge that occupied many an intellect of the time: preserving for eternity the hegemony of the superior classes.”
Mukerjee: “New technologies such as surgery, mind control, and drug and hormone manipulations would one day allow humans to be fine-tuned for specific tasks. … ‘Somebody must perform dull, dreary tasks, tend machines, count units in repetition work; is it not incumbent on us, if we have the means, to produce individuals without a distaste for such work, types that are as happy in their monotonous occupation as a cow chewing the cud?’ Lindemann asked. Science could yield a race of humans blessed with ‘the mental make-up of the worker bee.’ This subclass would do all the unpleasant work and not once think of revolution or of voting rights: ‘Placid content rules in the bee-hive or ant-heap.’ The outcome would be a perfectly peaceable and stable society, ‘led by supermen and served by helots.’”
Mukerjee: “At least no one would demand votes on behalf of an ape. … To consolidate the rule of supermen – to perpetuate the British Empire – one need only remove the ability of slaves to see themselves as slaves.”
Gladwell: “How can you have a real debate against Churchill’s best friend? Friendship comes first.”
Gladwell: “The US starts sending over so many ships that, by late 1943 when the famine in Bengal is at its height, there’s actually a surplus of boats on the allied side. In fact, in 1943, the British actually start shipping wheat from Australia up through the Indian Ocean, just not to India. … British ships full of grain are sailing right past India on the way to the Middle East to be stored for some future, hypothetical need. They might even stop and refuel in Mumbai, but nothing leaves the ship. … Why is Lindemann [as Paymaster General] refusing to help? It doesn’t even make illogical sense. Indian soldiers, hundreds of thousands of them, are fighting the Germans in the Middle East and Africa. When other countries like Canada and the United States offered to send food to India, the British say, ‘We don’t want it.’ They turn down help. Lindemann seems completely unmoved by India’s plight.”
Gladwell: “Black people, according to a friend, filled him with a physical revulsion which he was unable to control. But I’m not sure that we’re seeing Lindemann here; I think we’re seeing Churchill. Churchill is the one with an issue about India. He’s obsessed with India. In the years leading up to the war, Gandhi is building his independence movement within India and Churchill hates Gandhi. Churchill is furious about the fact that Britain has to buy raw materials from India, meaning that the master is running up a debt with its supposed subject. … Why was Lindemann so adamant that England could not help India? Because Churchill was adamant that England could not help India and Lindemann was a loyal friend.”
CP Snow (1960), cited by Gladwell: “The Lindemann-Churchill relation is the most fascinating example of court politics that we’re likely to see.” [hmmm!]
Gladwell: “The best guess of how many died in the Bengal famine of 1943 is three million people. Three million. After the war, the British government held a formal inquiry into what happened, but the investigation was forbidden to consider, and I’m quoting, ‘Her Majesty’s government’s decision in regard to shipping of imports.’ In other words, they were asked to investigate the cause of the famine without investigating the cause of the famine.”
Hitchens (p.197): “Gas attacks were contemplated by Winston Churchill. … Overy writes ‘The RAF staff thought that incendiary and high-explosive raids were more strategically efficient [than gas or germ warfare], in that they destroyed property and equipment and not just people, but in any of these cases – blown apart, burnt alive or asphyxiated – deliberate damage to civilian populations was now taken for granted. This paved the way for the possibility of using atomic weapons on German targets in 1945’.”
It also paved the way for the potentially devastating anthrax attacks on Germany which would have taken place in 1944 had the American-led D-day offensive been unsuccessful; contamination from such attacks would have rendered parts of Germany uninhabitable for a human lifetime. (See my Invoking Munich, ‘Appeasement’, and the ‘Lessons of History’ 13 March 2025, which mentions both the Bengal famine and the anthrax program as well as the Hamburg holocaust.) The anthrax program bears the hallmark of Lindemann; the abandoned anthrax operation was dubbed Operation Vegetarian, in part a likely reference to Lindemann’s famed dietary obsessions.
Hitchens (pp.200-201): “It is surprising that Sir Max Hasting’s Bomber Command (first published in 1979) has not begun to change opinions. … Sir Max deserves much credit for the chapter in which he describes the indefensible destruction of the city of Darmstadt [south of Frankfurt] on 11 September 1944 (it was not, in any significant way, a military target). Hastings: ‘The first terrible discoveries were made: cellars crammed with suffocated bodies – worse still, with amorphous heaps of melted and charred humanity’.” (Lindemann went to school in Darmstadt. Victims most likely included his former classmates, teachers and their families.)
Hitchens (p.206), on the battle between Frederick Lindemann and Henry Tizard (the scientist who stood up to Lindeman, and paid a price): “Why is the only considerable account of this battle trapped inside [a] small, obscure volume that the reader must retrieve from deep in a few impenetrable scholarly libraries? Why is it not taught in schools? Why has nobody written a play about it? I suspect it is because this story, if well known, would undermine the shallow, nonsensical cult of Winston Churchill as the infallible Great Leader, a cult to which, surely, an adult country no longer needs to cling.”
Hitchens (p.205): “Tizard said that Lindemann’s estimate of the possible destruction was five times too high. He was supported by Patrick Blackett, a former naval officer who had become a noted physicist high in the scientific councils of the day. He would later win the Nobel Prize in Physics, and be ennobled as Lord Blackett. Blackett independently advised that Lindemann’s estimate was six times too high. ‘Both were slightly out. But they were nothing like as wrong as Lindemann was. Lindemann’s estimate of destruction was in fact ten times too high, as the postwar bombing survey revealed.” [The actual destruction of German cities was only one-tenth of what Lindemann had hoped and argued would be the case. Given the actual hundreds of thousands of barbecued German civilians, Lindemann had been arguing for millions.]
CP Snow (1960), cited by Hitchens (p.205): “It is possible, I suppose, that some time in the future people living in a more benevolent age than ours may turn over the official records and notice that men like us, well-educated by the standards of the day, men fairly kindly by the standards of the day, and often possessed of strong human feelings, made the kind of calculation I have just been describing. … Will they think that we resigned our humanity? They will have the right.” [Strikingly, although the post-war years have generally been regarded as ‘more benevolent’, the Gomorrah holocaust continues to ‘fly under the radar’. Indeed, so much so that Churchill’s speeches have been nominated as part of New Zealand’s schools’ draft English curriculum! (And that matter of Churchill was not raised by the New Zealand media; they were more interested in the ‘controversial’ possibility that Shakespeare might be compulsory.)]
Winston Churchill was not a nice man. His ‘favourite’ – Frederick Lindemann – was rather less nice.
Lessons
War itself is the problem, and the first casualty of war is truth. Drumbeating for war is cheap, and sabres are easily rattled. We stumble into wars without having any realistic idea how they might end; casual war becomes forever war. Wars involve multiple nasty people from the outset, and other similarly nasty people come to the fore during war, sometimes completely behind the scenes.
War changes much but solves little. World War Two was the first war in which civilians were targeted on an industrial scale. It ended, in Europe at least, in a Pyrrhic manner, with Josef Stalin’s USSR as the annihilist of Nazi Germany.
War in the modern age of globalisation means this and more. In a twenty-first century World War, while targeted civilians will be high on the murder list, the biggest death-counts are likely to be of untargeted civilians – residents of semi-belligerent and non-belligerent countries – and of completely guiltless non-human life forms.
If the Americans hadn’t successfully prosecuted D-Day (Operation Overlord) in 1944, I believe that Winston Churchill would have used the RAF to unleash his anthrax bombs. The Scottish island of Gruinard is only now becoming habitable, after eighty years of anthrax contamination. Imagine parts of Germany becoming uninhabitable – for nearly a century – had Operation Vegetarian been executed.
————-
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
Change of British High Commissioner to Ghana
Mr Christian Rogg has been appointed British High Commissioner to the Republic of Ghana.
Mr Christian Rogg has been appointed British High Commissioner to the Republic of Ghana in succession to Ms Harriet Thompson who will be transferring to another Diplomatic Service appointment. Mr Rogg will take up his appointment during July 2025.
Curriculum vitae
Full name: Christian Stefan Rogg
Year
Role
2023 to present
FCDO, Director for Development and Open Societies
2021 to 2023
FCDO, Director for Development, Parliament, Coordination and Capability
2017 to 2021
Addis Ababa, Development Director
2015 to 2017
Kinshasa, Head of DFID
2012 to 2015
Abuja, Acting/Deputy Head of DFID
2009 to 2012
Hanoi, Acting/Deputy Head of DFID
2006 to 2009
Accra, Head of Governance and Growth Team, DFID
2003 to 2006
DFID, Head of Growth Team, Policy Division
2000 to 2003
DFID, Economic Adviser/Acting Team Leader, Private Sector Policy Department
2001
University of Oxford, Instructor, Department of Economics
1999 to 2000
DFID, Assistant Adviser, Business Partnerships Department
1999
University of Oxford, Researcher, Development Studies Centre
1998
Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, Assistant, Private Sector Department
1995 to 1997
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Washington, Consultant, Economics and Finance Division
1995
Senator Joe Lieberman’s Office, United States Senate, Legislative Intern
1994
SmithKline Beecham, Assistant to Director for Business Planning and Analysis
1993
Merrill Lynch, Frankfurt, Assistant to Financial Consultants
PUBLIC DEALING DISCLOSURE BY AN EXEMPT PRINCIPAL TRADER WITH RECOGNISED INTERMEDIARY STATUS DEALING IN A CLIENT-SERVING CAPACITY Rule 8.5 of the Takeover Code (the “Code”)
1. KEY INFORMATION
(a) Name of exempt principal trader:
Investec Bank plc
(b) Name of offeror/offeree in relation to whose relevant securities this form relates: Use a separate form for each offeror/offeree
Science in Sport plc
(c) Name of the party to the offer with which exempt principal trader is connected:
Investec is financial advisor to BD-capital Partners Limited in relation to its proposed acquisition of the entire issued share capital of Science in Sport PLC.
(d) Date dealing undertaken:
16th April 2025
(e) In addition to the company in 1(b) above, is the exempt principal trader making disclosures in respect of any other party to this offer? If it is a cash offer or possible cash offer, state “N/A”
N/A
2. DEALINGS BY THE EXEMPT PRINCIPAL TRADER
Where there have been dealings in more than one class of relevant securities of the offeror or offeree named in 1(b), copy table 2(a), (b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate) for each additional class of relevant security dealt in.
The currency of all prices and other monetary amounts should be stated.
(a) Purchases and sales
Class of relevant security
Purchases/ sales
Total number of securities
Highest price per unit paid/received
Lowest price per unit paid/received
Ordinary shares
Sales
99,146
32
27.3
(b) Cash-settled derivative transactions
Class of relevant security
Product description e.g. CFD
Nature of dealing e.g. opening/closing a long/short position, increasing/reducing a long/short position
(d) Other dealings (including subscribing for new securities)
Class of relevant security
Nature of dealing e.g. subscription, conversion
Details
Price per unit (if applicable)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. OTHER INFORMATION
(a) Indemnity and other dealing arrangements
Details of any indemnity or option arrangement, or any agreement or understanding, formal or informal, relating to relevant securities which may be an inducement to deal or refrain from dealing entered into by the exempt principal trader making the disclosure and any party to the offer or any person acting in concert with a party to the offer: Irrevocable commitments and letters of intent should not be included. If there are no such agreements, arrangements or understandings, state “none”
None
(b) Agreements, arrangements or understandings relating to options or derivatives
Details of any agreement, arrangement or understanding, formal or informal, between the exempt principal trader making the disclosure and any other person relating to: (i) the voting rights of any relevant securities under any option; or (ii) the voting rights or future acquisition or disposal of any relevant securities to which any derivative is referenced: If there are no such agreements, arrangements or understandings, state “none”
None
Date of disclosure:
17thApril 2025
Contact name:
Abhishek Gawde
Telephone number:
+91 9923757332
Public disclosures under Rule 8 of the Code must be made to a Regulatory Information Service.
The Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit is available for consultation in relation to the Code’s dealing disclosure requirements on +44 (0)20 7638 0129.
The Ordinary general meeting of shareholders held on 31 March 2025 approved allocation of the profit of Šiaulių Bankas AB which included a pay-out of dividends – 0.061 euro shall be paid for each ordinary registered share with a nominal value of 0.29 euro. Dividends shall be paid outto persons who were the shareholders of Šiaulių Bankas AB at the end of the record day – 14 April 2025.
The Bank shall pay out dividends on 25 April 2025 in compliance with the following procedure:
– those shareholders whose shares are being accounted in the securities accounts with banks and financial brokerage companies rendering investment services will receive an amount of dividends after deduction of Personal Income Tax or Corporate Profit Tax in compliance with the laws of the Republic of Lithuania which shall be transferred to the accounts with the respective banks or financial brokerage companies;
– for shareholders whose shares are accounted for in Šiaulių Bankas AB in the issuer’s accounting, the amount of dividends, after deducting personal income tax or income tax in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, will be transferred to the account specified by the shareholder. If the shareholder has not specified an account for the transfer of dividends, he/she must submit an application for the transfer of dividends. Applications are accepted from 18 April 2025 in all customer service points of Šiaulių Bankas AB. Before going to the customer service department, it is necessary to register for a visit on-line athttps://sb.lt/enor by phone+370 610 44447. Applications for dividend transfer can also be submitted via the Internet Bank.
Taxation of dividends:
– Dividends of natural persons residents of the Republic of Lithuania and foreign countries shall be subject to 15 per cent of the Personal Income Tax rate;
– Dividends of legal entities residents of the Republic of Lithuania and foreign countries shall be subject to 15 per cent of the Corporate Profit Tax rate, unless otherwise provided for in the laws.
Additional information:
Director of Securities Operations Department Jolanta Dobiliauskienė
