Source: Reserve Bank of India
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source: Reserve Bank of India
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer
This Week GSA Listed The Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building In Albany And 400+ Other Fed Properties As ‘Designated For Disposal,’ But Mysteriously Removed List On That Same Day – Creating Confusion & Concern Building Could Close And Services Could Get Cut For Capital Region
O’Brien Building Hosts Offices For Social Security, IRS, Military Processing And Its Presence Has Been Essential To Providing Federal Services To Albany Area For Over 50 Years
Schumer: Capital Region Families, Seniors Can’t Have Fed Building Close And Services Cut Off, We Need Answers & Clarity ASAP
After the Trump administration placed the Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building on a list of federal properties “designated for disposal” and abruptly removed that list, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer today demanded answers from the General Services Administration (GSA) and assurances that the building will remain open and services uninterrupted for Capital Region residents. Schumer said the building is critical to the Capital Region and that seniors, workers, and families that rely on services in the building need clarity on future plans for this vital hub for services.
“This week, Albany’s O’Brien Federal Building was placed on GSA’s list of federal properties for sale and within a day, that list disappeared, creating confusion, concern, and chaos. Now many are worried this could mean the building will close and services, including a Social Security office, will be interrupted for thousands of Capital Region families, workers and seniors. GSA won’t say what its plans are and ‘DOGE’ is being dodgey about whether this Albany building is next on their chaotic chopping block. This building is where Capital Region families and seniors get help with Social Security checks, where military recruits get processed, where people go with questions on the status of their tax returns, and thousands have gotten help with other vital federal services for 50 years,” said Senator Schumer. “My constituents in the Capital Region deserve to know what caused this chaos and who is making these decisions. They deserve certainty on the future of this building and the vital services it hosts. I am all for cutting waste and making government more efficient, but selling a property for nickels only to have taxpayers pay significantly more to lease and maintain access to these services just isn’t smart business. It’s penny wise and pound foolish, and a giveaway to private landlords. Capital Region families and federal workers have little clarity on what the future holds and we need answers now.”
Albany’s Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building is home to 20 federal government agencies including the Social Security Administration office, a day care for children of federal employees, a U.S. Military Entrance Processing Station, the IRS, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and the senator’s Capital Region office. Schumer said that since it was listed earlier this week for potential disposal, his office has been inundated with inquiries on the future of the building, whether it will be closed or sold and whether services will be cut off. Schumer said it is imperative the building remain open and services are maintained, and is now demanding answers on what happened.
Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan said, “The Leo O’Brien Building is a hub of vital federal government services, and our residents must have access to these services and the ability to interact with federal agencies — particularly in one of the most underserved census tracts in the entire region. I commend Senator Schumer for demanding answers of this administration and for calling out yet another example of the mismanagement and chaos carried out by DOGE.”
This would not be the first instance of offices that provide vital federal services in NY being potentially shut down by DOGE. Social Security offices in the Hudson Valley have already been listed on the DOGE “wall of receipts” which could impact services for thousands who rely on them to help with payments.
Schumer’s letter to General Services Administration Deputy Administrator and Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian can be found below:
Dear Acting Administrator Ehikian,
I write with deep concern over the Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building in Albany N.Y. appearing on a list of buildings potentially being listed for sale or closure amid cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). On Tuesday, the Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building and over 400 other federal properties were placed on a list of “non-core” properties that the General Services Administration (GSA) said are “designated for disposal.” Later that same day, GSA abruptly removed this list, creating chaos and confusion for the people who work in these buildings. The people of the Capital Region and I need answers on your plans for this building, assurances that it will remain open and that the critical services it hosts will continue uninterrupted for the thousands of New Yorkers who rely on them.
The Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building is home to 20 federal government agencies including the Social Security Administration office, a day care for children of federal employees, a U.S. Military Entrance Processing Station, and my Capital Region office. For 50 years, it has been where Capital Region residents interact with the federal government for essential services like assistance with Social Security checks and the IRS or seeking justice in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. This is where new military recruits from the Capital Region are processed for service. Seeing this building on a list of properties “designated for disposal” created panic for Albany’s federal workers, who are already seeing the federal workforce slashed by DOGE. The list’s sudden removal within hours of first being posted has raised even more questions and caused even more chaos and uncertainty.
Your plans and process for determining the future of the building remain unclear. The GSA is listing the building as a “non-core” property despite the essential services the federal agencies within the building provide on a daily basis. The public has yet to see any cost-benefit studies to justify a potential major sale like this, and many have raised serious concerns that a measure like this would end up costing taxpayers significantly more by forcing federal offices to be leased by a private landlord. To add to the concerns, removing this list with no communication about if or when the list will be re-posted or updated underscores the complete disorganization and inefficiency of a process that potentially impacts jobs and vital services for my constituents. The hard-working federal workers in this building and the communities who rely on their services in New York’s Capital Region deserve clarity and certainty.
In an effort to cut through the confusion, I seek answers on the following:
What factors led to the Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building’s placement on this list of properties “designated for disposal”?
Who is making the decisions on this lease, and what involvement does DOGE have in that process?
Why was this list taken down so quickly? If so, will the list be updated and what criteria are being used for determining whether a property remains on an updated list?
Why did you not follow the standard processes of seeking public input about the loss of a federal building? Please provide any and all cost-benefit analysis studies that have been done relevant to the decision-making process for this property.
If the building is sold, is there an alternative plan for the federal offices located in the building? What assurances can be given that existing services in the building will not be disrupted due to a sale of this property?
This building has been integral to the federal government’s work in the Capital Region for 50 years, and its abrupt closure and sale would disrupt essential services my constituents rely on. We should not be haphazardly selling America’s real estate portfolio and causing chaos and uncertainty for the American people. This process is everything but efficient. I ask for your prompt answers to my questions above and urge you to maintain the Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building in Albany so federal workers can continue to support and serve the Capital Region and all of New York State.
Sincerely,
Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. –
ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook
If there is one thing we can thank US President Donald Trump for, it is this: he has decisively stripped away the ridiculous notion, long cultivated by Western media, that the United States is a benign global policeman enforcing a “rules-based order”.
Washington is better understood as the head of a gangster empire, embracing 800 military bases around the world. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been aggressively seeking “global full-spectrum domination”, as the Pentagon doctrine politely terms it.
You either pay fealty to the Don or you get dumped in the river. Last Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was presented with a pair of designer concrete boots at the White House.
The innovation was that it all happened in front of the Western press corps, in the Oval Office, rather than in a back room, out of sight. It made for great television, Trump crowed.
Pundits have been quick to reassure us that the shouting match was some kind of weird Trumpian thing. As though being inhospitable to state leaders, and disrespectful to the countries they head, is unique to this administration.
Take just the example of Iraq. The administration of Bill Clinton thought it “worth it” – as his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, infamously put it — to kill an estimated half a million Iraqi children by imposing draconian sanctions through the 1990s.
Under Clinton’s successor, George W Bush, the US then waged an illegal war in 2003, on entirely phoney grounds, that killed around half a million Iraqis, according to post-war estimates, and made four million homeless.
Those worrying about the White House publicly humiliating Zelensky might be better advised to save their concern for the hundreds of thousands of mostly Ukrainian and Russian men killed or wounded fighting an entirely unnecessary war — one, as we shall see, Washington carefully engineered through Nato over the preceding two decades.
Henchman Zelensky
All those casualties served the same goal as they did in Iraq: to remind the world who is boss.
Uniquely, Western publics don’t understand this simple point because they live inside a disinformation bubble, created for them by the Western establishment media.
Henry Kissinger, the long-time steward of US foreign policy, famously said: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Zelensky just found that out the hard way. Gangster empires are just as fickle as the gangsters we know from Hollywood movies. Under the previous Joe Biden administration, Zelensky had been recruited as a henchman to do Washington’s bidding on Moscow’s doorstep.
The background — the one Western media have kept largely out of view — is that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US tore up treaties crucial to reassuring Russia of Nato’s good intent.
Viewed from Moscow, and given Washington’s track record, Nato’s European security umbrella must have looked more like preparation for an ambush.
Keen though Trump now is to rewrite history and cast himself as peacemaker, he was central to the escalating tensions that led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
In 2019, he unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces. That opened the door to the US launching a potential first strike on Russia, using missiles stationed in nearby Nato members Romania and Poland.
He also sent Javelin anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, a move avoided by his predecessor, Barack Obama, for fear it would be seen as provocative.
Repeatedly, Nato vowed to bring Ukraine into its fold, despite Russia’s warnings that the step was viewed as an existential threat, that Moscow could not allow Washington to place missiles on its border, any more than the US accepted Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba back in the early 1960s.
Washington pressed ahead anyway, even assisting in a colour revolution-style coup in 2014 against the elected government in Kyiv, whose crime was being a little too sympathetic to Moscow.
With the country in crisis, Zelensky was himself elected by Ukrainians as a peace candidate, there to end a brutal civil war — sparked by that coup — between anti-Russian, “nationalistic” forces in the country’s west and ethnic Russian populations in the east. The Ukrainian President soon broke that promise.
Trump has accused Zelensky of being a “dictator”. But if he is, it is only because Washington wanted him that way, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Ukrainians.
Reddest of red lines
Zelensky’s job was to play a game of chicken with Moscow. The assumption was that the US would win whatever the outcome.
Either Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bluff would be called. Ukraine would be welcomed into Nato, becoming the most forward of the alliance’s forward bases against Russia, allowing nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to be stationed minutes from Moscow.
Or Putin would finally make good on his years of threats to invade his neighbour to stop Nato crossing the reddest of red lines he had set over Ukraine.
Washington could then cry “self-defence” on Ukraine’s behalf, and ludicrously fearmonger Western publics about Putin eyeing Poland, Germany, France and Britain next.
Those were the pretexts for arming Kyiv to the hilt, rather than seeking a rapid peace deal. And so began a proxy war of attrition against Russia, using Ukrainian men as cannon fodder.
The aim was to wear Russia down militarily and economically, and bring about Putin’s overthrow.
Zelensky did precisely what was demanded of him. When he appeared to waver early on, and considered signing a peace deal with Moscow, Britain’s prime minister of the time, Boris Johnson, was dispatched with a message from Washington: keep fighting.
That is the same Boris Johnson who now breezily admits that the West is fighting a “proxy war” against Russia.
Hmm, maybe someone can help me.
How was Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine entirely ‘unprovoked’, when the British leader in charge at the time, Boris Johnson, now admits Nato viewed Ukraine as the battlefield for a ‘proxy war’ against Russia? 🤯 pic.twitter.com/VS6jRE03gH
— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 24, 2025
His comments have generated precisely no controversy. That is particularly strange, given that critics who pointed this very obvious fact out three years ago were instantly denounced for spreading “Putin disinformation” and Kremlin “talking points”.
For his obedience, Zelensky was feted a hero, the defender of Europe against Russian imperialism. His every “demand” — demands that originated in Washington — was met.
Ukraine has received at least $250 billion worth of guns, tanks, fighter jets, training for his troops, Western intelligence on Russia, and other forms of aid.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian men have paid with their lives — as have the families they leave behind.
Mafia etiquette
Now the old Don in Washington is gone. The new Don has decided Zelensky has been an expensive failure. Russia isn’t lethally wounded. It’s stronger than ever. Time for a new strategy.
Zelensky, still imagining he was Washington’s favourite henchman, arrived at the Oval Office only to be taught a harsh lesson in mafia etiquette.
Trump is spinning his stab in the back as a “peace agreement”. And in some sense, it is. Rightly, Trump has concluded that Russia has won — unless the West is ready to fight World War III and risk a potential nuclear war.
Trump has faced up to the reality of the situation, even if Zelensky and Europe are still struggling to.
Trump’s overt ‘genocidal’ warning over Gaza. Video: TRT World News
But his plan for Ukraine is actually just a variation of his other peace plan — the one for Gaza. There he wants to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population and, on the bodies of the enclave’s many thousands of dead children, build the “Riviera of the Middle East” — or “Trump Gaza” as it is being called in a surreal video he shared on social media.
In telling the “people of Gaza”, they will be “DEAD” if the hostages aren’t released – something they can’t decide – Trump is expressing clear genocidal intent. He’a also sending the arms to make that genocide possible.
He needs to be in the ICC dock alongside Netanyahu. pic.twitter.com/eomkGP6eWe
— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) March 6, 2025
Similarly, Trump now sees Ukraine not as a military battlefield but as an economic one where, through clever deal-making, he can leverage riches for himself and his billionaire pals.
He has put a gun to Zelensky and Europe’s head. Make a deal with Russia to end the war, or you are on your own against a far superior military power. See if the Europeans can help you without a supply of Washington’s weapons.
Not surprisingly, Zelensky, Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron huddled together at the weekend to find a deal that would appease Trump. All Starmer has revealed so far is that the plan will “stop the fighting”.
That is a good thing. But the fighting could have been stopped, and should have been stopped, three years ago.
Money, not peace
It is deeply unwise to be lulled into tribalism by all this — the very tribalism Western elites seek to cultivate among their publics to keep us treating international affairs no differently from a high-stakes football match.
No one here has behaved, or is behaving, honourably.
A ceasefire in Ukraine is not about peace. It’s about money, just as the earlier war was. As all wars are, ultimately.
An acceptable ceasefire for Trump, as well as for Putin, will involve a carve-up of Ukraine’s goodies. Rare earth minerals, land, agricultural production will be the real currency driving the agreement.
Zelensky now understands this. He knows that he, and the people of Ukraine, have been scammed. That is what tends to happen when you cosy up to the mafia.
If anyone doubts Washington’s insincerity over Ukraine, look to Palestine for clarity.
In his earlier presidency, Trump tried to bring about what he termed the peace “deal of the century” whose centrepiece was the annexation of much of the Occupied West Bank.
The hope was that the Gulf states would ultimately fund an incentivisation programme — the carrot to Israel’s stick — to encourage Palestinians to make a new life in a giant, purpose-built industrial zone in Sinai, next to Gaza.
That plan is still simmering away in the background. At the weekend, Israel received a green light from Washington to revive its genocidal starvation of Gaza’s population, after Israel refused to negotiate the second phase of the original ceasefire agreement.
The Trump administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are now spinning their own bad faith as Hamas “rejectionism”.
They and the echo chamber that is the Western media are blaming the Palestinian group for refusing to be gulled into an “extension” of what was never more than a phoney ceasefire — Israel’s fire never ceased. Israel wants all the hostages back, without having to leave Gaza, so that Hamas has no leverage to stop Israel reviving the full genocide.
The people of Gaza are still being fed into the Washington mafia’s meatgrinder, just as the Ukrainian people have been.
Trump wants them out of the way so he can develop a Mediterranean playground for the rich, paid for with Gulf oil money and the so-far untapped natural gas reserves just off Gaza’s coast.
Unlike his predecessors, Trump doesn’t pretend that Ukraine and Gaza are anything more than geostrategic real estate for Washington.
The big shakedown
Zelensky’s shakedown did not come out of the blue. Trump and his officials had been flagging it well in advance.
Two weeks ago, the industrial correspondent for Britain’s Daily Telegraph wrote an article headlined “Here’s why Trump wants to make Ukraine a US economic colony”.
Trump’s team believes that Ukraine may have rare-earth minerals under the ground worth some $15 trillion — a treasure trove that will be critical to the development of the next generation of technology.
In their view, controlling the exploration and extraction of those minerals will be as important as control over the Middle East’s oil reserves was more than a century ago.
And most important of all, the US wants China, its chief economic — if not military — rival excluded from the plunder. China currently has an effective monopoly on many of these critical minerals.
Or as the Telegraph puts it, Ukraine’s “minerals offer a tantalising promise: the ability for the US to break its dependence on Chinese supplies of critical minerals that go into everything from wind turbines to iPhones and stealth fighter jets”.
A draft of the plan seen by the Telegraph would, in its words, “amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity”.
Washington wants first refusal on all deposits within the country.
At their Oval Office confrontation, Trump reiterated this goal: “So we’re going to be using that [Ukraine’s rare earth minerals], taking it, using it for all of the things we do, including AI, and including weapons, and the military. And it’s really going to very much satisfy our needs.”
All of this means that Trump has a keen incentive to get the war finished as quickly as possible, and Russia’s territorial advance halted. The more territory Moscow seizes, the less territory is left for the US to plunder.
Self-sabotage
The battle against China over rare-earth minerals isn’t a Trump innovation either — and adds an additional layer of context for why Washington and Nato have been so keen over the past two decades to prise Ukraine away from Russia.
Last summer, a Congressional select committee on competition with China announced the formation of a working group to counter Beijing’s “dominance of critical minerals”.
The chairman of the committee, John Moolenaar, noted that the current US dependence on China for these minerals “would quickly become an existential vulnerability in the event of a conflict”.
Another committee member, Rob Wittman, observed: “Dominance over global supply chains for critical mineral and rare earth elements is the next stage of great power competition.”
What Trump appears to appreciate is that Nato’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine has, by default, driven Moscow deeper into Beijing’s embrace. It has been self-sabotage on a grand scale.
Together, China and Russia are a formidable opponent, and one at the centre of the ever-growing Brics group — comprised of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They have been seeking to expand their alliance by adding emerging powers to become a counterweight to Washington and Nato’s bullying global agenda.
But a deal with Putin over Ukraine would provide an opportunity for Washington to build a new security architecture in Europe — one more useful to the US — that places Russia inside the tent rather than outside it.
That would leave China isolated — a long-time Pentagon goal.
And it would also leave Europe less central to the projection of US power, which is why European leaders — led by Keir Starmer — have been looking and sounding so unnerved over the past few weeks.
The danger is that Trump’s “peacemaking” in Ukraine simply becomes a prelude to the fomenting of a war against China, using Taiwan as the pretext in the same way Ukraine was used against Russia.
As Moolenaar implied, US control over critical minerals — in Ukraine and elsewhere — would ensure the US was no longer vulnerable in the event of a war with China to losing access to the minerals it would need to continue the war. It would free Washington’s hand.
Trump may be behaving in a vulgar manner. But the gangster empire he now heads is conducting the same global shakedown as ever.
Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist. He was based in Nazareth, Israel, for 20 years and returned to the UK in 2021. He is the author of three books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008). In 2011, Cook was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism for his work on Palestine and Israel. This article was first published in Middle East Eye and is republished with the author’s permission.
This article was first published on Café Pacific.
Source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (video statements)
Monetary policy as insurance – (01:03) Stefano Eusepi, Brown University; Christopher G. Gibbs, University of Sydney; Bruce Preston, University of New South Wales Business School.
Should monetary and fiscal policy pull in the same direction? – (40:47) Drago Bergholt, Norges Bank; Øistein Røisland, Norges Bank; Tommy Sveen, BI Norwegian Business School; Ragnar Torvik, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) in reintroducing the Access to Credit for our Rural Economy (ACRE) Act. This legislation would benefit American families, farmers, and rural communities nationwide by providing greater flexibility to more financial institutions to offer affordable lines of credit to rural and agricultural borrowers.
Senator Tuberville cosponsored this legislation in the 118th Congress.
“As Alabama’s voice on the Senate Ag Committee, I will always advocate for Alabama’s farmers and rural communities here in Washington,” said Senator Tuberville. “Our farmers are struggling with cash flow and desperately need expanded access to credit to continue their farm operations. I’m proud to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this bill that would bolster our agricultural economy and stimulate rural housing for all Alabamians.”
“Persistent inflation and high interest rates are putting a strain on farmers and rural homeowners in Kansas and across the country,” said Senator Moran. “Rural Americans should have the flexibility to access the capital needed to expand their family farms and achieve the dream of homeownership. This legislation will help to boost rural housing and support the agricultural economy that plays a vital role in small towns across America.”
Senators Tuberville and Moran were joined by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Angus King (I-ME), and Roger Marshall (R-KS) in cosponsoring the legislation.
American Bankers Association and Independent Community Bankers of America endorsed the legislation.
Read full text of the legislation here.
BACKGROUND:
The ACRE Act would:
Amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude interest received on certain loans secured by rural or agricultural real property from gross income
Allow farm real estate borrowers and rural homeowners access to lower interest rates by expanding the same tax-exempt status on certain earned interest that applies to other lenders
Apply to agricultural real estate and single-family home mortgage loans in rural communities with fewer than 2,500 residents and for mortgages less than $750,000
Expand access to affordable agricultural and home loans to over 4,000 rural communities nationwide and save family farmers and producers well over $400 million in annual interest expenses
Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP, and Aging Committees.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
Washington – U.S. Senators Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas) and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) today introduced the Access to Credit for our Rural Economy (ACRE) Act. This legislation allows community banks to administer agricultural real estate loans by granting them tax exempt status on earned interest. The ACRE Act would benefit American families, farmers, and rural communities nationwide by making loans more accessible and affordable to rural and agricultural borrowers.
Joining Senators Marshall and Moran are Senators Angus King (I-Maine), Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama).
“The ACRE Act will help community banks address one of the most significant challenges for rural communities — high interest rates,” said Senator Marshall. “High rates raise the cost of doing business for family farms, make it harder for small businesses to grow, and leave home ownership unattainable for many. The ACRE Act is common sense legislation to reverse these trends.”
“Persistent inflation and high interest rates are putting a strain on farmers and rural homeowners in Kansas and across the country,” said Senator Moran. “Rural Americans should have the flexibility to access the capital needed to expand their family farms and achieve the dream of homeownership. This legislation will help to boost rural housing and support the agricultural economy that plays a vital role in small towns across America.”“Rural communities across America are facing a serious affordable housing crisis. It has simply gotten way too hard to find reasonably priced homes in our small towns,” said Senator King. “The ACRE Act is a commonsense way to make home and farm ownership possible for more families by providing better access to low interest loans.”“Owning a home or family farm is a cornerstone of the America dream, and I’m proud to co-lead the ACRE Act to make loans more affordable for rural communities,” said Senator Gallego. “The American dream should be within reach for all Arizonans, including those living in rural parts of our state.”
“Farmers and ranchers need large swaths of land to grow crops and raise livestock to feed and fuel the world,” said Senator Cramer. “The ACRE act is a simple, straightforward solution to promote competition among lenders by lowering interest rates for farmland purchases.”
Specifically, the ACRE Act would:
Amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude interest received on certain loans secured by rural or agricultural real property from gross income.
Allow farm real estate borrowers and rural homeowners access to lower interest rates by expanding the same tax-exempt status on certain earned interest that applies to other lenders.
Apply to agricultural real estate and single-family home mortgage loans in rural communities with fewer than 2,500 residents and for mortgages less than $750,000.
Expand access to affordable agricultural and home loans to over 4,000 rural communities nationwide and save family farmers and producers well over $400 million in annual interest expenses.
“ABA applauds today’s bipartisan, bicameral introduction of the Access to Credit for our Rural Economy Act of 2025, and we thank the bill’s lead sponsors Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Angus King (I-ME), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), and Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Representatives Randy Feenstra (R-IA-04), Don Davis (D-NC-01) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX-01) for their leadership on this issue,” said Rob Nichols, President and CEO of the American Bankers Association (ABA). “The ACRE Act will deliver much-needed financial support to farmers and ranchers working through a difficult economic cycle by lowering the cost of credit without creating new government payments or programs. It would also drive down the cost of homeownership and increase access to credit in more than 17,000 rural communities across the country. We urge all members of Congress to support this critically important legislation.”“This important legislation will help community bank lenders revive and sustain rural economies struggling to overcome the impact of higher interest rates,” said Rebeca Romero Rainey, President and CEO, Independent Community Bankers of America. “ICBA and the nation’s community banks thank Congressman Feenstra (R-IA) and Davis (D-NC) for providing a reasonable solution that benefits rural Americans, especially young, beginning, and small farmers and ranchers, who will make up the next generation of producers.”
To read the full bill text, click here.
Source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (video statements)
Opening Remarks – Assistant Governor Karen Silk (00:04)
Keynote address: Holding anchor in turbulent waters – (08:20) Catherine L. Mann, External Member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, Professor at Alliance Manchester Business School and Brandeis University.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, March 6 — China will intensify its macroeconomic policy this year, with a significant increase in government spending and a greater focus on consumption and innovation to chart a path of steady growth amid a complex global landscape.
Senior government officials elaborated on specific pro-growth measures ranging from interest rate cuts to increased funding for small firms, at a press conference held Thursday on the sidelines of the third session of the 14th National People’s Congress.
STRONGER FISCAL SUPPORT
China will have a 4-percent deficit-to-GDP ratio and a government deficit of 5.66 trillion yuan (about 790 billion U.S. dollars) in 2025, according to the government work report submitted to the national legislature for deliberation.
Both figures are at their highest levels in recent years, indicating strengthened counter-cyclical adjustment, Minister of Finance Lan Fo’an said at the press conference. The country will issue 4.4 trillion yuan of local government special-purpose bonds and 1.3 trillion yuan of ultra-long special treasury bonds.
Analysts believe the expanding fiscal expenditure will shore up sustained economic and social development.
There will be over 5 trillion yuan of government spending on construction investment this year, said Zheng Shanjie, head of the National Development and Reform Commission.
“We will support private enterprises in investing in emerging and future industries, and introduce a number of attractive major projects in areas such as railways, nuclear power, water conservancy, and major scientific and technological infrastructure,” Zheng said.
SUPPORTIVE MONETARY POLICY
China will cut reserve requirement ratios (RRRs) and interest rates when appropriate this year, in line with domestic and international economic and financial conditions, as well as the performance of financial markets, said Pan Gongsheng, governor of the People’s Bank of China, the country’s central bank.
The average RRR for China’s financial institutions now stands at 6.6 percent, and there is still room for further reduction, Pan said.
According to the government work report, China will adopt a moderately loose monetary policy this year.
Pan said the central bank will utilize multiple tools to offer adequate liquidity and bring down financing costs.
Strengthened supportive measures will be seen in key areas and weak links including green finance, micro and small firms, and pension finance, Pan said.
CONSUMPTION AS PRIMARY DRIVER
As consumption continues to serve as the primary driving force for the economy, improving consumer sentiment will remain high on the government’s work agenda.
Zheng said that government funding for the national consumer goods trade-in program will increase from 150 billion yuan last year to 300 billion yuan in 2025.
The trade-in program, launched a year ago, has played a vital role in revitalizing consumer markets. In 2024, it led to sales exceeding 1.3 trillion yuan, including over 6.8 million vehicles, 56 million home appliances and 1.38 million e-bikes.
There will also be further policies to bolster services consumption this year, Commerce Minister Wang Wentao said, citing measures to open the telecom, medical services and education sectors, and to increase the diversified supply of health, elderly care, child care and domestic services.
More efforts will be made to innovate services consumption scenarios to meet people’s diversified and high-quality consumption needs in an improved manner, Wang said.
DYNAMIC FORCES
With its remarkable progress in technological innovation in 2024, the country will step up efforts to drive the development of new quality productive forces this year.
Zheng said that China will establish a national venture capital guidance fund to drive nearly 1 trillion yuan of local and private funds to invest in tech firms in a market-oriented manner.
Efforts will also be made to nurture a talent pool, including strategic scientists, outstanding entrepreneurs, top-tier engineers, master artisans and other highly skilled professions, Zheng said, adding that an open and inclusive innovation ecosystem will be created.
From AI models like DeepSeek to humanoid robots and intelligent cars, China continues to make significant technological strides. Last year, high-tech manufacturing and equipment manufacturing accounted for 16.3 percent and 34.6 percent of China’s total industrial output, respectively.
DEFUSING LOCAL DEBT RISK
In 2024, China unveiled a major local government debt replacement program worth 6 trillion yuan, with an annual quota of 2 trillion yuan from the same year. The program allows local governments to issue new bonds to replace hidden debts.
Bonds issued through the program last year saw an average reduction in local debt interest rates of over 2.5 percentage points. It is estimated that these bonds will reduce interest payments by over 200 billion yuan over five years, significantly easing funding pressures and interest costs for local governments, Lan noted.
China’s local government debt risks have been effectively mitigated, he said.
With eased debt burdens, local governments are capable of earmarking more funds for education and health care to improve people’s well-being and supporting technological innovation and consumption for high-quality development, analysts said.
Lan said that the Ministry of Finance will guide the timely replacement of local debts this year, promote the transformation of local financing vehicles, and resolutely curb new hidden debts.
US Senate News:
Source: The White House
class=”has-text-align-center”>U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
9:19 P.M. EST
(March 4, 2025)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It’s a great honor. Thank you very much.
Speaker Johnson, Vice President Vance, the first lady of the United States — (applause) — members of the United States Congress, thank you very much.
And to my fellow citizens, America is back. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
THE PRESIDENT: Six weeks ago, I stood beneath the dome of this Capitol and proclaimed the dawn of the golden age of America. From that moment on, it has been nothing but swift and unrelenting action to usher in the greatest and most successful era in the history of our country.
We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started. (Applause.) Thank you.
I return to this chamber tonight to report that America’s momentum is back, our spirit is back, our pride is back, our confidence is back, and the American dream is surging bigger and better than ever before. (Applause.) The American dream is unstoppable, and our country is on the verge of a comeback, the likes of which the world has never witnessed and perhaps will never witness again. There’s never been anything like it. (Applause.)
The presidential election of November 5th was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades. We won all seven swing states, giving us an electoral college victory of 312 votes. (Applause.) We won the popular vote —
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: — by big numbers and won counties in our country —
AUDIENCE: Booo —
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: You are — you have no right to cut Medicaid.
AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!
THE PRESIDENT: — and won counties in our country 2,700 to 525 on a map that reads almost completely red for Republican. (Applause.)
Now, for the first time in modern history, more Americans believe that our country is headed in the right direction than the wrong direction. In fact, it’s an astonishing record: 27-point swing, the most ever. (Applause.)
Likewise, small-business optimism saw its single largest one-month gain ever recorded.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: A 41-point jump.
(Speaker Johnson strikes the gavel.)
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That’s your warning.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant at arms to restore order to the joint session. (Applause.)
Mr. Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Take your seat.
(Cross-talk.)
Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant at arms to restore order. (Applause.) Remove this gentleman from the chamber. (Applause.)
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: Shame on all of you.
(Members of the audience sing “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye.”)
(Cross-talk.)
You have no mandate.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House.
Mr. President, you can continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Over the past six weeks, I have signed nearly 100 executive orders and taken more than 400 executive actions — a record — to restore common sense, safety, optimism, and wealth all across our wonderful land. The people elected me to do the job, and I’m doing it. (Applause.)
In fact, it has been stated by many that the first month of our presidency — it’s our presidency — (applause) — is the most successful in the history of our nation by many. (Applause.) And what makes it even more impressive is that — do you know who number two is? George Washington. How about that? (Laughter and applause.) How about that? I don’t know about that list, but we’ll take it.
Within hours of taking the oath of office, I declared a national emergency on our southern border — (applause) — and I deployed the U.S. military and Border Patrol to repel the invasion of our country. And what a job they’ve done.
As a result, illegal border crossings last month were, by far, the lowest ever recorded. Ever. (Applause.) They heard my words, and they chose not to come. Much easier that way.
In comparison, under Joe Biden, the worst president in American history — (applause) — there were hundreds of thousands of illegal crossings a month, and virtually all of them, including murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and people from mental institutions and insane asylums, were released into our country. Who would want to do that?
This is my fifth such speech to Congress, and, once again, I look at the Democrats in front of me, and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy or to make them stand or smile or applaud. Nothing I can do. I could find a cure to the most devastating disease — a disease that would wipe out entire nations, or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded, and these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand, and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements. They won’t do it no matter what.
Five times I’ve been up here. It’s very sad, and it just shouldn’t be this way. (Applause.)
So, Democrats sitting before me, for just this one night, why not join us in celebrating so many incredible wins for America? For the good of our nation, let’s work together and let’s truly make America great again. (Applause.)
Every day, my administration is fighting to deliver the change America needs, to bring a future that America deserves, and we’re doing it. This is a time for big dreams and bold action.
Upon taking office, I imposed an immediate freeze on all federal hiring, a freeze on all new federal regulations, and a freeze on all foreign aid. (Applause.) I terminated the ridiculous Green New Scam. I withdrew from the unfair Paris Climate Accord, which was costing us trillions of dollars that other countries were not paying. (Applause.) I withdrew from the corrupt World Health Organization. (Applause.) And I also withdrew from the anti-American U.N. Human Rights Council. (Applause.)
We ended all of Biden’s environmental restrictions that were making our country far less safe and totally unaffordable. And importantly, we ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our autoworkers and companies from economic destruction. (Applause.)
To unshackle our economy, I have directed that for every 1 new regulation, 10 old regulations must be eliminated, just like I did in my very successful first term. (Applause.) And in that first term, we set records on ending unnecessary rules and regulations like no other president had done before.
We ordered all federal workers to return to the office. They will either show up for work in person or be removed from their job. (Applause.)
And we have ended weaponized government, where, as an example, a sitting president is allowed to viciously prosecute his political opponent, like me. How did that work out? (Laughter.) Not too good. (Applause.) Not too good.
And I have stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back. (Applause.)
And two days ago, I signed an order making English the official language of the United States of America. (Applause.)
I renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. (Applause.)
And, likewise, I renamed — for a great president, William McKinley — Mount McKinley again. (Applause.) Beautiful Alaska. We love Alaska.
We’ve ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and, indeed, the private sector and our military. (Applause.) And our country will be woke no longer. (Applause.)
We believe that whether you are a doctor, an accountant, a lawyer, or an air traffic controller, you should be hired and promoted based on skill and competence, not race or gender. Very important. (Applause.) You should be hired based on merit. And the Supreme Court, in a brave and very powerful decision, has allowed us to do so.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
We have removed the poison of critical race theory from our public schools. And I signed an order making it the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female. (Applause.)
I also signed an executive order to ban men from playing in women’s sports. (Applause.)
Three years ago, Payton McNabb was an all-star high school athlete — one of the best — preparing for a future in college sports. But when her girls’ volleyball match was invaded by a male, he smashed the ball so hard in Payton’s face, causing traumatic brain injury, partially paralyzing her right side, and ending her athletic career. It was a shot like she’s never seen before. She’s never seen anything like it.
Payton is here tonight in the gallery. And, Payton, from now on, schools will kick the men off the girls’ team or they will lose all federal funding. (Applause.)
And if you really want to see numbers, just take a look at what happened in the woman’s boxing, weightlifting, track and field, swimming, or cycling, where a male recently finished a long-distance race five hours and 14 minutes ahead of a woman for a new record by five hours. Broke the record by five hours.
It’s demeaning for women, and it’s very bad for our country. We’re not going to put up with it any longer. (Applause.)
What I have just described is only a small fraction of the commonsense revolution that is now, because of us, sweeping the entire world. Common sense has become a common theme, and we will never go back. Never. Never going to let that happen. (Applause.)
Among my very highest priorities is to rescue our economy and get dramatic and immediate relief to working families. As you know, we inherited from the last administration an economic catastrophe and an inflation nightmare. Their policies drove up energy prices, pushed up grocery costs, and drove the necessities of life out of reach for millions and millions of Americans. They’ve never had anything like it.
We suffered the worst inflation in 48 years but perhaps even in the history of our country. They’re not sure. As president, I’m fighting every day to reverse this damage and make America affordable again. (Applause.)
Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control.
AUDIENCE: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: The egg price is out of control, and we’re working hard to get it back down.
Secretary, do a good job on that. You inherited a total mess from the previous administration. Do a good job. (Applause.)
A major focus of our fight to defeat inflation is rapidly reducing the cost of energy. The previous administration cut the number of new oil and gas leases by 95 percent, slowed pipeline construction to a halt, and closed more than 100 power plants. We are opening up many of those power plants right now. (Applause.)
And, frankly, we have never seen anything like it. That’s why, on my first day in office, I declared a national energy emergency. (Applause.) As you’ve heard me say many times, we have more liquid gold under our feet than any nation on Earth and by far. And now I’ve fully authorized the most talented team ever assembled to go and get it. It’s called drill, baby, drill. (Applause.)
My administration is also working on a gigantic natural gas pipeline in Alaska — among the largest in the world — where Japan, South Korea, and other nations want to be our partner with investments of trillions of dollars each. There’s never been anything like that one. It will be truly spectacular. It’s all set to go. The permitting is gotten.
And later this week, I will also take historic action to dramatically expand production of critical minerals and rare earths here in the USA. (Applause.)
To further combat inflation, we will not only be reducing the cost of energy, but we’ll be ending the flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars. (Applause.) And to that end, I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency – DOGE. (Applause.) Perhaps you’ve heard of it — perhaps — which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight. (Applause.)
Thank you, Elon. He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. (Laughs.) He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Everybody here, even this side, appreciates it, I believe. (Applause.) They just don’t want to admit that.
Just listen to some of the appalling waste we have already identified.
$22 billion from HHS to provide free housing and cars for illegal aliens.
$45 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion scholarships in Burma.
$40 million to improve the social and economic inclusion of sedentary migrants. Nobody knows what that is. (Laughter.)
$8 million to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of. (Laughter.)
$60 million for Indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombian empowerment in Central America. $60 million.
$8 million for making mice transgender. (Laughter.) This is real.
$32 million for a left-wing propaganda operation in Moldova.
$10 million for male circumcision in Mozambique.
$20 million for the Arab “Sesame Street” in the Middle East. It’s a program. $20 million for a program.
$1.9 billion to recently created decarbonization of homes committee, headed up — and we know she’s involved — just at the last moment, the money was passed over — by a woman named Stacey Abrams. Have you ever heard of her?
AUDIENCE: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: A $3.5 million consulting contract for lavish fish monitoring.
$1.5 million for voter confidence in Liberia.
$14 million for social cohesion in Mali.
$59 million for illegal alien hotel rooms in New York City.
AUDIENCE: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: He’s a real estate developer. He’s done very well.
$250,000 to increase vegan local climate action innovation in Zambia.
$42 million for social and behavior change in Uganda.
$14 million for improving public procurement in Serbia.
$47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia. Asia is doing very well with learning. (Laughter.) Don’t know what we’re doing. We should use it ourselves.
And $101 million for DEI contracts at the Department of Education, the most ever paid. Nothing even like it.
Under the Trump administration, all of these scams — and there are far worse, but I didn’t think it was appropriate to talk about them. They’re so bad. Many more have been found out and exposed and swiftly terminated by a group of very intelligent, mostly young people, headed up by Elon. And we appreciate it. We’ve found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud. (Applause.)
And we’ve taken back the money and reduced our debt to fight inflation and other things. Taken back a lot of that money. We got it just in time.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: This is just the beginning. The Government Accountability Office, a federal government office, has estimated annual fraud of over $500 billion in our nation, and we are working very hard to stop it. We’re going to.
We’re also identifying shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security program for our seniors and that our seniors and people that we love rely on. Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old.
THE PRESIDENT: It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119. I don’t know any of them. I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly. (Laughter.)
3.47 million people from ages 120 to 129.
3.9 million people from ages 130 to 139.
3.5 million people from ages 140 to 149.
And money is being paid to many of them, and we’re searching right now.
In fact, Pam, good luck. Good luck. You’re going to find it.
But a lot of money is paid out to people because it just keeps getting paid and paid, and nobody does — and it really hurts Social Security and hurts our country.
1.3 million people from ages 150 to 159. And over 130,000 people, according to the Social Security databases, are age over 160 years old.
We have a healthier country than I thought, Bobby. (Laughter and applause.)
Including, to finish, 1,039 people between the ages of 220 and 229; one person between the age of 240 and 249; and one person is listed at 360 years of age.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Joe Biden! (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: More than 100 years older than our country.
But we’re going to find out where that money is going, and it’s not going to be pretty.
By slashing all of the fraud, waste, and theft we can find, we will defeat inflation, bring down mortgage rates, lower car payments and grocery prices, protect our seniors, and put more money in the pockets of American families. (Applause.)
And today, interest rates took a beautiful drop — big, beautiful drop. It’s about time.
And in the near future, I want to do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget. We’re going to balance it. (Applause.)
With that goal in mind, we have developed in great detail what we are calling the gold card, which goes on sale very, very soon.
For $5 million, we will allow the most successful, job-creating people from all over the world to buy a path to U.S. citizenship. It’s like the green card but better and more sophisticated. (Laughter.) And these people will have to pay tax in our country. They won’t have to pay tax from where they came. The money that they’ve made, you wouldn’t want to do that, but they have to pay tax, create jobs.
They’ll also be taking people out of colleges and paying for them so that we can keep them in our country, instead of having them being forced out. Number one at the top school, as an example, being forced out and not being allowed to stay and create tremendous numbers of jobs and great success for a company out there.
So, while we take out the criminals, killers, traffickers, and child predators who were allowed to enter our country under the open border policy of these people — the Democrats, the Biden administration — the open border, insane policies that you’ve allowed to destroy our country — we will now bring in brilliant, hardworking, job-creating people. They’re going to pay a lot of money, and we’re going to reduce our debt with that money. (Applause.)
Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change. For nearly 100 years, the federal bureaucracy has grown until it has crushed our freedoms, ballooned our deficits, and held back America’s potential in every possible way. The nation founded by pioneers and risk-takers now drowns under millions and millions of pages of regulations and debt.
Approvals that should take 10 days to get instead take 10 years, 15 years, and even 20 years before you’re rejected. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of thousands of federal workers who have not been showing up to work.
My administration will reclaim power from this unaccountable bureaucracy, and we will restore true democracy to America again. (Applause.) Any federal bureaucrat who resists this change will be removed from office immediately — (applause) — because we are draining the swamp. It’s very simple. And the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over. (Applause.)
And the next phase of our plan to deliver the greatest economy in history is for this Congress to pass tax cuts for everybody. They’re in there. They’re waiting for you to vote. (Applause.)
And I’m sure that the people on my right — I don’t mean the Republican right, but my right right here — I’m sure you’re going to vote for those tax cuts, because, otherwise, I don’t believe the people will ever vote you into office. So, I’m doing you a big favor by telling you that. (Applause.)
But I know this group is going to be voting for the taxes. (Applause.)
Thank you. It’s a very, very big part of our plan. We had tremendous success in our first term with it. A very big part of our plan. We’re seeking permanent income tax cuts all across the board.
And to get urgently needed relief to Americans hit especially hard by inflation, I’m calling for no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security benefits for our great seniors. (Applause.)
(Addressing Speaker Johnson.) Good luck.
And I also want to make interest payments on car loans tax deductible but only if the car is made in America. (Applause.)
And, by the way, we’re going to have growth in the auto industry like nobody has ever seen. Plants are opening up all over the place. Deals are being made. Never seen. That’s a combination of the election win and tariffs.
It’s a beautiful word, isn’t it?
That, along with our other policies, will allow our auto industry to absolutely boom. It’s going to boom. Spoke to the majors today — all three — the top people, and they’re so excited. In fact, already, numerous car companies have announced that they will be building massive automobile plants in America, with Honda just announcing a new plant in Indiana, one of the largest anywhere in the world. (Applause.)
And this has taken place since our great victory on November 5th, a date which will hopefully go down as one of the most important in the history of our country. (Applause.)
In addition, as part of our tax cuts, we want to cut taxes on domestic production and all manufacturing. And just as we did before, we will provide 100 percent expensing. It will be retroactive to January 20th, 2025, and it was one of the main reasons why our tax cuts were so successful in our first term, giving us the most successful economy in the history of our country. First term — we had a great first term. (Applause.)
If you don’t make your product in America, however, under the Trump administration, you will pay a tariff and, in some cases, a rather large one. Other countries have used tariffs against us for decades, and now it’s our turn to start using them against those other countries.
On average, the European Union, China, Brazil, India, Mexico, and Canada — have you heard of them? — and countless other nations charge us tremendously higher tariffs than we charge them. It’s very unfair. India charges us auto tariffs higher than 100 percent. China’s average tariff on our products is twice what we charge them. And South Korea’s average tariff is four times higher. Think of that: four times higher. And we give so much help militarily and in so many other ways to South Korea, but that’s what happens.
This is happening by friend and foe. This system is not fair to the United States and never was. And so, on April 2nd — I wanted to make it April 1st, but I didn’t want to be accused of April Fool’s Day. (Laughter.) Just one day, which cost us a lot of money. (Laughter.) But we’re going to do it in April. I’m a very superstitious person. April 2nd, reciprocal tariffs kick in. And whatever they tariff us — other countries — we will tariff them. That’s reciprocal, back and forth. (Applause.) Whatever they tax us, we will tax them.
If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we will do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. There’s a lot of that too. They don’t even allow us in their market.
We will take in trillions and trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before. I did it with China, and I did it with others. And the Biden administration couldn’t do anything about it because it was so much money. They couldn’t do anything about it.
We have been ripped off for decades by nearly every country on Earth, and we will not let that happen any longer. (Applause.)
Much has been said over the last three months about Mexico and Canada, but we have very large deficits with both of them. But even more importantly, they have allowed fentanyl to come into our country at levels never seen before, killing hundreds of thousands of our citizens and many very young, beautiful people — destroying families. Nobody has ever seen anything like it.
They are, in effect, receiving subsidies of hundreds of billions of dollars. We pay subsidies to Canada and to Mexico of hundreds of billions of dollars. And the United States will not be doing that any longer. We’re not going to do it any longer. (Applause.)
Thanks to our America First policies we’re putting into place, we have had $1.7 trillion of new investment in America in just the past few weeks. (Applause.) The combination of the election and our economic policies — the people of SoftBank, one of the most brilliant anywhere in the world, announced a $200 billion investment. OpenAI and Oracle — Larry Ellison — announced $500 billion investment, which they wouldn’t have done if Kamala had won. (Applause.)
Apple announced $500 billion investment. Tim Cook called me. He said, “I cannot spend it fast enough.” It’s going to be much higher than that, I believe. They’ll be building their plants here, instead of in China.
And just yesterday, Taiwan Semiconductor — the biggest in the world, most powerful in the world, has a tremendous amount — 97 percent of the market, announced a $165 billion investment to build the most powerful chips on Earth right here in the USA. (Applause.)
And we’re not giving them any money. Your CHIPS Act is a horrible, horrible thing. We give hundreds of billions of dollars, and it doesn’t mean a thing. They take our money, and they don’t spend it. All that meant to them — we’re giving them no money. All that was important to them was they didn’t want to pay the tariffs, so they came and they’re building. And many other companies are coming.
We don’t have to give them money. We just want to protect our businesses and our people. And they will come because they won’t have to pay tariffs if they build in America. And so, it’s very amazing.
You should get rid of the CHIP Act. And whatever is left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt or any other reason you want to. (Applause.)
Our new trade policy will also be great for the American farmer — I love the farmer — (applause) — who will now be selling into our home market, the USA, because nobody is going to be able to compete with you. Because those goods that come in from other countries and companies, they’re really, really in a bad position in so many different ways. They’re uninspected. They may be very dirty and disgusting, and they come in and they pour in, and they hurt our American farmers.
The tariffs will go on agricultural product coming into America. And our farmers, starting on April 2nd — it may be a little bit of an adjustment period. We had that before, when I made the deal with China. Fifty billion dollars of purchases, and I said, “Just bear with me,” and they did. They did. Probably have to bear with me again, and this will be even better.
That was great. The problem with it was that Biden didn’t enforce it. He didn’t enforce it. Fifty billion dollars of purchases, and we were doing great, but Biden did not enforce it. And it hurt our farmers, but our farmers are going to have a field day right now.
So, to our farmers, have a lot of fun. I love you too. I love you too. (Applause.) It’s all going to happen.
And I have also imposed a 25 percent tariff on foreign aluminum, copper, lumber, and steel, because if we don’t have, as an example, steel and lots of other things, we don’t have a military and, frankly, we just won’t have a country very long.
Here today is a proud American steelworker, fantastic person from Decatur, Alabama. Jeff Denard has been working at the same steel plant for 27 years in a job that has allowed him to serve as the captain of his local volunteer fire department; raise seven children with his beautiful wife, Nicole; and over the years, provide a loving home for more than 40 foster children. So great, Jeff. (Applause.)
Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff. (Applause.)
Stories like Jeff’s remind us that tariffs are not just about protecting American jobs. They’re about protecting the soul of our country. Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again. And it’s happening, and it will happen rather quickly.
There will be a little disturbance, but we’re okay with that. It won’t be much.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, we’re not!
THE PRESIDENT: No, you’re not. Oh. (Laughter.)
And look — and look where Biden took us. Very low. The lowest we’ve ever been.
Jeff, I want to thank you very much.
And I also want to recognize another person who has devoted herself to foster care community. She worked so hard on it. A very loving person. Our magnificent first lady of the United States. (Applause.)
Melania’s work has yielded incredible results, helping prepare our nation’s future leaders as they enter the workforce.
Our first lady is joined by two impressive young women — very impressive: Haley Ferguson, who benefited from the first lady’s Fostering the Future initiative and is poised to complete her education and become a teacher, and Elliston Berry, who became a victim of an illicit deepfake image produced by a peer. With Elliston’s help, the Senate just passed the Take It Down Act —
This is so important. Thank you very much, John. John Thune, thank you. (Applause.) Stand up, John. Thank you, John. (Applause.) Thank you all very much. Thank you.
And thank you to John Thune and the Senate. A great job.
— to criminalize the publication of such images online. This terrible, terrible thing. And once it passes the House, I look forward to signing that bill into law. Thank you.
And I’m going to use that bill for myself too, if you don’t mind — (laughter) — because nobody gets treated worse than I do online. Nobody. (Laughter.)
That’s great. Thank you very much to the Senate. Thank you.
But if we truly care about protecting America’s children, no step is more crucial than securing America’s borders. Over the past four years, 21 million people poured into the United States. Many of them were murderers, human traffickers, gang members, and other criminals from the streets of dangerous cities all throughout the world. Because of Joe Biden’s insane and very dangerous open border policies, they are now strongly embedded in our country, but we are getting them out and getting them out fast. (Applause.)
And I want to thank Tom Homan. And, Kristi, I want to thank you. And Paul of Border Patrol, I want to thank you. What a job they’ve all done. Everybody. Border Patrol, ICE. Law enforcement, in general, is incredible. We have to take care of our law enforcement. (Applause.) We have to.
Last year, a brilliant 22-year-old nursing student named Laken Riley — the best in her class, admired by everybody — went out for a jog on the campus of the University of Georgia. That morning, Laken was viciously attacked, assaulted, beaten, brutalized, and horrifically murdered. Laken was stolen from us by a savage illegal alien gang member who was arrested while trespassing across Biden’s open southern border and then set loose into the United States under the heartless policies of that failed administration. It was indeed a failed administration.
He had then been arrested and released in a Democrat-run sanctuary city — a disaster — before ending the life of this beautiful young angel.
With us this evening are Laken’s beloved mother, Allyson, and her sister, Lauren. (Applause.)
Last year, I told Laken’s grieving parents that we would ensure their daughter would not have died in vain. That’s why the very first bill I signed into law as your 47th president mandates the detention of all dangerous criminal aliens who threaten public safety. It’s a very strong, powerful act. (Applause.) It’s called the Laken Riley Act. (Applause.)
So, Allyson and Lauren, America will never, ever forget our beautiful Laken Hope Riley. (Applause.)
Thank you very much.
Since taking office, my administration has launched the most sweeping border and immigration crackdown in American history, and we quickly achieved the lowest numbers of illegal border crossers ever recorded. Thank you. (Applause.)
The media and our friends in the Democrat Party kept saying we needed new legislation. “We must have legislation to secure the border.” But it turned out that all we really needed was a new president. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Trump! Trump! Trump!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Joe Biden didn’t just open our borders. He flew illegal aliens over them to overwhelm our schools, hospitals, and communities throughout the country. Entire towns, like Aurora, Colorado, and Springfield, Ohio, buckled under the weight of the migrant occupation and corruption like nobody has ever seen before. Beautiful towns destroyed.
Now, just as I promised in my Inaugural Address, we are achieving the great liberation of America. (Applause.)
But there still is much work to be done.
Here tonight is a woman I have gotten to know: Alexis Nungaray from Houston. Wonderful woman. Last June, Alexis’s 12-year-old daughter, her precious Jocelyn, walked to a nearby convenience store. She was kidnapped, tied up, assaulted for two hours under a bridge, and horrifically murdered. Arrested and charged with this heinous crime are two illegal alien monsters from Venezuela, released into America by the last administration through their ridiculous open border.
The death of this beautiful 12-year-old girl and the agony of her mother and family touched our entire nation greatly.
Alexis, I promised that we would always remember your daughter — your magnificent daughter. And earlier tonight, I signed an order keeping my word to you.
One thing I have learned about Jocelyn is that she loved animals so much. She loved nature. Across Galveston Bay from where Jocelyn lived in Houston, you will find a magnificent national wildlife refuge. A pristine, peaceful, 34,000-acre sanctuary for all of God’s creatures on the edge of the Gulf of America.
Alexis, moments ago, I formally renamed that refuge in loving memory of your beautiful daughter, Jocelyn.
So, Mr. Vice President, if you would, may I have the order? (Applause.)
(The president holds up the executive order.)
Thank you very much.
All three savages charged with Jocelyn and Laken’s murders were members of the Venezuelan prison gang — the toughest gang, they say, in the world — known as Tren de Aragua. Two weeks ago, I officially designated this gang, along with MS-13 and the bloodthirsty Mexican drug cartels, as foreign terrorist organizations. (Applause.) They are now officially in the same category as ISIS, and that’s not good for them.
Countless thousands of these terrorists were welcomed into the U.S. by the Biden administration, but now every last one will be rounded up and forcibly removed from our country, or, if they’re too dangerous, put in jails, standing trial in this country, because we don’t want them to come back ever.
With us this evening is a warrior on the front lines of that battle, Border Patrol agent Roberto Ortiz. Great guy. (Applause.)
In January, Roberto and another agent were patrolling by the Rio Grande, near an area known as Cartel Island — doesn’t sound too nice to me — when heavily armed gunmen started shooting at them. Roberto saw that his partner was totally exposed, in great danger, and he leapt into action, returning fire and providing crucial seconds for his fellow agent to seek safety, and just barely. I have some of the prints of that event, and it was not good.
Agent Ortiz, we salute you for your great courage and for your line of fire that you took and for the bravery that you showed. We honor you, and we will always honor you. Thank you, Roberto, very much. (Applause.) Thank you, Roberto.
And I actually got to know him on my many calls to the border. He’s a great, great gentleman.
The territory to the immediate south of our border is now dominated entirely by criminal cartels that murder, rape, torture, and exercise total control — they have total control over a whole nation — posing a grave threat to our national security. The cartels are waging war in America, and it’s time for America to wage war on the cartels, which we are doing. (Applause.)
Five nights ago, Mexican authorities, because of our tariff policies being imposed on them — think of this — handed over to us 29 of the biggest cartel leaders in their country. That has never happened before. They want to make us happy. (Applause.) First time ever.
But we need Mexico and Canada to do much more than they’ve done, and they have to stop the fentanyl and drugs pouring into the USA. They’re going to stop it.
I have sent Congress a detailed funding request laying out exactly how we will eliminate these threats to protect our homeland and complete the largest deportation operation in American history, larger even than current record holder, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a moderate man but someone who believed very strongly in borders. Americans expect Congress to send me this funding without delay so I can sign it into law.
So, Mr. Speaker, John Thune, both of you, I hope you’re going to be able to do that. Mr. Speaker, thank you. Mr. Leader, thank you. Thank you very much. And let’s get it to me. I’ll sign it so fast, you won’t even believe it. (Applause.)
And as we reclaim our sovereignty, we must also bring back law and order to our cities and towns. (Applause.) In recent years, our justice system has been turned upside down by radical-left lunatics. Many jurisdictions virtually ceased enforcing the law against dangerous repeat offenders while weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents like me.
My administration has acted swiftly and decisively to restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law, starting at the FBI and the DOJ.
Pam, good luck. Kash, wherever you may be, good luck. (Applause.) Good luck. Pam Bondi, good luck. So important. Going to do a great job. (Applause.)
Kash, thank you. Thank you, Kash. (Applause.)
They have already started very strong. They’re going to do a fantastic job. You’re going to be very proud of them.
We’re also, once again, giving our police officers the support, protection, and respect they so dearly deserve. They have to get it. They have such a hard, dangerous job, but we’re going to make it less dangerous. The problem is the bad guys don’t respect the law, but they’re starting to respect it, and they soon will respect it.
(Cross-talk.)
This also includes our great fire departments throughout the country. Our firemen and women are unbelievable people, and I will never forget them. And besides that, they voted for me in record numbers, so I have no choice. (Applause.)
One year ago this month, 31-year-old New York police officer Jonathan Diller — unbelievably wonderful person and a great officer — was gunned down at a traffic stop on Long Island. I went to his funeral. The vicious criminal charged with his murder had 21 prior arrests, and they were rough arrests too. He was a real bad one.
The thug in the seat next to him had 14 prior arrests and went by the name of “Killer.” He was Killer. He killed other people. They say a lot of them.
I attended Officer Diller’s service, and when I met his wife and one-year-old son, Ryan, it was very inspirational, actually. His widow’s name is Stephanie, and she is here tonight. Stephanie, thank you very much, Stephanie. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Stephanie, we’re going to make sure that Ryan knows his dad was a true hero — New York’s Finest. And we’re going to get these cold-blooded killers and repeat offenders off our streets, and we’re going to do it fast. Got to stop it.
They get out with 28 arrests. They push people into subway trains. They hit people over the back of the head with baseball bats. We got to get them out of here.
I’ve already signed an executive order requiring a mandatory death penalty for anyone who murders a police officer. And, tonight, I’m asking Congress to pass that policy into permanent law. (Applause.)
I’m also asking for a new crime bill, getting tough on repeat offenders while enhancing protections for America’s police officers so they can do their jobs without fear of their lives being totally destroyed. They don’t want to be killed. We’re not going to let them be killed.
Joining us in the gallery tonight is a young man who truly loves our police. His name is D.J. Daniel. He is 13 years old, and he has always dreamed of becoming a police officer. (Applause.)
But in 2018, D.J. was diagnosed with brain cancer. The doctors gave him five months at most to live. That was more than six years ago. (Applause.)
Since that time, D.J. and his dad have been on a quest to make his dream come true, and D.J. has been sworn in as an honorary law enforcement officer, actually, a number of times. Pec- — the police love him. The police departments love him.
And tonight, D.J., we’re going to do you the biggest honor of them all. I am asking our new Secret Service director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service. (Applause.)
(Director Curran presents Mr. Daniel with a Secret Service Agent credential.)
AUDIENCE: D.J.! D.J.! D.J.!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, D.J.
D.J.’s doctors believe his cancer likely came from a chemical he was exposed to when he was younger. Since 1975, rates of child cancer have increased by more than 40 percent. Reversing this trend is one of the top priorities for our new presidential commission to make America healthy again, chaired by our new secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: MAHA, baby!
THE PRESIDENT: With the name “Kennedy,” you would have thought everybody over here would have been cheering. (Laughter.) How quickly they forget.
Our goal is to get toxins out of our environment, poisons out of our food supply, and keep our children healthy and strong.
As an example, not long ago — you can’t even believe these numbers — 1 in 10,000 children had autism. 1 in 10,000. And now it’s 1 in 36. There’s something wrong. One in 36. Think of that.
So, we’re going to find out what it is, and there’s nobody better than Bobby and all of the people that are working with you — you have the best — to figure out what is going on.
Okay, Bobby? Good luck. It’s a very important job. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.
My administration is also working to protect our children from toxic ideologies in our schools.
A few years ago, January Littlejohn and her husband discovered that their daughter’s school had secretly socially transitioned their 13-year-old little girl. Teachers and administrators conspired to deceive January and her husband, while encouraging her daughter to use a new name and pronouns — “they/them” pronouns, actually — all without telling January, who is here tonight and is now a courageous advocate against this form of child abuse. January, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.
Stories like this are why, shortly after taking office, I signed an executive order banning public schools from indoctrinating our children with transgender ideology. (Applause.)
I also signed an order to cut off all taxpayer funding to any institution that engages in the sexual mutilation of our youth. (Applause.) And now I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body. This is a big lie. (Applause.)
And our message to every child in America is that you are perfect exactly the way God made you. (Applause.)
Because we’re getting wokeness out of our schools and out of our military, and it’s already out, and it’s out of our society. We don’t want it. Wokeness is trouble. Wokeness is bad. It’s gone. It’s gone. And we feel so much better for it, don’t we? Don’t we feel better? (Applause.)
Our service members won’t be activists and ideologues. They will be fighters and warriors. They will fight for our country. And, Pete, congratulations. Secretary of Defense, congratulations. (Applause.)
And he’s not big into the woke movement, I can tell you. (Laughter.) I know him well.
I am pleased to report that, in January, the U.S. Army had its single best recruiting month in 15 years and that all armed services are having among the best recruiting results ever in the history of our services. (Applause.) What a difference.
And you know it was just a few months ago where the results were exactly the opposite. We couldn’t recruit anywhere. We couldn’t recruit. Now we’re having the best results, just about, that we’ve ever had. What a tremendous turnaround. It’s really a beautiful thing to see. People love our country again. It’s very simple. They love our country, and they love being in our military again. So, it’s a great thing. And thank you very much. Great job. Thank you. (Applause.)
We’re joined tonight by a young man, Jason Hartley, who knows the weight of that call of duty. Jason’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather all wore the uniform.
Jason tragically lost his dad, who was also a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, when he was just a boy, and now he wants to carry on the family legacy of service. Jason is a senior in high school, a six-letter varsity athlete — a really good athlete, they say — a brilliant student, with a 4.46 — that’s good — GPA. (Laughter.) And his greatest dream is to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. (Applause.)
And, Jason, that’s a very big deal getting in. That’s a hard one to get into. But I’m pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted. You will soon be joining the Corps of Cadets. (Applause.)
Thank you. Jason, you’re going to be on the Long Gray Line, Jason.
As commander in chief, my focus is on building the most powerful military of the future. As a first step, I’m asking Congress to fund a state-of-the-art Golden Dome missile defense shield to protect our homeland, all made in the USA. (Applause.)
And Ronald Reagan wanted to do it long ago, but the technology just wasn’t there, not even close. But now we have the technology. It’s incredible, actually. And other places, they have it: Israel has it. Other places have it. And the United States should have it too. Right, Tim? Right? (Applause.) They should have it too. So, I want to thank you.
But it’s a very important. This is a very dangerous world. We should have it. We want to be protected. And we’re going to protect our citizens like never before.
To boost our defense industrial base, we are also going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry, including commercial shipbuilding and military shipbuilding. (Applause.)
And for that purpose, I am announcing tonight that we will create a new Office of Shipbuilding in the White House and offer special tax incentives to bring this industry home to America, where it belongs.
We used to make so many ships. We don’t make them anymore very much, but we’re going to make them very fast, very soon. It will have a huge impact. To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we’ve already started doing it. (Applause.)
Just today, a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal and lots of other things having to do with the Panama Canal and a couple of other canals.
The Panama Canal was built by Americans for Americans, not for others, but others could use it. But it was built at tremendous cost of American blood and treasure. Thirty-eight thousand workers died building the Panama Canal. They died of malaria. They died of snake bites and mosquitoes. Not a nice place to work. They paid them very highly to go there, knowing there was a 25 percent chance that they would die. The most expensive project, also, that was ever built in our country’s history, if you bring it up to modern-day costs.
It was given away by the Carter administration for $1, but that agreement has been violated very severely. We didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back. (Applause.)
And we have Marco Rubio in charge. Good luck, Marco. (Laughter and applause.) Now we know who to blame if anything goes wrong. (Laughter.)
No, Marco has been amazing, and he’s going to do a great job. Think of it. He got a hundred votes. (Applause.) You know, he was approved with, actually, 99, but the 100th was this gentleman, and I feel very certain — so, let’s assume he got 100 votes. And I’m either very, very happy about that or I’m very concerned about it. (Laughter.)
But he’s already proven — I mean, he’s a great gentleman. He’s respected by everybody. And we appreciate you voting for Marco. He’s going to do a fantastic job. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. He’s doing a great job. Great job.
And I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland. (Laughter.) We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and, if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.
We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together, we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.
It’s a very small population but very, very large piece of land and very, very important for military security.
America is once again standing strong against the forces of radical Islamic terrorism.
Three and a half years ago, ISIS terrorists killed 13 American service members and countless others in the Abbey Gate bombing during the disastrous and incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan — not that they were withdrawing; it was the way they withdrew. Perhaps the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country.
Tonight, I am pleased to announce that we have just apprehended the top terrorist responsible for that atrocity, and he is right now on his way here to face the swift sword of American justice. (Applause.)
And I want to thank, especially, the government of Pakistan for helping arrest this monster.
This was a very momentous day for those 13 families, who I actually got to know very well, most of them, whose children were murdered, and the many people that were so badly — over 42 people — so badly injured on that fateful day in Afghanistan. What a horrible day. Such incompetence was shown that when Putin saw what happened, I guess he said, “Wow, maybe this is my chance.” That’s how bad it was. Should have never happened. Grossly incompetent people.
I spoke to many of the parents and loved ones, and they’re all in our hearts tonight. Just spoke to them on the phone. We had a big call. Every one of them called, and everybody was on the line, and they did nothing but cry with happiness. They were very happy — as happy as you can be under those circumstances. Their child, brother, sister, son, daughter was killed for no reason whatsoever.
In the Middle East, we’re bringing back our hostages from Gaza. In my first term, we achieved one of the most groundbreaking peace agreements in generations: the Abraham Accords. (Applause.)
And now we’re going to build on that foundation to create a more peaceful and prosperous future for the entire region. A lot of things are happening in the Middle East. People haven’t been talking about that so much lately with everything going on with Ukraine and Russia, but a lot of things are happening in the Middle East. It’s a rough neighborhood, actually.
I’m also working tirelessly to end the savage conflict in Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians and Russians have been needlessly killed or wounded in this horrific and brutal conflict with no end in sight.
The United States has sent hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine’s defense with no security, with no anything. (Applause.)
Do you want to keep it going for another five years?
SENATOR WARREN: Yes!
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Yeah, you would say — Pocahontas says, “Yes.” (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: Two thousand people are being killed every single week — more than that. They’re Russian young people. They’re Ukrainian young people. They’re not Americans. But I want it to stop.
Meanwhile, Europe has sadly spent more money buying Russian oil and gas than they have spent on defending Ukraine, by far. Think of that. They’ve spent more buying Russian oil and gas than they have defending. And we’ve spent, perhaps, $350 billion. Like taking candy from a baby, that’s what happened. And they’ve spent $100 billion. What a difference that is. And we have an ocean separating us, and they don’t.
But we’re getting along very well with them, and lots of good things are happening.
Biden has authorized more money in this fight than Europe has spent by billions and billions of dollars. It’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t have stopped it and said, at some point, “Come on. Let’s equalize. You got to be equal to us.” But that didn’t happen.
Earlier today, I received an important letter from President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The letter reads, “Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer.” “Nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians,” he said. (Applause.) “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts. We do really value how much America has done to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty and independence. Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it at any time that is convenient for you.”
I appreciate that he sent this letter. Just got it a little while ago.
Simultaneously, we’ve had serious discussions with Russia and have received strong signals that they are ready for peace. Wouldn’t that be beautiful? Wouldn’t that be beautiful? (Applause.) Wouldn’t that be beautiful?
It’s time to stop this madness. It’s time to halt the killing. It’s time to end this senseless war. If you want to end wars, you have to talk to both sides.
Nearly four years ago, amid rising tensions, a history teacher named Marc Fogel was detained in Russia and sentenced to 14 years in a penal colony. Rough stuff.
The previous administration barely lifted a finger to help him. They knew he was innocent, but they had no idea where to begin. But last summer, I promised his 95-year-old mother, Malphine, that we would bring her boy safely back home. After 22 days in office, I did just that, and they are here tonight. (Applause.)
To Marc and his great mom, we are delighted to have you safe and sound and with us.
As fate would have it, Marc Fogel was born in a small, rural town — in Butler, Pennsylvania — have you heard of it? — where his mother has lived for the past 78 years.
I just happened to go there last July 13th for a rally. That was not pleasant. (Laughter.) And that is where I met his beautiful mom, right before I walked onto that stage. And I told her I would not forget what she said about her son. And I never did, did I? Never forgot.
Less than 10 minutes later, at that same rally, gunfire rang out, and a sick and deranged assassin unloaded eight bullets from his sniper’s perch into a crowd of many thousands of people. My life was saved by a fraction of an inch, but some were not so lucky. Corey Comperatore was a firefighter, a veteran, a Christian, a husband, a devoted father, and, above all, a protector.
When the sound of gunshots pierced the air — it was a horrible sound — Corey knew instantly what it was and what to do. He threw himself on top of his wife and daughters and shielded them from the bullets with his own body.
Corey was hit really hard. You know the story from there. He sacrificed his life to save theirs.
Two others — very fine people — were also seriously hit. But thankfully, with the help of two great country doctors, we thought they were gone, and they were saved. So, those doctors had great talent.
We’re joined by Corey’s wife, Helen, who was his high school sweetheart, and their two beloved daughters, Allyson and Kaylee. Thank you. (Applause.)
To Helen, Allyson, and Kaylee, Corey is looking down on his three beautiful ladies right now, and he is cheering you on. He loves you. He is cheering you on.
Corey was taken from us much too soon, but his destiny was to leave us all with a shining example of the selfless devotion of a true American patriot. It was love like Corey’s that built our country, and it’s love like Corey’s that is going to make our country more majestic than ever before.
I believe that my life was saved that day in Butler for a very good reason. I was saved by God to make America great again. I believe that. (Applause.) Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
From the patriots of Lexington and Concord to the heroes of Gettysburg and Normandy, from the warriors who crossed the Delaware to the trailblazers who climbed the Rockies, and from the legends who soared at Kitty Hawk to the astronauts who touched the Moon, Americans have always been the people who defied all odds, transcended all dangers, made the most extraordinary sacrifices, and did whatever it took to defend our children, our country, and our freedom.
And as we have seen in this chamber tonight, that same strength, faith, love, and spirit is still alive and thriving in the hearts of the American people. Despite the best efforts of those who would try to censor us, silence us, break us, destroy us, Americans are today a proud, free, sovereign, and independent nation that will always be free, and we will fight for it till death.
We will never let anything happen to our beloved country, because we are a country of doers, dreamers, fighters, and survivors.
Our ancestors crossed a vast ocean, strode into the unknown wilderness, and carved their fortunes from the rock and soil of a perilous and very dangerous frontier. They chased our destiny across a boundless continent. They built the railroads, laid the highways, and graced the world with American marvels, like the Empire State Building, the mighty Hoover Dam, and the towering Golden Gate Bridge.
They lit the world with electricity, broke free of the force of gravity, fired up the engines of American industry, vanquished the communists, fascists, and Marxists all over the world, and gave us countless modern wonders sculpted out of iron, glass, and steel.
We stand on the shoulders of these pioneers who won and built the modern age, these workers who poured their sweat into the skylines of our cities, these warriors who shed their blood on fields of battle and gave everything they had for our rights and for our freedom.
Now it is our time to take up the righteous cause of American liberty, and it is our turn to take America’s destiny into our own hands and begin the most thrilling days in the history of our country.
This will be our greatest era.
With God’s help, over the next four years, we are going to lead this nation even higher, and we are going to forge the freest, most advanced, most dynamic, and most dominant civilization ever to exist on the face of this Earth.
We are going to create the highest quality of life, build the safest and wealthiest and healthiest and most vital communities anywhere in the world.
We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond. (Applause.)
And, through it all, we are going to rediscover the unstoppable power of the American spirit, and we are going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.
Every single day, we will stand up and we will fight, fight, fight for the country our citizens believe in and for the country our people deserve. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Fight! Fight! Fight!
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow Americans, get ready for an incredible future, because the golden age of America has only just begun. It will be like nothing that has ever been seen before.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless America. (Applause.)
Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
END 11:00 P.M. EST
Source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (video statements)
Opening remarks from Acting Governor Christian Hawkesby (00:08)
Keynote address: On inflation targeting Ben S. Bernanke, Distinguished Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution (10:10)
Source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (video statements)
Targeted Taylor rules: some evidence and theory (01:26) – Boris Hofmann, Bank for International Settlements; Cristina Manea, Bank for International Settlements; Benoit Mojon, Bank for International Settlements.
How important is global r-star for open economies? (41:39) – James Morley, University of Sydney; Benjamin Wong, Monash University
Source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (video statements)
What flattens the supply curve? – (01:10) Edvin Ahlander, Stockholm University; Mathias Klein, Sveriges Riksbank; Evi Pappa, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Low pass-through from inflation expectations to income growth expectations: why people dislike inflation – (38:20) Ina Hajdini, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; Edward S. Knotek II, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; John Leer, Morning Consult; Mathieu Pedemonte, Inter-American Development Bank; Robert Rich, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland; Raphael Schoenle, Brandeis University.
How do households form inflation and wage expectations? – (01:14:45) Anthony Brassil; Yahdullah Haidari; Jonathan Hambur; Gulnara Nolan and Callum Ryan, Reserve Bank of Australia
Source: Reserve Bank of New Zealand (video statements)
Just do IT? An assessment of inflation targeting in a global comparative case study (02:01) – Roberto Duncan, Ohio University; Enrique Martínez García, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; Patricia Toledo, Ohio University.
Central bank reviews (43:59) – Renee Fry-McKibbin, Australian National University; Hans Genberg, Asia School of Business; Özer Karagedikli, Asia School of Business; Warwick McKibbin, Australian National University; Tara Sinclair, George Washington University
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) introduced their Choice in Affordable Housing Act today to improve the federal government’s largest rental assistance program. The bipartisan bill would make it easier to access Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs)—often referred to as Section 8 vouchers—and attract and retain landlords to participate in the program. As a result, eligible low-income families will have greater housing options and improved access to high-opportunity neighborhoods. The bill has been introduced in the House by Representatives Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Mike Lawler (D-N.Y.). This bill was initially introduced in the 117th Congress.
“As County Executive and County Council President, I saw firsthand the life-changing impact that a safe, affordable home had for Delaware families,” said Senator Coons. “Families in the First State and across the nation need better options when they are looking for a home, and landlords need support to be able to bring their properties into the Section 8 market. This bill is a huge step forward towards those goals so more Americans in every corner of our country can feel at home.”
“Increases in housing costs mean millions of renters struggle to find affordable places to live,” said Senator Cramer. “The success of the Housing Choice Voucher program is contingent on landlords providing adequate housing options. Herschel Lashkowitz’s legacy of affordable housing advocacy lives on through this commonsense bill by boosting the supply of options for renters to use their vouchers.”
“In New York, especially in the Hudson Valley, skyrocketing housing costs have made it harder for working families to find affordable housing. This bill takes a common-sense approach—cutting red tape, giving landlords more incentive to participate, and expanding housing options for those who need it most. By making the Housing Choice Voucher program work better, we’re helping families find stable housing while ensuring property owners have the support they need to stay in the program. I’m glad to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get this done,” said Congressman Lawler.
“The greatest threat to our economic recovery is the housing affordability crisis that is holding back hardworking families in communities across the country,” said Congressman Cleaver. “To ensure working-class families have access to affordable housing options, it is imperative that Congress work to remove burdensome barriers within the Housing Choice Voucher Program that limit landlord participation and where vouchers can be utilized. The Choice in Affordable Housing Act will implement long overdue reforms to the HCV program to increase the number of landlords offering units in the private rental market, while also providing low-income families greater access to housing options in higher opportunity areas. That’s a win for everyone involved, and I’ll keep working with Representative Lawler, along with Senator Coons and Cramer, until our bipartisan bill is signed into law.”
The bill has been endorsed by the National Affordable Housing Management Association, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Housing Law Project, Habitat for Humanity International, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, Enterprise Community Partners, the National Association of Residential Property Managers, the National Leased Housing Association, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the National Rental Home Council, the Poverty & Race Research Action Council, RESULTS Education Fund, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Multifamily Housing Council, the National Apartment Association, the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, and the Building Owners and Managers Association.
“The National Apartment Association (NAA) and our more than 95,000 members understand the vital role of the housing choice voucher program in addressing America’s housing crisis. We support the Choice Act, which addresses many challenges our members encounter, and are ready to collaborate with Congress to reform the program. We appreciate the leadership of Senators Cramer and Coons, as well as Representatives Lawler and Cleaver, in introducing this crucial legislation,” said Bob Pinnegar, President & CEO, National Apartment Association.
In addition to Senators Coons and Cramer, the bill is also cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), John Curtis (R-Utah), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
The HCV program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) helps more than 5 million low-income people, including the elderly and people with disabilities, afford safe and decent housing in the private rental market. More than two-thirds of those households are headed by a person of color. Administered by local Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), families that receive a voucher pay 30% of household income toward rent and utilities while the PHA pays the landlord the remaining rent. HCVs increase housing stability, reduce homelessness, and each year lift more than 1 million people out of poverty.
The HCV program relies on private-market landlords to accept vouchers. Because the number of participating landlords has declined in recent years, voucher holders experience a difficult housing search process with fewer options. To increase voucher holders’ housing choices and improve access to high-opportunity areas, the Choice in Affordable Housing Act would:
Provide $500 million to create the Herschel Lashkowitz Housing Partnership Fund. Named after the longtime Fargo, North Dakota mayor who was an advocate for affordable housing, the funds would be distributed for:
PHAs to offer a signing bonus to a landlord with a unit in a low-poverty area;
PHAs to provide security deposit assistance, so that tenants can better afford to meet required deposits, and landlords are assured greater protection against damages;
HUD to provide a bonus to PHAs that retain a dedicated landlord liaison on staff; and
Other uses as determined by the PHA and approved by the Secretary to recruit and retain landlords.
Increase funding to the Tribal HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. To help renters on tribal land, the bill supports the Tribal HUD-VASH program for Native American veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
Use neighborhood-specific data to set rents fairly. The bill would require HUD to expand its 2016 rule requiring the use of Small Area Fair Market Rents to calculate fair rents in certain metro areas.
Reduce inspection delays. Units in buildings financed by other federal housing programs would meet the voucher inspection if the unit has been inspected in the past year. New landlords could also request a pre-inspection from a PHA prior to selecting a voucher-holder.
Refocus HUD’s evaluation of housing agencies. The bill would encourage HUD to reform its annual evaluation of PHAs to promote an increase in the diversity of neighborhoods where vouchers are used. The bill also requires HUD to report to Congress annually on the effects of the bill.
Senator Coons has long been an advocate for housing assistance programs run by HUD. During his time in New Castle County government, he helped oversee HUD Section 8 rental assistance programs, as well as HUD affordable housing grant programs like the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and the Community Development Block Grant.
Senator Coons is a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that funds affordable housing programs. Senator Cramer is a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
A summary of the bill is available here.
The full text of the bill is available here.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Kansas – Jerry Moran
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Angus King (I-Maine), Roger Marshall M.D. (R-Kan.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) today reintroduced the Access to Credit for our Rural Economy (ACRE) Act. This legislation would benefit American families, farmers and rural communities nationwide by providing greater flexibility to more financial institutions to offer affordable lines of credit to rural and agricultural borrowers.
“Persistent inflation and high interest rates are putting a strain on farmers and rural homeowners in Kansas and across the country,” said Sen. Moran. “Rural Americans should have the flexibility to access the capital needed to expand their family farms and achieve the dream of homeownership. This legislation will help to boost rural housing and support the agricultural economy that plays a vital role in small towns across America.”
“Rural communities across America are facing a serious affordable housing crisis. It has simply gotten way too hard to find reasonably priced homes in our small towns,” said Sen. King. “The ACRE Act is a commonsense way to make home and farm ownership possible for more families by providing better access to low interest loans.”
“The ACRE Act will help community banks address one of the most significant challenges for rural communities — high interest rates,” said Sen. Marshall. “High rates raise the cost of doing business for family farms, make it harder for small businesses to grow, and leave home ownership unattainable for many. The ACRE Act is common sense legislation to reverse these trends.” “Owning a home or family farm is a cornerstone of the America dream, and I’m proud to co-lead the ACRE Act to make loans more affordable for rural communities,” said Sen. Gallego. “The American dream should be within reach for all Arizonans, including those living in rural parts of our state.”
“Farmers and ranchers need large swaths of land to grow crops and raise livestock to feed and fuel the world,” said Sen. Cramer. “The ACRE act is a straightforward solution to promote competition among lenders by lowering interest rates for farmland purchases.”
“As Alabama’s voice on the Senate Ag Committee, I will always advocate for Alabama’s farmers and rural communities here in Washington,” said Sen. Tuberville. “Our farmers are struggling with cash flow and desperately need expanded access to credit to continue their farm operations. I’m proud to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this bill that would bolster our agricultural economy and stimulate rural housing for all Alabamians.” Items to Note:
The ACRE Act would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exclude interest received on certain loans secured by rural or agricultural real property from gross income.
This bill would allow farm real estate borrowers and rural homeowners access to lower interest rates by expanding the same tax-exempt status on certain earned interest that applies to other lenders.
It would apply to agricultural real estate and single-family home mortgage loans in rural communities with fewer than 2,500 residents and for mortgages less than $750,000.
According to estimates, this legislation would expand access to affordable agricultural and home loans to over 4,000 rural communities nationwide and save family farmers and producers well over $400 million in annual interest expenses.
“ABA applauds today’s bipartisan, bicameral introduction of the Access to Credit for our Rural Economy Act of 2025, and we thank the bill’s lead sponsors Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Angus King (I-ME), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Representatives Randy Feenstra (R-IA-04), Don Davis (D-NC-01) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX-01) for their leadership on this issue,” said Rob Nichols, President and CEO of the American Bankers Association (ABA). “The ACRE Act will deliver much-needed financial support to farmers and ranchers working through a difficult economic cycle by lowering the cost of credit without creating new government payments or programs. It would also drive down the cost of homeownership and increase access to credit in more than 17,000 rural communities across the country. We urge all members of Congress to support this critically important legislation.”
“This important legislation will help community bank lenders revive and sustain rural economies struggling to overcome the impact of higher interest rates,” said Rebeca Romero Rainey, President and CEO, Independent Community Bankers of America. “ICBA and the nation’s community banks thank Congressman Feenstra (R-IA) and Davis (D-NC) for providing a reasonable solution that benefits rural Americans, especially young, beginning, and small farmers and ranchers, who will make up the next generation of producers.”
Full text of this legislation can be found HERE.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator John Kennedy (Louisiana)
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, today joined Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and colleagues in introducing the Financial Integrity and Regulation Management (FIRM) Act to curb debanking by federal regulators. The bill would eliminate regulators’ ability to reference reputational risk when supervising financial institutions.
“Too often, financial regulators discriminate against customers and debank individuals because they disagree with their politics. I’m proud to help introduce the FIRM Act to protect law-abiding Americans from rogue regulators with a biased agenda,” said Kennedy.
“As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I have made addressing debanking a top priority. This discriminatory and un-American practice should concern everyone, which is why I’ve led my colleagues in working to find tangible solutions. It’s clear that federal regulators have abused reputational risk by carrying out a political agenda against federally legal businesses. This legislation, which eliminates all references to reputational risk in regulatory supervision, is the first step in ending debanking once and for all,” said Scott.
Reputational risk is a term that refers to negative public opinion about a financial institution. Federal banking agencies, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration, consider reputational risk in order to prevent institutions from providing financial services to people and organizations that are involved in certain industries.
The FIRM Act would protect Americans from the weaponization of federal regulation by:
Eliminating all references to reputational risk as a measure to determine the safety and soundness of regulated depository institutions.
Eliminating the Federal banking agencies’ ability to promulgate new rules or guidance that use reputational risk to supervise or regulate depository institutions.
Requiring the Federal banking agencies to report to Congress on their elimination of reputational risk as a component of the supervision of depository institutions.
Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) also cosponsored the bill.
The full bill text is available here.
Source: International Monetary Fund
March 6, 2025
SPEAKER: Ms. Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department, IMF
* * * * *
MS. KOZACK: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this IMF press briefing. It is very good to see you all, both those of you who are here in person and, of course, our colleagues online as well.
I am Julie Kozak, Director of the Communications Department. As usual, this briefing is embargoed until 11 a.m. Eastern Time in the U.S. I will start with a short announcement and then take your questions in person on Webex and via the Press Center.
The 2025 Spring Meetings of the IMF and World Bank Group will take place from Monday, April 21 through Saturday, April 26. Press registration to attend the spring meetings in person in Washington D.C. is now open and you can register through www.IMFconnect.org.
And with that, I will now open the floor for your questions. For those connecting virtually, please turn on both your camera and microphone when speaking. And with that, over to you.
QUESTIONER: If the Congress does not approve the future agreement, as it is established by the local law, does the IMF give the money to Argentina?
MS. KOZACK: Okay, so that is a question on Argentina. Any other questions on Argentina? I do not see any hands up in the room. Let us go online. QUESTIONER: Do you think we are already in the final stage? And what remains to announce the Staff Agreement with the IMF?
QUESTIONER: Good morning. I was wondering about also there have been versions of a new loan up to $20 billion and the first deployment of $8 billion this year. Can you confirm that, or can you give us an insight into the fresh funds that could be coming in the new agreement? And also, when can we expect a signing of the letter of intent?
QUESTIONER: So, my question is about the Congress. President Milei confirmed that the staff-level agreement must be approved by the Parliament as indicated by the Argentine law. So, is that also a requirement from the IMF itself or could the President sign a decree avoiding the current law that requires the staff-level agreement to be approved by Parliament.
QUESTIONER: I want to ask about the scope of the potential agreement with Argentina. There are reports out saying it could be as high, or there is an expectation it could be as high as $20 billion.
QUESTIONER: I think a few people have already asked, but when [do] you expect to reach a staff-level agreement, whether, as the Argentine government has said, it is only the final numbers that need to be agreed and not other technical aspects? And whether the IMF requires that the entirety of the SLA be reviewed by Congress for approval or if whether a general outline produced by the government will be enough?
MS. KOZACK: Okay, very good. So, with that, let me go ahead and talk about Argentina. So, first, I just want to start by saying, as I think many of you know, both the Managing Director and the First Deputy Managing Director recently met with the Argentine authorities. And as they recently emphasized, we are continuing to make good progress toward a program, and we are working constructively with the Argentine authorities in this regard. The authorities’ stabilization and growth plan is delivering significant results.
It has made notable strides in reducing inflation, stabilizing the economy, and fostering a return to growth in the country, and poverty is finally beginning to decline in Argentina. To sustain these early gains, there is a shared understanding about the need to continue to adopt a consistent set of fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies, while very importantly, advancing growth enhancing reforms. And the new program would build on the progress achieved so far while also addressing Argentina’s remaining challenges.
Now, with respect to some of the questions regarding Congressional approval, we do take note of President Milei’s commitment to seek congressional support for a new IMF supported program. As we have often said in the past, strong ownership and broad support are key to the program’s success,
Here, I want to emphasize, though, that securing congressional support is a decision of the authorities as legislated in Argentine domestic law. And at the same time, of course, as I just noted, broad political and social support can enhance program implementation. Questions regarding the specific process on achieving or seeking congressional support should be addressed really to the Argentine authorities because it is a matter of domestic law.
From our side, as I noted, the negotiations are continuing in a constructive manner. In terms of the process from the IMF side. Once the negotiations are completed, as with any IMF program or proposed program, the final arrangement, the documents, will require approval of the IMF’s Executive Board. And we will provide further updates as we have them.
With respect to some of the questions about the details of the negotiations, the potential size of the program. All I can say right now is this is still under discussion as part of the ongoing and constructive dialogue that we are having with the authorities. And we will provide an update when we have more information that we can share with you.
QUESTIONER: On Lebanon, so following recent reports that the Lebanese government is in discussions with IMF over a potential deal on its financial default in public debt. I just want to see if the IMF can confirm these reports. If so, what does it look like? Are there any contingencies to this? And will there be an IMF mission visiting Lebanon? Thank you.
MS. KOZACK: So, what I can share on Lebanon is that an IMF team will visit Lebanon very soon, March 10th to 14th. This mission is aimed at, of course, meeting the new authorities, discussing Lebanon’s recent economic developments, its reconstruction needs, and the authorities’ economic priorities in the near-term. This is a fact-finding mission that will take place. But beyond this fact-finding mission, as we look ahead, future next steps could include helping the authorities to formulate a comprehensive economic reform program.
Our staff continues to be closely engaged with the authorities. We are providing policy advice and capacity development to help the authorities’ efforts to rebuild Lebanon’s economy and institutions in coordination with other international partners. And that is what I have for now on Lebanon.
QUESTIONER: I wanted to ask you about what is happening in the United States. The trade wars have begun, and we are seeing some impact already, both in terms of market reaction and a lot of volatility in the markets, ups, and downs. We are also seeing some interesting developments in terms of bond markets and yields; it is going to increase the cost of borrowing. So, I wanted to ask you if you, at this point, I know we’ve asked this question before, but I wonder if you’ve got an additional assessment, as we’re now seeing some of these policies that had been promised taking effect, and whether you can say now whether you’re expecting an impact on the global economy and also on the U.S. economy and the affected economies that have been targeted thus far — China, Canada, Mexico.
QUESTIONER: As a follow up to [that] question, does the IMF consider that the ongoing developments of the U.S. tariffs and trade wars would push other nations to seek more trade relations and more alliances with other economic organizations and trade organizations such as BRICS, for example, or others? And broadly speaking, what is the IMF assessment of the global fragmentation that is going on right now? Do you see that it is slowing down or opposite it is moving faster, taking into account the latest developments in the United States?
QUESTIONER: I would like to focus on the development of 10 years of U.S. bond yield movement. The 10-year bond yield now decreased, dropping substantially. And what does it mean? What is the implication of the movement? Does it represent some U.S. recession or U.S. economy?
QUESTIONER: With the tariffs actually now in place, has the IMF undertook a study to determine the potential impact on small island states that are heavily dependent on flows and goods and commodities coming out of the United States, more specifically, those countries within the Caribbean region who are very much dependent and could face significant inflationary pressures based on these tariffs?
MS. KOZACK: So, first I want to just step back a little bit to recognize that we have seen now several new and significant developments over the past few days. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico as well as additional tariffs on China. Canada and China have, in response, announced tariffs on some U.S. goods and other measures. And Mexico has indicated that it will provide more details in the coming days.
And as we have said before, you know, while assessing the full impact of tariffs on economic activity and inflation will depend on many factors, we do expect to provide an analysis of this, certainly at the global level and for the most affected countries at the time of our World Economic Outlook update in April. And of course we will also cover this issue, I imagine, in some of the regional updates where relevant. And I want to also emphasize that as part of our bilateral surveillance with countries, the individual Article IV reports this topic will also be covered to the extent that the countries are affected.
What I can say today is that if sustained the impact of the U.S. tariffs on Canada and Mexico can be expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on those countries given their very strong integration and exposure to the U.S. market.
Now, more broadly, there were some questions about financial market movements. So let me also just step back for a moment on some of these, and here I want to refer to some remarks that our Managing Director has been making recently. As she’s been saying, we are now in the midst of significant transformations, and these include the rapid advance of AI to changing patterns of capital flows and trade. She has also been mentioning that trade is no longer the engine of global growth that it used to be.
For example, during the period of 2000 to 2019, global trade growth reached nearly 6 percent on an annual basis, whereas over the more recent period of 2022 to 2024, global trade is growing closer to 3 percent. So global trade growth has been on a downward — has declined. And of course, it is in this more global context that governments are recalibrating their approaches and adjusting policies.
I also want to recognize, of course, that we have seen increased volatility in financial markets. We see that in indicators such as the VIX. We also have seen indicators of global uncertainty showing an increase. And what will be critical to assess what the economic impact of this will be — will be whether these trends are short-lived or whether they are sustained. Generally speaking, our research shows that both historically and across countries, sustained periods of elevated uncertainty can be associated with both households and firms holding back on consumption and investment decisions. And as I said, we will be providing a comprehensive analysis of our views on the global economy and individual economies as part of the World Economic Outlook that will be released in April.
On the specific question on U.S. bond yields, we do recognize of course, that U.S. bond yields have moved lower since the beginning of the year. And it does seem that on that basis markets may be reappraising or reassessing their views, particularly on the outlook for monetary policy. I will stop there and move on.
QUESTIONER: When is the IMF Board expected to review and approve the next disbursement for Ukraine? Are there any remaining conditions or procedural steps that Ukraine must fulfill before approval? And the Ukrainian government is engaging in debt restructuring efforts with its creditors. How does the IMF assess Ukraine’s debt sustainability and what role does this play in bord’s decision making process regarding future disbursement announcements?
QUESTIONER: So, to follow up on previous question. In February, you stated, that Ukraine would have access to about U.S. $900 million for the next review. Now we are speaking about $400 million. So, why the IMF has made a decision to adjust to the total sum of disbursement that will be provided to Ukraine?
QUESTIONER: And do you think that it can impact financial stability of Ukrainian economy or there is no risk for them?
QUESTIONER: How do you expect the freezing of the U.S. aid for Ukraine might impact the program you have already on course right now? And how does this affect the global plan that had been made like a year ago or two years ago now?
QUESTIONER: I just want to follow up the last question about the impact — what the impact Trump administration is doing. Does this impact the IMF projections on Ukraine this and next year?
QUESTIONER: An adjacent question, maybe related to the prospect for ending the war. And, you know, we have seen economic developments in Russia continue to percolate along even though the war has been going on and there have been sanctions. Have you started to look at what the end of the war could mean for both the Russian and Ukrainian economies in terms of, you know, perhaps, you know, assuming that there would be an end of sanctions once there was a cessation of hostilities, whether that would give a boost to the Russian economy, maybe the European economy in general could lower costs, things like that? So just kind of walk us through what you are seeing there.
MS. KOZACK: Okay, let me go ahead on Ukraine. So, just to bring everyone up to speed. So, on February 28th, the IMF staff, and the Ukrainian authorities reached a staff-level agreement on the Seventh Review of the four-year EFF arrangement. This is subject to approval of the IMF’s Executive Board. Ukraine is expected to draw, as noted, about U.S. $400 million, and that would bring total disbursements under the program to U.S. $10.1 billion.
I just want to note that program performance in Ukraine remains strong. All of the end December quantitative performance criteria were met, and understandings were reached between the Ukrainian authorities and IMF staff on a set of policies and reforms to sustain macroeconomic stability. The structural reform agenda in Ukraine is continuing to make good progress, and there are strong commitments from the Ukrainian authorities in a number of other areas.
Now on some of the specific questions, first on the matter of the disbursement, what I can say there is that it is not unusual over the life of a program for the pattern of disbursements to shift based on evolving balance of payments needs. And that is what has happened in this case. It is also important to emphasize that the overall size of the program, which is $15.6 billion, remains unchanged. And so that shift in disbursement pattern reflects the shifting balance of payments pattern for Ukraine.
So, on the issue the debt restructuring and debt process, what I can say there is that restoring debt sustainability in Ukraine hinges on continued implementation of the authority’s debt restructuring strategy, where completing the treatment of the GDP warrants remains important. And it also hinges very much on continuation of the revenue-based fiscal adjustment strategy, which is supported under the program. And as you know, Ukraine’s debt has been assessed in the last review to be sustainable on a forward-looking basis contingent on these two areas that I just mentioned. And of course, there will be a revised debt sustainability assessment as part of the ongoing review.
With respect to the other question, what I can say here is that the Ukrainian economy, you know, has shown continued resilience despite the challenges arising from the war. At the time of the Seventh Review, the last review, we estimated GDP growth to be 3.5 percent in 2024. But we did expect it at that time to moderate to 2 to 3 percent in 2025. And that was reflecting some headwinds from labor constraints and damage to energy infrastructure, given the ongoing war. It is the case in general for Ukraine, and we have been saying this throughout the life of the program, that the outlook remains exceptionally uncertain, especially as the war continues and it is taking a heavy toll on Ukraine’s people, economy, and infrastructure.
On the more recent developments that you were referring to, we are following these developments very closely. It is premature at the moment to comment on them, but we are following them, and we will make an assessment in due course.
And on your question, the answer is essentially the same. We are following the developments very closely, and we will, as developments evolve, be undertaking obviously an assessment of what a peace deal could potentially look like and what would be the implications for all of the involved parties.
QUESTIONER: Julie, can you on the basis of having studied previous conflicts ending, can you just give us divorced from Ukraine and Russia, but just can you give us an indication of what generally happens when a conflict ends, what that means? And is there anything that we can draw on, at least just from history?
MS. KOZACK: So, I do not have, you know, off the top of my head a piece of research that I can kind of point to in terms of the interest analysis. What I certainly can say is that we always, for all of our member countries, hope for peace and stability in all of our member countries. And I think at that moment this is really what I can say. But I take note of the importance of your point, and we will, I have no doubt, in due course be conducting all of the necessary analysis as events unfold.
QUESTIONER: I have two questions mainly on Egypt. as Egypt is scheduled for 10th of March for the discussion of the Fourth Review of the EFF for the country, what are we expecting from this meeting? And if you please, could you update us on the RSF facility worth $1.2 billion for the country? Thank you so much.
QUESTIONER: I would second exactly those questions. And just to add to that, I know it says on the IMF Executive Board calendar that the Board will be discussing waivers of non-observance for some of the performance criteria related to Egypt’s loan program and modifications for others. Are you able to tell us any more about exactly which criteria the Board will be looking at? And on the RSF, if you are able to give us any more detail about the prospective value of that. I know it has been put at $1 billion before. A related question, not on Egypt but on Gaza. I would be interested to know if the IMF has begun to think, whether internally or with partners in the region, about what its potential role would be in funding a reconstruction plan for Gaza given the $50 billion, upwards of $50 billion, cost of any reconstruction.
QUESTIONER: I may repeat questions about the value of current tranche to be given to Egypt and the timing of when the central bank of Egypt to receive it. And also, I have another question about the program of state assets selling. Will we witness some steps, new steps in that program? Could it be connected with the decision to be taken in March?
MS. KOZACK: And any other questions on Egypt? All right. And then I have a question that came in through the Press Center. I am going to read it out loud – ’Does the IMF’s approval of the fourth tranche to Egypt require Egypt to implement some reforms? And when will the Fifth Review of the loan be held? What is the estimated size of the loan allocated to Egypt, and here will it be dispersed in installments or in one lump sum?’
On Egypt – on March 10th, our Executive Board will be discussing Egypt’s Article IV consultation and the fourth review under the EFF. It will also be discussing at the same time Egypt’s request for an RSF, the Resilience and Sustainability Facility. Subject to completion by the Executive Board, the authorities, would have access to $1.2 billion under the EFF. So, under the EFF program. And then in addition, subject again to approval by our Executive Board, the size of the RSF would be about U.S. $1.3 billion. Regarding the RSF, like all of the IMF programs, the RSF is also delivered in tranches. So, it is not one lump sum up front. It is a phased program where tranches are dispersed on the basis of conditions being met.
And with respect to some of the other questions, what I can say today is just that we will provide, of course, more details following the Board meeting and on the question of waivers and modifications and also the questions on the state-owned enterprises. And again, the board meeting will be on March 10th.
QUESTIONER: I have two questions related to Japan. Firstly, amid rising uncertainty due to President Trump’s tariff policy, I would like to ask you — ask your thoughts on whether the Bank of Japan, currently in a rate hike phase, should continue raising rate or take more cautious approach in assessing the impact. And secondly, President Trump recently made remarks suggesting that Japan and China are engaging in currency devaluation. I would appreciate it if you share your views on Japan’s foreign exchange policy. Thank you.
MS. KOZACK: So, maybe just stepping back to give a bit of context on Japan. What I can say on Japan is that on the growth side, growth this year is expected to strengthen, and we also expect inflation to converge to the Bank of Japan’s 2 percent target by the end of 2025.
In 2024, growth in Japan slowed due to some temporary supply disruptions. But since then, we have seen a strengthening in growth driven by domestic demand, particular — particularly private consumption in Japan and rising wages. And we expect this to continue into 2025, where we project growth, at the time of the January WEO, we projected growth at 1.1 percent for Japan in 2025. And of course, just to say that we will be updating this projection as part of the April forecast.
Looking at inflation — headline and core inflation, as I said, are expected to decline gradually toward the 2 percent target. We have been supportive of the Bank of Japan’s recent monetary policy decisions. We believe that these decisions will help anchor inflation expectations at the 2 percent target but also given balance risks around inflation, our assessment has been that further hikes in the policy interest rate should continue to be data dependent, and they should proceed at a gradual pace over time.
With respect to the question on the exchange rate, what I can say there is that the Japanese authorities have affirmed their commitment to a flexible exchange rate regime. Japan’s flexible exchange rate regime has helped the country or has helped the economy absorb the impact of shocks. And it also supports the focus of monetary policy on price stability. And at the same time, what I can say is that that flexible exchange rate regime is helping maintain an external position that is in line with fundamentals.
QUESTIONER: Could you give us an update on the negotiations for Ethiopia, please? And on El Salvador, the deal that you agreed on in December and was approved a couple of weeks ago involves the government not increasing its exposure to Bitcoin. Government has continued to buy through the Office of Bitcoin, which is linked to the presidential palace. But yesterday the Fund said that these purchases do not increase the government’s exposure to Bitcoin. Could you please explain that?
QUESTIONER: Also on El Salvador, obviously he was saying to not to not buy it as a government reserve. I just wanted to, I guess, contrast to the U.S. I mean, President Trump has very much announced a digital assets reserve, including Ethereum and other coins, as well as Bitcoin. And I wondered if the IMF could – can you comment on the U.S. program or how would you distinguish the two countries and why the IMF might be taking a different approach?
MS. KOZACK: All right, let me go ahead and take the El Salvador question in Ethiopia and then we will go back. I see many hands up online.
So, on El Salvador, as you know, last week our Executive Board approved a 40-month Extended Fund Facility, EFF, for U.S. $1.4 billion and with an immediate disbursement of $113 million. The program is expected to catalyze financial and technical support from other IFIs. And this will lead to a combined total over the program period of about U.S. $3.5 billion of support for El Salvador. The goals of the program are to restore fiscal sustainability, rebuild external and financial buffers, strengthen governance and transparency, and ultimately create the conditions for stronger and more resilient growth.
Regarding Bitcoin, in particular, the program aims to address the risks associated with the Bitcoin project to protect consumers and investors, as well as to limit potential fiscal costs. So, to start, there were recent legal reforms that have made the acceptance of Bitcoin voluntary, and taxes can be paid only in U.S. dollars. Under the program, the government has committed to not accumulate for their Bitcoins at the level of the overall public sector.
Regarding the recent increase in Bitcoin holding by the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Fund, the authorities have confirmed that these are consistent with the agreed program conditionality, and we do remain engaged with the authorities on this important issue.
And then, to your question. We are obviously closely monitoring President Trump’s announcement in this area. The Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets has not yet completed its work. So, we do not yet have details on the implementation of this proposal, but we will come back in due course.
And then turning to the question on Ethiopia. So just an update on Ethiopia. On January 17th, the IMF Executive Board completed the Second Review of the arrangement, the ECF arrangement for Ethiopia, and that allowed for a drawdown of about U.S. $245 million. The ECF arrangement supports the authorities’ reforms to address macroeconomic imbalances, restore external debt sustainability, and lay the foundation for strong private sector-led growth.
I can also just remind you that the Managing Director recently traveled to Ethiopia. She was there February 8th and 9th. She met with Prime Minister Abiy and his team to take stock of the economic reforms and the progress that is being made in the country. And she also took the opportunity to meet with other stakeholders, including representatives of the private sector.
QUESTIONER: My question is on USAID. USAID has now totally stopped its business. And to what extent do you see the impact, especially on lower income countries at the global level? And should you consider using your facility to support them just in case?
MS. KOZACK: So, on this issue, we are obviously again paying close attention to developments, and we are working with our country authorities. But it is, at the same time, it is too early to really say what the precise impact may be. And so, we will come back in due course. For now, we are monitoring.
QUESTIONER: I have a question on Senegal. Following a recent audit of the country’s debt, it was found to be 99.7 percent of GDP. That was in 2023. And I know that IMF has said before that Senegal debt was stable even though it was high. I am wondering if that is the figure that you still consider sustainable. And then also with regards on talks of a new IMF program, I am wondering if Senegal could be asked to reimburse previous dispersion under this reporting period.
QUESTIONER: Still on Senegal, as soon as the report from the Audit Supreme Court was released, we saw rating agency downgrading Senegal sovereign notes. So, the country is now stuck. It cannot raise funds from the internal market, and it cannot go in a very comfortable position in international markets while they still face a lot of challenges. So, I am wondering why the IMF is working fast and bold to find a solution for Senegal in the midterm or even long-term. Is there any situation where IMF can provide a short-term, I mean, short-term relief to the country so they can go through these hard moments in a very soft way?
MS. KOZACK: So, on Senegal, what I can say is that we are actively engaged in discussions with the authorities with respect to the Court of Auditors Report and the associated misreporting under the IMF program. The Court of Auditors Report was released on February 12th. The Court confirmed that the fiscal deficit and debt were under reported during the period of 2019 to 2023.
So, what we are doing is working closely with the authorities in their efforts to preserve fiscal and debt sustainability. We are working actively to advance on our discussions following the publication of the report, and we are also working with the authorities on measures to correct and remedy the misreporting that took place. What I can add is that the resolution of the misreporting in line with IMF policy is a precondition for discussions of any future financial assistance by the IMF.
And with respect to potential consequences, I can say that the IMF does not impose any sanctions for misreporting cases. It is up to our Executive Board to decide on the next steps. And those next steps, you know, could include a waiver. And that waiver could — it could also include; it could be a waiver without a request for reimbursement. So, all of those discussions on Senegal are now underway. We are actively, very much working with the authorities, supporting as much as possible their efforts on fiscal and debt sustainability, as I said. And we will come back and report back when we have more information on Senegal.
I have a question here online that I am going to read. It came from the Press Center on Thailand. And the question is – ‘The upcoming World Bank IMF Annual Meetings in Thailand will bring significant attention to Southeast Asia’s economic outlook. From the from IMF’s perspective, how can Thailand best leverage this opportunity to address regional challenges such as digital transformation, climate change adaptation, and income inequality? And what collaborative initiatives between the IMF and Thailand are being planned to ensure lasting economic benefits for the country beyond the meetings themselves?’
So, on this very important question, a very nice question, actually, what I can say is that we are very much looking forward to having Thailand host the annual meetings in 2026. So, this will be in October of 2026. Every three years, we do our Annual Meetings abroad. 2026, October will be Thailand. So, mark your calendar. I can also add that preparations are underway. The Fund, the IMF staff are working hand in hand with the Thai authorities to make this a highly successful event and showcasing the significant strides that Thailand has made since it last hosted our annual meetings in 1991. So, it will be 25 years when we get to 2026.
The Managing Director recently met with Bank of Thailand’s Governor Sethaput at the AlUla Conference in Saudi Arabia. They discussed the preparations for the annual meetings and agreed that it would be a very good opportunity to showcase on the global stage the region’s dynamism and economic activities. And of course, the meetings will also allow Thailand to position itself as a key contributor to the international economic dialogue and to gather views and experiences from countries throughout the membership of the IMF and the World Bank.
This ongoing close relationship leading up to and beyond, we hope, the Annual Meetings will focus on prioritizing reform reforms that are necessary to ensure the lasting benefits for Thailand and building the relationships and the shared policy, dialogue and experiences we hope will deepen our engagement, our excellent engagement and relationship with Thailand and will be sustained even past the Annual Meetings in 2026.
QUESTIONER: My question is, what are the IMF growth projections for Jordan amid the ongoing impact of the Gaza war? And when will the Third Review under the EFF begin? And are any adjustments expected to the war’s region effect on Jordan’s economy?
MS. KOZACK: So, what I can share on Jordan is that the Executive Board on December 12th completed the Article IV Consultation with Jordan and the Second Review under the EFF arrangement. The mission for the next review, which will be the Third Review, is expected to take place in April.
What I can also say is that Jordan has demonstrated resilience and maintained macroeconomic stability throughout the prolonged regional conflict. This resilience reflects the authority’s continued implementation of sound macroeconomic policies and progress with reforms. While recent developments in the region, particularly the ceasefire agreements, give rise to some cautious optimism, uncertainty, of course, in Jordan does remain high. And with respect to the growth projections, what I can say is that growth in 2024 was 2.3 percent. We are projecting growth at 2.5 percent in 2025 and a further increase in growth in 2026 to 3 percent. But like in all countries, we will be updating these projections as both part of our April World Economic Outlook Global Forecast, and also, of course, the team will be doing a full assessment of the Jordanian economy as part of their mission in April
And so, with this, I’m going to bring this press briefing to a close. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much for participating today. As a reminder, the briefing is embargoed until 11 a.m. Eastern Time in the U.S. The transcript, as always, will be made available later today on IMF.org. And in case of clarifications or additional questions, please reach out to my colleagues at media@IMF.org. And I wish everyone a wonderful day, and I look forward to seeing you next time. Thank you very much.
* * * * *
PRESS OFFICER: Boris Balabanov
Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org
Source: African Development Bank Group
What: Webinar on the Africa Gender Index 2023 Analytical Report – Breaking Barriers: Africa Gender Index Insights for Action
Who: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Department of the African Development Bank Group (AHGC)
When: Friday, 14 March 2025, 9:15 am – 11:00 am (GMT)
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Letter Text (PDF)
Washington (March 6, 2025) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and co-author of the original National Climate Bank Act with Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, together with Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today called for answers from Jane Fraser, CEO of Citigroup, and Sunil Garg, CEO of Citibank North America (N.A.), on the reported freeze of federal investments made under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA)—programs that are part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and held in Citibank N.A accounts. The affected accounts contain legally obligated federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at powering domestic investment in low-cost clean energy and energy efficiency. The freeze appears to relate to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin’s desire to claw back these grants. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, also signed the letter.
In the letter the lawmakers write, “If public reporting and information obtained by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Democrats is accurate, the federal funds in these accounts have been frozen for more than two weeks without explanation from either Citibank or the EPA. Without access to these funds, grantees will be hard pressed to cover basic operating expenses, such as payroll or rent, much less satisfy their mission of delivering cost-saving investments in underserved communities across the country. According to recent reporting, a prolonged account freeze may drive many of the nonprofit grantees to bankruptcy or default.”
The lawmakers continued, “These reports suggest that Trump DOJ and EPA officials are trying to rescind the legally obligated funding at issue by fabricating claims of financial mismanagement and launching sham investigations.”
The lawmakers request responses by March 15, 2025, to questions that include:
What NCIF, CCIA, or GGRF grantee accounts have been paused, frozen, or closed by Citibank? When did Citibank pause, freeze, or close these accounts?
Why did Citibank pause, freeze, or close grantee accounts?
If Citibank has paused, frozen, closed, or otherwise limited access to grantee accounts, what is the legal authority for doing so?
Does Citibank have plans to resume grantees’ access to, or use of, their accounts and to the federal monies contained therein?
On February 24, 2025, Senator Markey joined Senator Whitehouse and all Democratic members of the Environment and Public Works Committee in a letter to EPA demanding answers about Administrator Lee Zeldin’s illegal efforts to claw back these federal investments in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. On February 19, 2025, Senator Markey led a letter with Senators Van Hollen, Whitehouse, and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to the Department of Justice regarding the forced resignation of the head of the criminal division at the U.S. Attorney’s office in the District of Columbia, Denise Cheung, after she declined to pursue an unwarranted criminal investigation that would have frozen accounts with federal funds held at Citibank.
Senator Markey secured numerous provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, including the creation of a $27 billion national climate financing network based on his National Climate Bank Act. Following the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, Senators Markey and Van Hollen and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06), the House lead on the climate financing legislation, welcomed the launch of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in April 2023.
Source: IMF – News in Russian
March 6, 2025
SPEAKER: Ms. Julie Kozack, Director of the Communications Department, IMF
* * * * *
MS. KOZACK: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this IMF press briefing. It is very good to see you all, both those of you who are here in person and, of course, our colleagues online as well.
I am Julie Kozak, Director of the Communications Department. As usual, this briefing is embargoed until 11 a.m. Eastern Time in the U.S. I will start with a short announcement and then take your questions in person on Webex and via the Press Center.
The 2025 Spring Meetings of the IMF and World Bank Group will take place from Monday, April 21 through Saturday, April 26. Press registration to attend the spring meetings in person in Washington D.C. is now open and you can register through www.IMFconnect.org.
And with that, I will now open the floor for your questions. For those connecting virtually, please turn on both your camera and microphone when speaking. And with that, over to you.
QUESTIONER: If the Congress does not approve the future agreement, as it is established by the local law, does the IMF give the money to Argentina?
MS. KOZACK: Okay, so that is a question on Argentina. Any other questions on Argentina? I do not see any hands up in the room. Let us go online. QUESTIONER: Do you think we are already in the final stage? And what remains to announce the Staff Agreement with the IMF?
QUESTIONER: Good morning. I was wondering about also there have been versions of a new loan up to $20 billion and the first deployment of $8 billion this year. Can you confirm that, or can you give us an insight into the fresh funds that could be coming in the new agreement? And also, when can we expect a signing of the letter of intent?
QUESTIONER: So, my question is about the Congress. President Milei confirmed that the staff-level agreement must be approved by the Parliament as indicated by the Argentine law. So, is that also a requirement from the IMF itself or could the President sign a decree avoiding the current law that requires the staff-level agreement to be approved by Parliament.
QUESTIONER: I want to ask about the scope of the potential agreement with Argentina. There are reports out saying it could be as high, or there is an expectation it could be as high as $20 billion.
QUESTIONER: I think a few people have already asked, but when [do] you expect to reach a staff-level agreement, whether, as the Argentine government has said, it is only the final numbers that need to be agreed and not other technical aspects? And whether the IMF requires that the entirety of the SLA be reviewed by Congress for approval or if whether a general outline produced by the government will be enough?
MS. KOZACK: Okay, very good. So, with that, let me go ahead and talk about Argentina. So, first, I just want to start by saying, as I think many of you know, both the Managing Director and the First Deputy Managing Director recently met with the Argentine authorities. And as they recently emphasized, we are continuing to make good progress toward a program, and we are working constructively with the Argentine authorities in this regard. The authorities’ stabilization and growth plan is delivering significant results.
It has made notable strides in reducing inflation, stabilizing the economy, and fostering a return to growth in the country, and poverty is finally beginning to decline in Argentina. To sustain these early gains, there is a shared understanding about the need to continue to adopt a consistent set of fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies, while very importantly, advancing growth enhancing reforms. And the new program would build on the progress achieved so far while also addressing Argentina’s remaining challenges.
Now, with respect to some of the questions regarding Congressional approval, we do take note of President Milei’s commitment to seek congressional support for a new IMF supported program. As we have often said in the past, strong ownership and broad support are key to the program’s success,
Here, I want to emphasize, though, that securing congressional support is a decision of the authorities as legislated in Argentine domestic law. And at the same time, of course, as I just noted, broad political and social support can enhance program implementation. Questions regarding the specific process on achieving or seeking congressional support should be addressed really to the Argentine authorities because it is a matter of domestic law.
From our side, as I noted, the negotiations are continuing in a constructive manner. In terms of the process from the IMF side. Once the negotiations are completed, as with any IMF program or proposed program, the final arrangement, the documents, will require approval of the IMF’s Executive Board. And we will provide further updates as we have them.
With respect to some of the questions about the details of the negotiations, the potential size of the program. All I can say right now is this is still under discussion as part of the ongoing and constructive dialogue that we are having with the authorities. And we will provide an update when we have more information that we can share with you.
QUESTIONER: On Lebanon, so following recent reports that the Lebanese government is in discussions with IMF over a potential deal on its financial default in public debt. I just want to see if the IMF can confirm these reports. If so, what does it look like? Are there any contingencies to this? And will there be an IMF mission visiting Lebanon? Thank you.
MS. KOZACK: So, what I can share on Lebanon is that an IMF team will visit Lebanon very soon, March 10th to 14th. This mission is aimed at, of course, meeting the new authorities, discussing Lebanon’s recent economic developments, its reconstruction needs, and the authorities’ economic priorities in the near-term. This is a fact-finding mission that will take place. But beyond this fact-finding mission, as we look ahead, future next steps could include helping the authorities to formulate a comprehensive economic reform program.
Our staff continues to be closely engaged with the authorities. We are providing policy advice and capacity development to help the authorities’ efforts to rebuild Lebanon’s economy and institutions in coordination with other international partners. And that is what I have for now on Lebanon.
QUESTIONER: I wanted to ask you about what is happening in the United States. The trade wars have begun, and we are seeing some impact already, both in terms of market reaction and a lot of volatility in the markets, ups, and downs. We are also seeing some interesting developments in terms of bond markets and yields; it is going to increase the cost of borrowing. So, I wanted to ask you if you, at this point, I know we’ve asked this question before, but I wonder if you’ve got an additional assessment, as we’re now seeing some of these policies that had been promised taking effect, and whether you can say now whether you’re expecting an impact on the global economy and also on the U.S. economy and the affected economies that have been targeted thus far — China, Canada, Mexico.
QUESTIONER: As a follow up to [that] question, does the IMF consider that the ongoing developments of the U.S. tariffs and trade wars would push other nations to seek more trade relations and more alliances with other economic organizations and trade organizations such as BRICS, for example, or others? And broadly speaking, what is the IMF assessment of the global fragmentation that is going on right now? Do you see that it is slowing down or opposite it is moving faster, taking into account the latest developments in the United States?
QUESTIONER: I would like to focus on the development of 10 years of U.S. bond yield movement. The 10-year bond yield now decreased, dropping substantially. And what does it mean? What is the implication of the movement? Does it represent some U.S. recession or U.S. economy?
QUESTIONER: With the tariffs actually now in place, has the IMF undertook a study to determine the potential impact on small island states that are heavily dependent on flows and goods and commodities coming out of the United States, more specifically, those countries within the Caribbean region who are very much dependent and could face significant inflationary pressures based on these tariffs?
MS. KOZACK: So, first I want to just step back a little bit to recognize that we have seen now several new and significant developments over the past few days. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on Canada and Mexico as well as additional tariffs on China. Canada and China have, in response, announced tariffs on some U.S. goods and other measures. And Mexico has indicated that it will provide more details in the coming days.
And as we have said before, you know, while assessing the full impact of tariffs on economic activity and inflation will depend on many factors, we do expect to provide an analysis of this, certainly at the global level and for the most affected countries at the time of our World Economic Outlook update in April. And of course we will also cover this issue, I imagine, in some of the regional updates where relevant. And I want to also emphasize that as part of our bilateral surveillance with countries, the individual Article IV reports this topic will also be covered to the extent that the countries are affected.
What I can say today is that if sustained the impact of the U.S. tariffs on Canada and Mexico can be expected to have a significant adverse economic impact on those countries given their very strong integration and exposure to the U.S. market.
Now, more broadly, there were some questions about financial market movements. So let me also just step back for a moment on some of these, and here I want to refer to some remarks that our Managing Director has been making recently. As she’s been saying, we are now in the midst of significant transformations, and these include the rapid advance of AI to changing patterns of capital flows and trade. She has also been mentioning that trade is no longer the engine of global growth that it used to be.
For example, during the period of 2000 to 2019, global trade growth reached nearly 6 percent on an annual basis, whereas over the more recent period of 2022 to 2024, global trade is growing closer to 3 percent. So global trade growth has been on a downward — has declined. And of course, it is in this more global context that governments are recalibrating their approaches and adjusting policies.
I also want to recognize, of course, that we have seen increased volatility in financial markets. We see that in indicators such as the VIX. We also have seen indicators of global uncertainty showing an increase. And what will be critical to assess what the economic impact of this will be — will be whether these trends are short-lived or whether they are sustained. Generally speaking, our research shows that both historically and across countries, sustained periods of elevated uncertainty can be associated with both households and firms holding back on consumption and investment decisions. And as I said, we will be providing a comprehensive analysis of our views on the global economy and individual economies as part of the World Economic Outlook that will be released in April.
On the specific question on U.S. bond yields, we do recognize of course, that U.S. bond yields have moved lower since the beginning of the year. And it does seem that on that basis markets may be reappraising or reassessing their views, particularly on the outlook for monetary policy. I will stop there and move on.
QUESTIONER: When is the IMF Board expected to review and approve the next disbursement for Ukraine? Are there any remaining conditions or procedural steps that Ukraine must fulfill before approval? And the Ukrainian government is engaging in debt restructuring efforts with its creditors. How does the IMF assess Ukraine’s debt sustainability and what role does this play in bord’s decision making process regarding future disbursement announcements?
QUESTIONER: So, to follow up on previous question. In February, you stated, that Ukraine would have access to about U.S. $900 million for the next review. Now we are speaking about $400 million. So, why the IMF has made a decision to adjust to the total sum of disbursement that will be provided to Ukraine?
QUESTIONER: And do you think that it can impact financial stability of Ukrainian economy or there is no risk for them?
QUESTIONER: How do you expect the freezing of the U.S. aid for Ukraine might impact the program you have already on course right now? And how does this affect the global plan that had been made like a year ago or two years ago now?
QUESTIONER: I just want to follow up the last question about the impact — what the impact Trump administration is doing. Does this impact the IMF projections on Ukraine this and next year?
QUESTIONER: An adjacent question, maybe related to the prospect for ending the war. And, you know, we have seen economic developments in Russia continue to percolate along even though the war has been going on and there have been sanctions. Have you started to look at what the end of the war could mean for both the Russian and Ukrainian economies in terms of, you know, perhaps, you know, assuming that there would be an end of sanctions once there was a cessation of hostilities, whether that would give a boost to the Russian economy, maybe the European economy in general could lower costs, things like that? So just kind of walk us through what you are seeing there.
MS. KOZACK: Okay, let me go ahead on Ukraine. So, just to bring everyone up to speed. So, on February 28th, the IMF staff, and the Ukrainian authorities reached a staff-level agreement on the Seventh Review of the four-year EFF arrangement. This is subject to approval of the IMF’s Executive Board. Ukraine is expected to draw, as noted, about U.S. $400 million, and that would bring total disbursements under the program to U.S. $10.1 billion.
I just want to note that program performance in Ukraine remains strong. All of the end December quantitative performance criteria were met, and understandings were reached between the Ukrainian authorities and IMF staff on a set of policies and reforms to sustain macroeconomic stability. The structural reform agenda in Ukraine is continuing to make good progress, and there are strong commitments from the Ukrainian authorities in a number of other areas.
Now on some of the specific questions, first on the matter of the disbursement, what I can say there is that it is not unusual over the life of a program for the pattern of disbursements to shift based on evolving balance of payments needs. And that is what has happened in this case. It is also important to emphasize that the overall size of the program, which is $15.6 billion, remains unchanged. And so that shift in disbursement pattern reflects the shifting balance of payments pattern for Ukraine.
So, on the issue the debt restructuring and debt process, what I can say there is that restoring debt sustainability in Ukraine hinges on continued implementation of the authority’s debt restructuring strategy, where completing the treatment of the GDP warrants remains important. And it also hinges very much on continuation of the revenue-based fiscal adjustment strategy, which is supported under the program. And as you know, Ukraine’s debt has been assessed in the last review to be sustainable on a forward-looking basis contingent on these two areas that I just mentioned. And of course, there will be a revised debt sustainability assessment as part of the ongoing review.
With respect to the other question, what I can say here is that the Ukrainian economy, you know, has shown continued resilience despite the challenges arising from the war. At the time of the Seventh Review, the last review, we estimated GDP growth to be 3.5 percent in 2024. But we did expect it at that time to moderate to 2 to 3 percent in 2025. And that was reflecting some headwinds from labor constraints and damage to energy infrastructure, given the ongoing war. It is the case in general for Ukraine, and we have been saying this throughout the life of the program, that the outlook remains exceptionally uncertain, especially as the war continues and it is taking a heavy toll on Ukraine’s people, economy, and infrastructure.
On the more recent developments that you were referring to, we are following these developments very closely. It is premature at the moment to comment on them, but we are following them, and we will make an assessment in due course.
And on your question, the answer is essentially the same. We are following the developments very closely, and we will, as developments evolve, be undertaking obviously an assessment of what a peace deal could potentially look like and what would be the implications for all of the involved parties.
QUESTIONER: Julie, can you on the basis of having studied previous conflicts ending, can you just give us divorced from Ukraine and Russia, but just can you give us an indication of what generally happens when a conflict ends, what that means? And is there anything that we can draw on, at least just from history?
MS. KOZACK: So, I do not have, you know, off the top of my head a piece of research that I can kind of point to in terms of the interest analysis. What I certainly can say is that we always, for all of our member countries, hope for peace and stability in all of our member countries. And I think at that moment this is really what I can say. But I take note of the importance of your point, and we will, I have no doubt, in due course be conducting all of the necessary analysis as events unfold.
QUESTIONER: I have two questions mainly on Egypt. as Egypt is scheduled for 10th of March for the discussion of the Fourth Review of the EFF for the country, what are we expecting from this meeting? And if you please, could you update us on the RSF facility worth $1.2 billion for the country? Thank you so much.
QUESTIONER: I would second exactly those questions. And just to add to that, I know it says on the IMF Executive Board calendar that the Board will be discussing waivers of non-observance for some of the performance criteria related to Egypt’s loan program and modifications for others. Are you able to tell us any more about exactly which criteria the Board will be looking at? And on the RSF, if you are able to give us any more detail about the prospective value of that. I know it has been put at $1 billion before. A related question, not on Egypt but on Gaza. I would be interested to know if the IMF has begun to think, whether internally or with partners in the region, about what its potential role would be in funding a reconstruction plan for Gaza given the $50 billion, upwards of $50 billion, cost of any reconstruction.
QUESTIONER: I may repeat questions about the value of current tranche to be given to Egypt and the timing of when the central bank of Egypt to receive it. And also, I have another question about the program of state assets selling. Will we witness some steps, new steps in that program? Could it be connected with the decision to be taken in March?
MS. KOZACK: And any other questions on Egypt? All right. And then I have a question that came in through the Press Center. I am going to read it out loud – ’Does the IMF’s approval of the fourth tranche to Egypt require Egypt to implement some reforms? And when will the Fifth Review of the loan be held? What is the estimated size of the loan allocated to Egypt, and here will it be dispersed in installments or in one lump sum?’
On Egypt – on March 10th, our Executive Board will be discussing Egypt’s Article IV consultation and the fourth review under the EFF. It will also be discussing at the same time Egypt’s request for an RSF, the Resilience and Sustainability Facility. Subject to completion by the Executive Board, the authorities, would have access to $1.2 billion under the EFF. So, under the EFF program. And then in addition, subject again to approval by our Executive Board, the size of the RSF would be about U.S. $1.3 billion. Regarding the RSF, like all of the IMF programs, the RSF is also delivered in tranches. So, it is not one lump sum up front. It is a phased program where tranches are dispersed on the basis of conditions being met.
And with respect to some of the other questions, what I can say today is just that we will provide, of course, more details following the Board meeting and on the question of waivers and modifications and also the questions on the state-owned enterprises. And again, the board meeting will be on March 10th.
QUESTIONER: I have two questions related to Japan. Firstly, amid rising uncertainty due to President Trump’s tariff policy, I would like to ask you — ask your thoughts on whether the Bank of Japan, currently in a rate hike phase, should continue raising rate or take more cautious approach in assessing the impact. And secondly, President Trump recently made remarks suggesting that Japan and China are engaging in currency devaluation. I would appreciate it if you share your views on Japan’s foreign exchange policy. Thank you.
MS. KOZACK: So, maybe just stepping back to give a bit of context on Japan. What I can say on Japan is that on the growth side, growth this year is expected to strengthen, and we also expect inflation to converge to the Bank of Japan’s 2 percent target by the end of 2025.
In 2024, growth in Japan slowed due to some temporary supply disruptions. But since then, we have seen a strengthening in growth driven by domestic demand, particular — particularly private consumption in Japan and rising wages. And we expect this to continue into 2025, where we project growth, at the time of the January WEO, we projected growth at 1.1 percent for Japan in 2025. And of course, just to say that we will be updating this projection as part of the April forecast.
Looking at inflation — headline and core inflation, as I said, are expected to decline gradually toward the 2 percent target. We have been supportive of the Bank of Japan’s recent monetary policy decisions. We believe that these decisions will help anchor inflation expectations at the 2 percent target but also given balance risks around inflation, our assessment has been that further hikes in the policy interest rate should continue to be data dependent, and they should proceed at a gradual pace over time.
With respect to the question on the exchange rate, what I can say there is that the Japanese authorities have affirmed their commitment to a flexible exchange rate regime. Japan’s flexible exchange rate regime has helped the country or has helped the economy absorb the impact of shocks. And it also supports the focus of monetary policy on price stability. And at the same time, what I can say is that that flexible exchange rate regime is helping maintain an external position that is in line with fundamentals.
QUESTIONER: Could you give us an update on the negotiations for Ethiopia, please? And on El Salvador, the deal that you agreed on in December and was approved a couple of weeks ago involves the government not increasing its exposure to Bitcoin. Government has continued to buy through the Office of Bitcoin, which is linked to the presidential palace. But yesterday the Fund said that these purchases do not increase the government’s exposure to Bitcoin. Could you please explain that?
QUESTIONER: Also on El Salvador, obviously he was saying to not to not buy it as a government reserve. I just wanted to, I guess, contrast to the U.S. I mean, President Trump has very much announced a digital assets reserve, including Ethereum and other coins, as well as Bitcoin. And I wondered if the IMF could – can you comment on the U.S. program or how would you distinguish the two countries and why the IMF might be taking a different approach?
MS. KOZACK: All right, let me go ahead and take the El Salvador question in Ethiopia and then we will go back. I see many hands up online.
So, on El Salvador, as you know, last week our Executive Board approved a 40-month Extended Fund Facility, EFF, for U.S. $1.4 billion and with an immediate disbursement of $113 million. The program is expected to catalyze financial and technical support from other IFIs. And this will lead to a combined total over the program period of about U.S. $3.5 billion of support for El Salvador. The goals of the program are to restore fiscal sustainability, rebuild external and financial buffers, strengthen governance and transparency, and ultimately create the conditions for stronger and more resilient growth.
Regarding Bitcoin, in particular, the program aims to address the risks associated with the Bitcoin project to protect consumers and investors, as well as to limit potential fiscal costs. So, to start, there were recent legal reforms that have made the acceptance of Bitcoin voluntary, and taxes can be paid only in U.S. dollars. Under the program, the government has committed to not accumulate for their Bitcoins at the level of the overall public sector.
Regarding the recent increase in Bitcoin holding by the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Fund, the authorities have confirmed that these are consistent with the agreed program conditionality, and we do remain engaged with the authorities on this important issue.
And then, to your question. We are obviously closely monitoring President Trump’s announcement in this area. The Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets has not yet completed its work. So, we do not yet have details on the implementation of this proposal, but we will come back in due course.
And then turning to the question on Ethiopia. So just an update on Ethiopia. On January 17th, the IMF Executive Board completed the Second Review of the arrangement, the ECF arrangement for Ethiopia, and that allowed for a drawdown of about U.S. $245 million. The ECF arrangement supports the authorities’ reforms to address macroeconomic imbalances, restore external debt sustainability, and lay the foundation for strong private sector-led growth.
I can also just remind you that the Managing Director recently traveled to Ethiopia. She was there February 8th and 9th. She met with Prime Minister Abiy and his team to take stock of the economic reforms and the progress that is being made in the country. And she also took the opportunity to meet with other stakeholders, including representatives of the private sector.
QUESTIONER: My question is on USAID. USAID has now totally stopped its business. And to what extent do you see the impact, especially on lower income countries at the global level? And should you consider using your facility to support them just in case?
MS. KOZACK: So, on this issue, we are obviously again paying close attention to developments, and we are working with our country authorities. But it is, at the same time, it is too early to really say what the precise impact may be. And so, we will come back in due course. For now, we are monitoring.
QUESTIONER: I have a question on Senegal. Following a recent audit of the country’s debt, it was found to be 99.7 percent of GDP. That was in 2023. And I know that IMF has said before that Senegal debt was stable even though it was high. I am wondering if that is the figure that you still consider sustainable. And then also with regards on talks of a new IMF program, I am wondering if Senegal could be asked to reimburse previous dispersion under this reporting period.
QUESTIONER: Still on Senegal, as soon as the report from the Audit Supreme Court was released, we saw rating agency downgrading Senegal sovereign notes. So, the country is now stuck. It cannot raise funds from the internal market, and it cannot go in a very comfortable position in international markets while they still face a lot of challenges. So, I am wondering why the IMF is working fast and bold to find a solution for Senegal in the midterm or even long-term. Is there any situation where IMF can provide a short-term, I mean, short-term relief to the country so they can go through these hard moments in a very soft way?
MS. KOZACK: So, on Senegal, what I can say is that we are actively engaged in discussions with the authorities with respect to the Court of Auditors Report and the associated misreporting under the IMF program. The Court of Auditors Report was released on February 12th. The Court confirmed that the fiscal deficit and debt were under reported during the period of 2019 to 2023.
So, what we are doing is working closely with the authorities in their efforts to preserve fiscal and debt sustainability. We are working actively to advance on our discussions following the publication of the report, and we are also working with the authorities on measures to correct and remedy the misreporting that took place. What I can add is that the resolution of the misreporting in line with IMF policy is a precondition for discussions of any future financial assistance by the IMF.
And with respect to potential consequences, I can say that the IMF does not impose any sanctions for misreporting cases. It is up to our Executive Board to decide on the next steps. And those next steps, you know, could include a waiver. And that waiver could — it could also include; it could be a waiver without a request for reimbursement. So, all of those discussions on Senegal are now underway. We are actively, very much working with the authorities, supporting as much as possible their efforts on fiscal and debt sustainability, as I said. And we will come back and report back when we have more information on Senegal.
I have a question here online that I am going to read. It came from the Press Center on Thailand. And the question is – ‘The upcoming World Bank IMF Annual Meetings in Thailand will bring significant attention to Southeast Asia’s economic outlook. From the from IMF’s perspective, how can Thailand best leverage this opportunity to address regional challenges such as digital transformation, climate change adaptation, and income inequality? And what collaborative initiatives between the IMF and Thailand are being planned to ensure lasting economic benefits for the country beyond the meetings themselves?’
So, on this very important question, a very nice question, actually, what I can say is that we are very much looking forward to having Thailand host the annual meetings in 2026. So, this will be in October of 2026. Every three years, we do our Annual Meetings abroad. 2026, October will be Thailand. So, mark your calendar. I can also add that preparations are underway. The Fund, the IMF staff are working hand in hand with the Thai authorities to make this a highly successful event and showcasing the significant strides that Thailand has made since it last hosted our annual meetings in 1991. So, it will be 25 years when we get to 2026.
The Managing Director recently met with Bank of Thailand’s Governor Sethaput at the AlUla Conference in Saudi Arabia. They discussed the preparations for the annual meetings and agreed that it would be a very good opportunity to showcase on the global stage the region’s dynamism and economic activities. And of course, the meetings will also allow Thailand to position itself as a key contributor to the international economic dialogue and to gather views and experiences from countries throughout the membership of the IMF and the World Bank.
This ongoing close relationship leading up to and beyond, we hope, the Annual Meetings will focus on prioritizing reform reforms that are necessary to ensure the lasting benefits for Thailand and building the relationships and the shared policy, dialogue and experiences we hope will deepen our engagement, our excellent engagement and relationship with Thailand and will be sustained even past the Annual Meetings in 2026.
QUESTIONER: My question is, what are the IMF growth projections for Jordan amid the ongoing impact of the Gaza war? And when will the Third Review under the EFF begin? And are any adjustments expected to the war’s region effect on Jordan’s economy?
MS. KOZACK: So, what I can share on Jordan is that the Executive Board on December 12th completed the Article IV Consultation with Jordan and the Second Review under the EFF arrangement. The mission for the next review, which will be the Third Review, is expected to take place in April.
What I can also say is that Jordan has demonstrated resilience and maintained macroeconomic stability throughout the prolonged regional conflict. This resilience reflects the authority’s continued implementation of sound macroeconomic policies and progress with reforms. While recent developments in the region, particularly the ceasefire agreements, give rise to some cautious optimism, uncertainty, of course, in Jordan does remain high. And with respect to the growth projections, what I can say is that growth in 2024 was 2.3 percent. We are projecting growth at 2.5 percent in 2025 and a further increase in growth in 2026 to 3 percent. But like in all countries, we will be updating these projections as both part of our April World Economic Outlook Global Forecast, and also, of course, the team will be doing a full assessment of the Jordanian economy as part of their mission in April
And so, with this, I’m going to bring this press briefing to a close. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much for participating today. As a reminder, the briefing is embargoed until 11 a.m. Eastern Time in the U.S. The transcript, as always, will be made available later today on IMF.org. And in case of clarifications or additional questions, please reach out to my colleagues at media@IMF.org. And I wish everyone a wonderful day, and I look forward to seeing you next time. Thank you very much.
* * * * *
PRESS OFFICER: Boris Balabanov
Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/03/06/tr030625-transcript-of-com-regular-press-briefing
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Recent declines in the number of landlords participating in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, also known as Section 8 vouchers, have made it more difficult for renters to find housing.
U.S. Senators Kevin Cramer, member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Development, and Chris Coons (D-DE), introduced their Choice in Affordable Housing Act today to help expand the HCV program. U.S. Representatives Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-05) and Mike Lawler (R-NY-17) introduced the bill in the House of Representatives.
The bill includes funding to create the Herschel Lashkowitz Housing Partnership Fund, named after the former state senator, Fargo mayor, and affordable housing advocate, Herschel Lashkowitz. It will improve the federal government’s largest rental assistance program by attracting and retaining participating landlords. Additionally, it increases funding to the Tribal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, uses neighborhood-specific data to set rents fairly, reduces inspection delays, and refocuses HUD’s evaluation of housing agencies. Together, these changes reduce barriers to low-income housing.
“Increases in housing costs mean millions of renters struggle to find affordable places to live,” said Cramer. “The success of the Housing Choice Voucher program is contingent on landlords providing adequate housing options. Herschel Lashkowitz’s legacy of affordable housing advocacy lives on through this commonsense bill by boosting the supply of options for renters to use their vouchers.”
“As County Executive and County Council President, I saw firsthand the life-changing impact that a safe, affordable home had for Delawareans families,” said Coons. “Families in the first state and across the nation need better options when they are looking for a home, and landlords need support to be able to bring their properties into the Section 8 market. This bill is a huge step forward towards those goals so more Americans in every corner of our country can feel at home.”
This bill is endorsed by National Affordable Housing Management Association, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Housing Law Project, Habitat for Humanity International, National Association of Realtors, National Association of Home Builders, Enterprise Community Partners, National Association of Residential Property Managers, National Leased Housing Association, Institute of Real Estate Management, National Rental Home Council, the Poverty & Race Research Action Council, RESULTS Education Fund, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Multifamily Housing Council, the National Apartment Association, the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, and the Building Owners and Managers Association.
Cosponsors of the bill include U.S. Senators John Curtis (R-UT), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Tina Smith (D-MN), Raphael Warnock (D-GA).
Click here for bill text.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark Berry, Lecturer In Criminology, Bournemouth University
The global illicit drugs trade is estimated to be worth at least half a trillion US dollars each year. Drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin generate large revenues all along their supply chains, from where the products (and precursor materials) are grown or made – principally Colombia and Bolivia, China, Afghanistan, and the “golden triangle” of Myanmar, Laos and Thailand – to wherever the finished drugs are consumed.
Earnings in the illicit drug trade are variable. Few people will make the kind of money that once put the Mexican former cartel boss Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán on the Forbes list of global billionaires. But while drug “kingpins” are the industry’s biggest individual earners, they do not hold the majority of the drug money that is generated throughout the global supply chain.
Despite their frequent glamorisation in film and TV portrayals, drug cartels are basically international logistics companies. They work with distributors in different countries who deliver the drugs to regional wholesalers, who in turn supply the local retailers (dealers) who sell drugs to individuals.
Everyone along the supply chain takes their cut, with most people making much more modest incomes than the millionaire drug traffickers of narcocorrido lore. In our interviews with illicit drug entrepreneurs in the US and UK, we routinely spoke to sellers whose incomes ranged from pocket money to providing a moderately comfortable life.
Illicit drug use is damaging large parts of the world socially, politically and environmentally. Patterns of supply and demand are changing rapidly. In our longform series Addicted, leading experts bring you the latest insights on drug use and production as we ask: is it time to declare a planetary emergency?
Around 70% to 80% of the overall revenue generated by illicit drugs is shared among the many wholesale and street-level dealers in destination countries such as the UK and US, where the price per gram is at its highest. How this money moves and is used to sustain the illicit drug trade should be an important part of any worthwhile counter-narcotics strategy. But it rarely is.
The people and organisations responsible for laundering drug revenues – that is, transforming them into untraceable money that can easily be spent, or into assets that can be held or sold – often exist under the radar of law enforcement and the media.
Yet the ways illicit drug money is laundered are hardly a mystery. Techniques include wire transfers to offshore bank accounts, investments in shell companies or deposits in cash businesses, and buying foreign currencies or (to a small extent) cryptocurrencies. In addition, the straightforward physical transportation of cash across national borders is an often-used method known as a “bulk cash transfer”.
The largest players in the illicit drugs industry, such as international cartels, national distributors and large-scale wholesalers, often use professional money launderers – some of whom have seemingly reputable jobs in the financial sector. In one recent case, US financial regulators fined TD Bank US$3 billion (£2.4 billion) – a record penalty for a bank – for facilitating the laundering of millions of dollars of drug cartel money.
Over six years, more than 90% of the bank’s transactions went unmonitored, enabling “three money laundering networks to collectively transfer more than US$670 million through TD Bank accounts”. Then-US attorney general Merrick Garland commented: “By making its services convenient for criminals, [TD Bank] became one.”
Some money laundering networks are as global as the drug supply chains they service. In June 2024, the US Department of Justice’s (DoJ) multi-year “Operation Fortune Runner” investigation saw LA-based associates of Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel charged with conspiring with money-laundering groups linked to a Chinese underground banking network. According to the IRS’s head of criminal investigation, Guy Ficco:
Drug traffickers generate immense amounts of cash through their illicit operations. This case is a prime example of Chinese money launderers working hand-in-hand with drug traffickers to try to legitimise profits generated by drug activities.
According to the DoJ, “many wealthy Chinese nationals” barred from transferring large amounts to the US by the Chinese government’s capital flight restrictions seek informal alternatives to the conventional banking system – including via schemes to launder illicit drug money. The DoJ explained how this works:
The China-based investor contacts an individual who has US dollars available to sell in the United States. This seller of US dollars provides identifying information for a bank account in China, with instructions for the investor to deposit Chinese currency (renminbi) in that account. Once the owner of the account sees the deposit, an equivalent amount of US dollars is released to the buyer in the United States.
These arrangements are not unique to Chinese actors. Similar arrangements occur throughout the world, including schemes to leverage the black market peso exchange and the Hawala international money transfer system.
Professional launderers are both creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in the global financial system. Such corruption allows suspicious transactions to occur without proper checks or oversight. This not only reduces transparency in the financial system but erodes public trust in it.
International drug cartels and national wholesalers have a smaller markup on their transactions, compared with retailers. But because they are responsible for moving enormous quantities of illicit drugs, they still generate millions of dollars worth of revenue.
The most prolific known drug distributors in US history, Margarito Flores Jr and his twin brother Pedro, delivered billions of dollars worth of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines to their US and Canadian wholesale clients between 1998 and 2009. They were working for Guzmán and Ismeal “El Mayo” Zambada García, then leaders of the Sinaloa cartel, as well as the Mexican Beltrán Leyva brothers whose cartel bore their surname.
Today, Margarito Flores Jr trains law enforcement across the US in the methods he and his brother used to traffic drugs and run their business. In January 2015, both men were sentenced to 14 years for drug trafficking – Margarito Flores Jr would later reach out to one of this article’s authors (R.V. Gundur) after reading his book, Trying to Make It: The Enterprises, Gangs, and People of the American Drug Trade, which includes a comprehensive account of the Flores crew’s activities.
In a subsequent interview, he told us: “My brother and I estimate that, if we added up all of the money we sent back to Mexico over the decade we sold drugs, it was probably more than US$3.5 billion.”
The billions they remitted to Mexico were used by Guzmán, Zambada and the Beltrán Levya brothers not only to expand their drug businesses, but to corrupt powerful figures such as Mexico’s former secretary of public security, Genaro García Luna.
García Luna, who was Mexico’s highest-ranking law enforcement official from 2006 to 2012, was sentenced to nearly 40 years in prison in October 2024 after being found guilty of taking millions of dollars in bribes from the Sinaloa cartel, as well as enabling the trafficking of more than a million kilograms of cocaine into the US. Flores explained to us:
It’s important to understand that corruption impacts people at all levels of government. Our payoffs included local police and other people in the community, up to higher-positioned people in government. Lots of that money ended up funding the violent conflicts between cartels.
While there has been widespread coverage of cartel drug money being laundered through high-profile businesses and banks such as Wachovia and HSBC, Flores suggested that “the money involved in the drug trade is a lot more than anybody really can understand”. The reason for this, he said, is that it’s very hard to track the flow of hard cash via lorries, boats, planes and even drones. Flores told us:
It’s a misconception that everyone who makes a lot of money in drugs or other illegal business makes an effort to launder their money. My brother and I held much of what we earned in cash. We knew the government could eventually take everything [else].
The twins were right: in time, that’s exactly what the US government did.
In our study of money laundering strategies used by people involved in the illicit drug trade in the UK and US, we found that street dealers do not typically undertake sophisticated laundering processes. Rather, they spend their cash on food and other routine living expenses. One independent UK drug dealer, whose experience was typical of many, used the money earned from his cocaine sales to buy groceries and pay bills for himself and his daughter.
Spending money, even small amounts, gained through illegal activities is a money laundering offence – albeit one that is seldom prosecuted. As a result, these everyday activities that return illicit drug money to the legal economy are not well accounted for – even though the street value of drugs drives global market value estimates.
Business-savvy street dealers can earn gross revenues that approach the earnings of high-paid white-collar workers. But they must disguise their earnings’ origins before they can spend them, of course, and various tactics are used to do this.
Some dealers solicit close friends or family members to act as “strawmen”. These are people willing to put assets paid for by illicit drug money – such as cars, properties or even businesses – in their names on behalf of the dealer. Idris Elba’s character Stringer Bell in HBO’s The Wire was an accurate portrayal of someone investing in legal enterprises using illicit drug money.
These strategies occur wherever illegal enterprise exists, and have done for well over a century. In the US, we interviewed wholesalers who had used family members to own houses and other properties on their behalf. This is done to mitigate against the risk of asset forfeiture should they be convicted of a crime. If an illicit enterprise can create a plausible beneficial owner who is not involved in crime, then the asset is harder to seize. This is why the Donald Trump administration’s recent suspension of beneficial owner oversight is problematic from a drug enforcement perspective.
In liberal democracies, governments cannot investigate someone’s finances simply because they are related to criminals. The dirty money that is put into their accounts can also be disguised as legitimate income making it difficult to identify, although thorough investigations may uncover it.
In the UK, we also talked to successful drug retailers who had set up local businesses in their own names. The EU’s law enforcement agency, Europol, has reported similar activities throughout Europe.
Legal businesses are a common – and often hard-to-detect – vehicle to launder drug money. Bars, clubs, gyms, and hair, nail and tanning salons can be readily set up with drug money, as large cash infusions to establish a business are often not well scrutinised. These businesses are comparatively easy to run with significant cash flows, providing suitable cover for dirty money.
For example, a beauty salon, especially one that offers high-value boutique services, could easily incorporate drug revenue into its financial accounts by reporting sales that do not occur. Tanning salons can be set up with little expense since they require only sunbeds and the rental of a property.
Along with bars, clubs and salons, construction companies and restaurants stand out as other cash-intensive businesses with high volumes of transactions – characteristics that make good fronts for laundering money.
There is no surefire way to tell whether a business is a laundering front. While some may look like enterprises struggling to stay afloat, others develop into viable operations that eventually no longer need dirty money to sustain them.
Some drug dealers incorporate laundering practices within their legitimate jobs. Tradespeople such as electricians or plumbers, for example, can launder money by generating invoices for fake jobs, then reporting the income on their tax returns.
In both the UK and US, tax authorities are not charged with evaluating the veracity of the funds reported, and are generally satisfied once tax is paid. In other words, they generally trust declared income as proof of legal business activity. Moreover, they, along with the police, lack the resources to investigate these businesses for money laundering.
Through their legal businesses, many drug dealers pay significant taxes on their illegal revenue, and thus contribute to the economy.
Paying income tax effectively renders this income laundered. It can be invested and used to set up other businesses, or to purchase cars and properties without suspicion. It can also bolster credit ratings, and improve access to legal financial services such as bank loans.
Many small-time drug dealers start legal businesses in order to exit the illicit drug trade. We interviewed one cocaine dealer who had used his drug money to set up a retail electronics store; once it was successful, he stopped dealing. Similarly, the person behind a semi-legitimate nitrous oxide enterprise used his proceeds to set up a legitimate alcohol delivery service.
Through self-laundering, these modest drug dealers transform their proceeds of crime into spendable cash – and may eventually leave criminality behind altogether.
Across the world, anti-money laundering efforts against organised criminal gangs are notoriously ineffective.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – an intergovernmental organisation formed in 1999 to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism – assesses financial regulators’ anti-money laundering controls all over the world. Countries designated as a risk that require monitoring are placed on the task force’s “grey list”, while severe, high-risk countries go on its “black list”. Being put on these lists can result in a withdrawal of international investment and implementation of sanctions by other countries.
Although developing countries have often scored badly in their assessments, there has been some progress. While Kenya remained on the grey list in 2024, for example, it was found to have strengthened its measures to tackle both money laundering and terrorist financing. In the same year, though, Lebanon was added to the grey list over concerns on both counts.
The FATF’s evaluation processes are designed to provide an objective assessment of whether a country has implemented its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing recommendations. However, the success of the FATF’s anti-money laundering controls remains unclear.
Often lost in the criminal financing narrative is the role of bulk cash transfers. Even in a world that is moving to cashless transactions, cash generally remains the primary currency of both the illicit drug trade and corruption.
The biggest and most successful drug traffickers have significant cash reserves which are used to pay workers, replace drugs that are lost or seized, accrue assets, and bribe key officials.
Reflecting on his former illicit enterprise, Margarito Flores observed: “For every kilo of cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine we sold in the US, at least a kilo of cash went back to Mexico.” For deals in Europe, Flores said: “Given the markup the further away you trade, the amount of cash sent back could be even higher – I would estimate it to be a kilo and a half.”
Flores described the ineptitude of law enforcement in policing cash that was leaving the US:
No matter how careful we were, my brother and I lost a handful of loads of drugs heading north [from Mexico into the US]. Heading south was different: we just had the money put on tractor trailers and had it driven it across the border. We never lost a dollar. That’s where politicians don’t pay enough attention. That cash lets traffickers keep doing business.
So long as demand for illicit drugs exists, the industry will continue – and the revenue it generates will be laundered.
We believe that to curb the drugs trade, enforcement strategies need to go beyond simply capturing drugs and focus much more on capturing the money. Governments should go after reserves held not only by drug cartels but high-level distributors, such as those who replaced the Flores twins, and also wholesalers. People like these – comparatively high earners in destination countries – are the backbone of the illicit drugs trade.
Transnational law enforcement should prioritise detecting and seizing bulk cash transfers. These high-volume proceeds underwrite the wellbeing of drug trafficking organisations. Digital tools, such as machine learning and artificial intelligence, can be developed to create new techniques to track and trace suspicious transactions, although they alone won’t solve all laundering problems.
Corruption of officials also remains a problem. Governments need to ensure their officials are well paid and sufficiently monitored in their roles – be they working in government, border control, banks, police departments or prisons. Unfortunately, the US has shirked its leadership in global anti-corruption efforts with the recent halting of the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans the bribing of foreign officials.
Read more:
Mexico’s drug corruption has more to do with US demand than crooked politicians
Anti-money laundering efforts need to be consistently supported and required. Lamentably, the US has undermined its anti-money laundering toolkit by suspending the enforcement of beneficial ownership information reporting requirements. Establishing beneficial ownership helps financial institutions to identify parties that are hiding their financial interests, which can be an indication of money laundering or other criminal activity.
Similarly, foreign investment in producer countries can strengthen their capacity to counter laundering by supporting intelligence infrastructure and improved training. Recent cuts to USAid and the reduction of US State Department efforts in these areas is another indication that the US will no longer lead in these domains.
As cash businesses provide an easy mechanism for cleaning money, moving to a cashless society that uses digital transactions may help ensure that money is traceable. At the same time, cryptomarkets provide a minor, but potentially increasing, pathway to hiding dirty money digitally.
Ultimately, we should recognise the decades-long “war on drugs” for what it is: a policy costing trillions of dollars that combined mass incarceration with insufficient public health investment, and which has harmed the very communities the illicit drug trade affects the most. It is a difficult balance, but the pathway forward needs to reorient the objectives regarding drugs: invest in people, then go after the money that keeps the cartels, distributors and wholesalers afloat.
For you: more from our Insights series:
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Mark Berry received funding from the Dawes Trust for a prestigious PhD scholarship to undertake work that informs the contents of this article.
R.V. Gundur received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council to undertake work that informs the contents of this article. He is also a professional member of the International Compliance Association.
The authors wish to thank Margarito Flores Jr (kingpintoeducator.com) for his help with this article.
– ref. Money laundering plays a key role in every part of the illegal drugs industry – here’s how it works – https://theconversation.com/money-laundering-plays-a-key-role-in-every-part-of-the-illegal-drugs-industry-heres-how-it-works-251288
Source: US State of Georgia
ATLANTA – Governor Brian P. Kemp, joined by First Lady Marty Kemp, Lt. Governor Burt Jones, Speaker Jon Burns, House and Senate Appropriations Chairmen Tillery and Hatchett, constitutional officers, and members of the Georgia General Assembly, today signed the Amended Budget for Fiscal Year 2025.
Excerpt of Governor Kemp’s Remarks
…
I want to start by thanking the great legislative partners you see behind us and those next to me, including Lt. Governor Burt Jones, Speaker Jon Burns, Chairman Blake Tillery, Chairman Matt Hatchett, and the members of the General Assembly from both chambers and parties who overwhelmingly voted for this budget.
We’re also glad to be joined by the Constitutional Officers here with us today and the nation’s best First Lady, Marty Kemp!
I also want to thank OPB Director Rick Dunn and his team for all the time and hard work they put into the budget process each year alongside our partners in the House and Senate Budget Offices and all the time and effort they still have left to give as we work on the big budget. Let’s give his team a round of applause.
Today, I’ll sign the amended budget for Fiscal Year 2025… a budget that gives relief to Georgians devastated by Hurricane Helene… makes our schools and communities safer through strategic investments… and yet again returns hard-earned money to the taxpayers.
…
All of this investment is designed to benefit our local communities but it’s also going to keep Georgians working in all parts of the state during these uncertain economic times.
As we all know too well, inflation may have come down, but high prices haven’t. And that’s why this budget includes 1 billion dollars for another one-time refund for hardworking taxpayers!
And as just a reminder to you all behind me, we still need the General Assembly to pass the enabling legislation.
I’m sure some of these men and women up here will help us out with that later today!
And as soon as we pass the second tax cut acceleration measure, we’ll be able to keep even more of Georgians’ money in their pockets… because they know how to spend it better than the government does!
My goal working with the members of the General Assembly who have been such strong supporters in these measures has been to help Georgians fighting through 40-year-high inflation.
To give them a chance during these challenging times to keep their businesses going and provide for their families by putting more money in their pockets. And to help them and their children have good-paying jobs by developing an environment that attracts business and opportunity.
That’s what people voted for in November of 2024; that’s what we’ve all been doing; and that’s what we’re going to keep doing!
So, thank you, legislators, for helping us keep Georgia the best place to live, work, and raise a family through budgets like this.
…
You can watch Governor Kemp’s full remarks and the signing of the budget here.
“This budget includes critical midyear adjustments for Georgia’s education system, economic development projects, transportation infrastructure and public safety,” said Lt. Governor Burt Jones. “Additionally, over $250 million is included for Georgia’s agriculture and timber communities impacted by Hurricane Helene, along with relief for our fellow Georgians and local communities for recovery and cleanup efforts. I want to thank Governor Kemp, Speaker Burns, Chairman Tillery, and all members of the Senate Appropriations Committee for their hard work to ensure we passed a balanced and fiscally conservative budget, as we prepare for fiscal year 2026. Georgia is a shining example of how to budget efficiently and effectively, while putting Georgian’s hard earned dollars back in their pockets. I look forward to our continued work to appropriate taxpayer dollars in a fiscally, conservative manner.”
“This budget reaffirms Georgia’s commitment to making strategic investments that strengthen and uplift every community, family, and citizen across our great state—all while putting money back in the pockets of taxpayers,” said Speaker Jon Burns. “As we look ahead, the House is looking forward to working alongside Governor Kemp to continue prioritizing fiscally responsible and measured investments that secure the future success of our state for generations to come.”
In addition to investments in healthcare, public safety, education, and returning $1 billion to taxpayers through a third one-time special tax refund, the amended budget includes investments and allocations for:
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
NEW YORK, March 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. (NASDAQ: SAMG) (the “Company” or “Silvercrest”) today reported the results of its operations for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2024.
Business Update
Silvercrest concluded 2024 with strong new client organic flows due to new strategic investments made over the past year that are already bearing fruit. The firm garnered $1.4 billion in Q4 and $1.5 billion during 2024 in new client assets under management (“AUM”) inflows, the best year for new organic client inflows since 2015. The fourth quarter was primarily bolstered by winning a successful seed investment in our new Global Value Equity strategy of $1.3 billion USD ($2.0 billion AUD) in partnership with CBUS, one of Australia’s largest superannuation funds. The increases during the quarter bode well for future revenue, and we remain highly optimistic about securing more significant organic net flows over the course of 2025 to increase our return on invested capital.
Total AUM as of year-end 2024 reached $36.5 billion as of December 31, 2024, up 9.6% from $33.3 billion at year-end 2023. Discretionary AUM, which drives revenue, rose 6.4% to $23.3 billion from $21.9 billion. Overall, total asset flows and market increases were a net positive for the firm and will drive an increase in future revenue. Revenue for the year increased 5.3% to $123.7 million from $117.4 million, with Q4 revenue up 12.0% over Q4 2023, to $32.0 million from $28.5 million.
Strategically, in addition to building the firm’s new Global Value Equity strategy, we have hired business development and market leads in Atlanta and Singapore. We have our full MAS license for doing business in Singapore. With significant European assets and growth opportunities, we will be pursuing more initiatives to better highlight Silvercrest in both the institutional and wealth markets. The firm also has invested in talent across the firm to drive new growth and successfully transition the business toward the next generation.
Silvercrest developed new and stronger institutional consulting relationships during 2024, with new investment opportunities to develop our strategies. Our pipeline remains robust. As a result, we are optimistic about securing significant new organic flows. Importantly, the firm’s pipeline does not yet include mandates for our new Global Value Equity strategy which has a high capacity for significant new assets. We have worked hard over the past year to build the infrastructure, team, and strategy while undertaking business development. As with our third-quarter call, we envision more positive AUM flows and resulting revenue increases.
As I have discussed throughout the past year, Silvercrest has never had more business opportunities. Those initiatives are beginning to bear results. We have made and will continue to make investments to drive future growth in the business. We expect to make more hires to complement our outstanding professional team to drive that future growth. Silvercrest continues to accrue a higher interim percentage of revenue for compensation for this purpose, and, as mentioned, we will continue to adjust compensation accruals to match these important investments in the business and will keep you informed of our plans and the progress of these investments.
Fourth Quarter 2024 Highlights
The table below presents a comparison of certain GAAP and non-GAAP (“Adjusted”) financial measures and AUM.
For the Three Months Ended December 31, |
For the Twelve Months Ended December 31, |
|||||||||||||||
| (in thousands except as indicated) | 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||
| Revenue | $ | 31,962 | $ | 28,542 | $ | 123,651 | $ | 117,410 | ||||||||
| Income (loss) before other income (expense), net | $ | 1,957 | $ | (969 | ) | $ | 17,627 | $ | 18,819 | |||||||
| Net income (loss) | $ | 2,684 | $ | (642 | ) | $ | 15,709 | $ | 15,183 | |||||||
| Net income (loss) margin | 8.4 | % | (2.2 | )% | 12.7 | % | 12.9 | % | ||||||||
| Net income (loss) attributable to Silvercrest | $ | 1,618 | $ | (411 | ) | $ | 9,535 | $ | 9,094 | |||||||
| Net income (loss) per basic share | $ | 0.17 | $ | (0.05 | ) | $ | 1.00 | $ | 0.96 | |||||||
| Net income (loss) per diluted share | $ | 0.17 | $ | (0.04 | ) | $ | 1.00 | $ | 0.96 | |||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA1 | $ | 5,070 | $ | 2,581 | $ | 26,101 | $ | 26,878 | ||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA Margin1 | 15.9 | % | 9.0 | % | 21.1 | % | 22.9 | % | ||||||||
| Adjusted net income1 | $ | 2,861 | $ | 1,049 | $ | 15,782 | $ | 16,104 | ||||||||
| Adjusted basic earnings per share1, 2 | $ | 0.21 | $ | 0.08 | $ | 1.15 | $ | 1.16 | ||||||||
| Adjusted diluted earnings per share1, 2 | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.07 | $ | 1.10 | $ | 1.12 | ||||||||
| Assets under management at period end (billions) | $ | 36.5 | $ | 33.3 | $ | 36.5 | $ | 33.3 | ||||||||
| Average assets under management (billions)3 | $ | 35.0 | $ | 32.3 | $ | 34.9 | $ | 31.1 | ||||||||
| Discretionary assets under management (billions) | $ | 23.3 | $ | 21.9 | $ | 23.3 | $ | 21.9 | ||||||||
| ___________________ | |
| 1 | Adjusted measures are non-GAAP measures and are explained and reconciled to the comparable GAAP measures in Exhibits 3 and 4. |
| 2 | Adjusted basic and diluted earnings per share measures for the three and twelve months ended December 31, 2024 are based on the number of shares of Class A common stock and Class B common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2024. Adjusted diluted earnings per share are further based on the addition of unvested restricted stock units and non-qualified stock options to the extent dilutive at the end of the reporting period. |
| 3 | We have computed average AUM by averaging AUM at the beginning of the applicable period and AUM at the end of the applicable period. |
AUM at $36.5 Billion
Silvercrest’s discretionary assets under management increased by $1.4 billion, or 6.4%, to $23.3 billion at December 31, 2024, from $21.9 billion at December 31, 2023. The increase was attributable to market appreciation of $2.1 billion partially offset by net client outflows of $0.7 billion. Silvercrest’s total AUM increased by $3.2 billion, or 9.6%, to $36.5 billion at December 31, 2024, from $33.3 billion at December 31, 2023. The increase was attributable to market appreciation of $3.8 billion partially offset by net client outflows of $0.6 billion.
Silvercrest’s discretionary assets under management increased by $0.7 billion, or 3.1%, to $23.3 billion at December 31, 2024, from $22.6 billion at September 30, 2024. The increase was attributable to net client inflows of $0.9 billion partially offset by market depreciation of $0.2 billion. Silvercrest’s total AUM increased by $1.4 billion, or 4.0%, to $36.5 billion at December 31, 2024, from $35.1 billion at September 30, 2024. The increase was attributable to market appreciation of $0.5 billion and net client inflows of $0.9 billion.
Fourth Quarter 2024 vs. Fourth Quarter 2023
Revenue increased by $3.4 million, or 12.0%, to $32.0 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024, from $28.5 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. This increase was driven by net client inflows in discretionary assets under management partially offset by market depreciation.
Total expenses increased by $0.5 million, or 1.7%, to $30.0 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024, from $29.5 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. Compensation and benefits expense decreased by $0.8 million, or 3.4%, to $21.9 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024, from $22.7 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. The decrease was primarily attributable to a decrease in bonuses of $1.7 million, partially offset by increases in salaries and benefits of $0.9 million primarily as a result of merit-based increases and newly hired staff. General and administrative expenses increased by $1.3 million, or 18.5%, to $8.1 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024, from $6.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. This was primarily attributable to increases in portfolio and systems expense of $0.5 million, office expense of $0.2 million, recruiting costs of $0.1 million and professional fees of $0.5 million.
Consolidated net income was $2.7 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024, as compared to consolidated net loss of $0.6 million for the same period in the prior year. Net income attributable to Silvercrest was $1.6 million, or $0.17 per basic and diluted share, for the three months ended December 31, 2024. Our Adjusted Net Income1 was $2.9 million, or $0.21 per adjusted basic share and $0.20 per adjusted diluted share,2 for the three months ended December 31, 2024.
Adjusted EBITDA1 was $5.1 million, or 15.9% of revenue, for the three months ended December 31, 2024, as compared to $2.6 million or 9.0% of revenue for the same period in the prior year.
Year Ended December 31, 2024 vs. Year Ended December 31, 2023
Revenue increased by $6.2 million, or 5.3%, to $123.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, from $117.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. This increase was driven by market appreciation in discretionary assets under management partially offset by net client outflows.
Total expenses increased by $7.4 million, or 7.5%, to $106.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, from $98.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. Compensation and benefits expense increased by $4.0 million, or 5.6%, to $76.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, from $72.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. The increase was primarily attributable to an increase in equity based compensation expense of $0.3 million due to an increase in the number of unvested restricted stock units and unvested non-qualified stock options outstanding, an increase in salaries and benefits expense of $2.5 million primarily as a result of merit-based increases and newly hired staff and an increase in the accrual for bonuses of $1.2 million. General and administrative expenses increased by $3.4 million, or 13.1%, to $29.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, from $26.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. The increase was primarily attributable to increases in professional fees of $1.1 million, portfolio and systems expenses of $0.8 million, occupancy and related costs of $0.3 million, trading errors of $0.3 million, recruiting expenses of $0.3 million, travel and entertainment expenses of $0.2 million, depreciation and amortization of $0.1 million, office expense of $0.1 million, publications and subscriptions costs of $0.1 million and sub-advisory and referral fees of $0.1 million.
Consolidated net income was $15.7 million, or 12.7% of revenue, for the year ended December 31, 2024, as compared to consolidated net income of $15.2 million, or 12.9% of revenue, for the same period in the prior year. Net income attributable to Silvercrest was $9.5 million, or $1.00 per basic and diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2024. Our Adjusted Net Income1 was $15.8 million, or $1.15 per adjusted basic share and $1.10 per adjusted diluted share,2 for the year ended December 31, 2024.
Adjusted EBITDA1 was $26.1 million, or 21.1% of revenue, for the year ended December 31, 2024, as compared to $26.9 million, or 22.9% of revenue, for the same period in the prior year.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Cash and cash equivalents were $68.6 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $70.3 million at December 31, 2023. As of December 31, 2024, there was nothing outstanding under our term loan with City National Bank and nothing outstanding on our revolving credit facility with City National Bank.
Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc.’s total equity was $80.7 million at December 31, 2024. We had 9,376,280 shares of Class A common stock outstanding and 4,373,315 shares of Class B common stock outstanding at December 31, 2024.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
To provide investors with additional insight, promote transparency and allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the information used by management in its financial and operational decision-making, we supplement our consolidated financial statements presented on a basis consistent with GAAP with Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin, Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share, which are non-GAAP financial measures of earnings. These adjustments, and the non-GAAP financial measures that are derived from them, provide supplemental information to analyze our operations between periods and over time. Investors should consider our non-GAAP financial measures in addition to, and not as a substitute for, financial measures prepared in accordance with GAAP.
Conference Call
The Company will host a conference call on March 7, 2025, at 8:30 am (Eastern Time) to discuss these results. Hosting the call will be Richard R. Hough III, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Scott A. Gerard, Chief Financial Officer. Listeners may access the call by dialing 1-844-836-8743 or for international listeners the call may be accessed by dialing 1-412-317-5723. A live, listen-only webcast will also be available via the investor relations section of www.silvercrestgroup.com. An archived replay of the call will be available after the completion of the live call on the Investor Relations page of the Silvercrest website at http://ir.silvercrestgroup.com/.
Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains, and from time to time our management may make, forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended. For those statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions. These statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and projections about future events. Important factors that could cause actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: incurrence of net losses; fluctuations in quarterly and annual results; adverse economic or market conditions; our expectations with respect to future levels of assets under management, inflows and outflows; our ability to retain clients; our ability to maintain our fee structure; our particular choices with regard to investment strategies employed; our ability to hire and retain qualified investment professionals; the cost of complying with current and future regulation coupled with the cost of defending ourselves from related investigations or litigation; failure of our operational safeguards against breaches in data security, privacy, conflicts of interest or employee misconduct; our expected tax rate; our expectations with respect to deferred tax assets, adverse economic or market conditions; incurrence of net losses; adverse effects of management focusing on implementation of a growth strategy; failure to develop and maintain the Silvercrest brand; and other factors disclosed under “Risk Factors” in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, which is accessible on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at www.sec.gov. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or review any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as required by law.
About Silvercrest
Silvercrest was founded in April 2002 as an independent, employee-owned registered investment adviser. With offices in New York, Boston, Virginia, New Jersey, California and Wisconsin, Silvercrest provides traditional and alternative investment advisory and family office services to wealthy families and select institutional investors.
Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc.
Contact: Richard Hough
212-649-0601
rhough@silvercrestgroup.com
| Exhibit 1 | ||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited and in thousands, except share and per share amounts or as noted) |
||||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | |||||||
| (Unaudited) | ||||||||
| Revenue | ||||||||
| Management and advisory fees | $ | 119,316 | $ | 112,794 | ||||
| Family office services | 4,335 | 4,616 | ||||||
| Total revenue | 123,651 | 117,410 | ||||||
| Expenses | ||||||||
| Compensation and benefits | 76,663 | 72,619 | ||||||
| General and administrative | 29,361 | 25,972 | ||||||
| Total expenses | 106,024 | 98,591 | ||||||
| Income before other (expense) income, net | 17,627 | 18,819 | ||||||
| Other (expense) income, net | ||||||||
| Other (expense) income, net | 203 | 76 | ||||||
| Interest income | 1,432 | 946 | ||||||
| Interest expense | (144 | ) | (421 | ) | ||||
| Equity income from investments | 1,154 | 73 | ||||||
| Total other (expense) income, net | 2,645 | 674 | ||||||
| Income before provision for income taxes | 20,272 | 19,493 | ||||||
| Provision for income taxes | (4,563 | ) | (4,310 | ) | ||||
| Net income | 15,709 | 15,183 | ||||||
| Less: net income attributable to non-controlling interests | (6,174 | ) | (6,089 | ) | ||||
| Net income attributable to Silvercrest | $ | 9,535 | $ | 9,094 | ||||
| Net income per share: | ||||||||
| Basic | $ | 1.00 | $ | 0.96 | ||||
| Diluted | $ | 1.00 | $ | 0.96 | ||||
| Weighted average shares outstanding: | ||||||||
| Basic | 9,495,375 | 9,431,404 | ||||||
| Diluted | 9,532,525 | 9,464,339 | ||||||
| Exhibit 2 | ||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited and in thousands, except share and per share amounts or as noted) |
||||||||
| For the Three Months Ended December 31, | ||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | |||||||
| (Unaudited) | ||||||||
| Revenue | ||||||||
| Management and advisory fees | $ | 30,871 | $ | 27,349 | ||||
| Family office services | 1,091 | 1,193 | ||||||
| Total revenue | 31,962 | 28,542 | ||||||
| Expenses | ||||||||
| Compensation and benefits | 21,903 | 22,674 | ||||||
| General and administrative | 8,102 | 6,837 | ||||||
| Total expenses | 30,005 | 29,511 | ||||||
| Income (loss) income before other income (expense), net | 1,957 | (969 | ) | |||||
| Other income (expense), net | ||||||||
| Other income (expense), net | 178 | 45 | ||||||
| Interest income | 422 | 525 | ||||||
| Interest expense | (49 | ) | (107 | ) | ||||
| Equity income from investments | 1,154 | 73 | ||||||
| Total other income (expense), net | 1,705 | 536 | ||||||
| Income (loss) before provision for income taxes | 3,662 | (433 | ) | |||||
| Provision for income taxes | (978 | ) | (209 | ) | ||||
| Net income (loss) | 2,684 | (642 | ) | |||||
| Less: net (income) loss attributable to non-controlling interests | (1,066 | ) | 231 | |||||
| Net income (loss) attributable to Silvercrest | $ | 1,618 | $ | (411 | ) | |||
| Net income (loss) per share: | ||||||||
| Basic | $ | 0.17 | $ | (0.05 | ) | |||
| Diluted | $ | 0.17 | $ | (0.04 | ) | |||
| Weighted average shares outstanding: | ||||||||
| Basic | 9,450,344 | 9,368,579 | ||||||
| Diluted | 9,487,453 | 9,368,579 | ||||||
| Exhibit 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP (“Adjusted”) Adjusted EBITDA Measure (Unaudited and in thousands, except share and per share amounts or as noted) |
||||||||||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA | For the Three Months Ended December 31, |
For the Year Ended December 31, |
||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | |||||||||||||
| Reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measure: | ||||||||||||||||
| Net (loss) income | $ | 2,684 | $ | (642 | ) | $ | 15,709 | $ | 15,183 | |||||||
| Provision for income taxes | 978 | 209 | 4,563 | 4,310 | ||||||||||||
| Delaware Franchise Tax | 50 | 50 | 200 | 200 | ||||||||||||
| Interest expense | 49 | 107 | 144 | 421 | ||||||||||||
| Interest income | (422 | ) | (525 | ) | (1,432 | ) | (946 | ) | ||||||||
| Depreciation and amortization | 1,035 | 1,002 | 4,146 | 4,014 | ||||||||||||
| Equity-based compensation | 542 | 580 | 1,916 | 1,627 | ||||||||||||
| Other adjustments (A) | 154 | 1,800 | 855 | 2,069 | ||||||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA | $ | 5,070 | $ | 2,581 | $ | 26,101 | $ | 26,878 | ||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA Margin | 15.9 | % | 9.0 | % | 21.1 | % | 22.9 | % | ||||||||
(A) Other adjustments consist of the following:
| Three Months Ended December 31, |
Twelve Months Ended December 31, |
||||||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||||||
| Acquisition costs (a) | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 5 | |||||||||||
| Severance | 140 | 52 | 393 | 71 | |||||||||||||||
| Other (b) | 14 | 1,748 | 462 | 1,993 | |||||||||||||||
| Total other adjustments | $ | 154 | $ | 1,800 | $ | 855 | $ | 2,069 | |||||||||||
| (a) | For the twelve months ended December 31, 2023, represents professional fees of $5 related to the acquisition of Cortina. |
| (b) | For the three months ended December 31, 2024, represents a Tax Receivable Agreement adjustment of ($78), an ASC 842 rent adjustment of $48 related to the amortization of property lease incentives, software implementation costs of $4, professional fees related to a transfer pricing project of $27 and data conversion costs of $13. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, represents a fair value adjustment to the Neosho contingent purchase price consideration of $12, an ASC 842 rent adjustment of $192 related to the amortization of property lease incentives, a Tax Receivable Agreement adjustment of ($78), sign on bonuses paid to certain employees of $188, professional fees of $53 related to a transfer pricing project, legal fees of $46, data conversion costs of $27 and software implementation costs of $22. For the three months ended December 31, 2023, represents a variable compensation payment of $1,667 related to the difference between the number of non-qualified stock options granted to an existing Class B unit holder as determined using the Black-Scholes method inclusive and exclusive of the expected annual dividend yield input, a Tax Receivable Agreement adjustment of ($38), an ASC 842 rent adjustment of $48 related to the amortization of property lease incentives, software implementation costs of $7, a fair value adjustment to the Neosho contingent purchase price consideration of $24, professional fees related to a transfer pricing project of $37 and legal fees related to the startup of a fund of $2. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2023, represents a variable compensation payment of $1,667 related to the difference between the number of non-qualified stock options granted to an existing Class B unit holder as determined using the Black-Scholes method inclusive and exclusive of the expected annual dividend yield input, a Tax Receivable Agreement adjustment of $2, an ASC 842 rent adjustment of $192 related to the amortization of property lease incentives, moving costs of $35, software implementation costs of $35, professional fees related to a transfer pricing project of $37, legal fees related to the startup of a fund of $2, a fair value adjustment to the Neosho contingent purchase price consideration of $24 and a fair value adjustment to the Cortina contingent purchase price consideration of ($2). |
| Exhibit 4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP (“Adjusted”) Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share Measures (Unaudited and in thousands, except per share amounts or as noted) |
||||||||||||||||
| Adjusted Net Income and Adjusted Earnings Per Share | Three Months Ended December 31, |
Year Ended December 31, |
||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | |||||||||||||
| Reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measure: | ||||||||||||||||
| Net income (loss) | $ | 2,684 | $ | (642 | ) | $ | 15,709 | $ | 15,183 | |||||||
| Consolidated GAAP Provision for income taxes | 978 | 209 | 4,563 | 4,310 | ||||||||||||
| Delaware Franchise Tax | 50 | 50 | 200 | 200 | ||||||||||||
| Other adjustments (A) | 154 | 1,800 | 855 | 2,069 | ||||||||||||
| Adjusted earnings before provision for income taxes | 3,866 | 1,417 | 21,327 | 21,762 | ||||||||||||
| Adjusted provision for income taxes: | ||||||||||||||||
| Adjusted provision for income taxes (26% assumed tax rate) | (1,005 | ) | (368 | ) | (5,545 | ) | (5,658 | ) | ||||||||
| Adjusted net income | $ | 2,861 | $ | 1,049 | $ | 15,782 | $ | 16,104 | ||||||||
| GAAP net income (loss) per share (B): | ||||||||||||||||
| Basic | $ | 0.17 | $ | (0.05 | ) | $ | 1.00 | $ | 0.96 | |||||||
| Diluted | $ | 0.17 | $ | (0.04 | ) | $ | 1.00 | $ | 0.96 | |||||||
| Adjusted earnings per share/unit (B): | ||||||||||||||||
| Basic | $ | 0.21 | $ | 0.08 | $ | 1.15 | $ | 1.16 | ||||||||
| Diluted | $ | 0.20 | $ | 0.07 | $ | 1.10 | $ | 1.12 | ||||||||
| Shares/units outstanding: | ||||||||||||||||
| Basic Class A shares outstanding | 9,376 | 9,479 | 9,376 | 9,479 | ||||||||||||
| Basic Class B shares/units outstanding | 4,373 | 4,431 | 4,373 | 4,431 | ||||||||||||
| Total basic shares/units outstanding | 13,750 | 13,910 | 13,750 | 13,910 | ||||||||||||
| Diluted Class A shares outstanding (C) | 9,413 | 9,515 | 9,413 | 9,515 | ||||||||||||
| Diluted Class B shares/units outstanding (D) | 4,945 | 4,820 | 4,945 | 4,820 | ||||||||||||
| Total diluted shares/units outstanding | 14,358 | 14,335 | 14,358 | 14,335 | ||||||||||||
| (A) | See A in Exhibit 3. |
| (B) | GAAP earnings per share is strictly attributable to Class A stockholders. Adjusted earnings per share takes into account earnings attributable to both Class A and Class B stockholders. |
| (C) | Includes 37,109 and 35,554 unvested restricted stock units at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. |
| (D) | Includes 205,079 and 240,998 unvested restricted stock units at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, and 366,293 and 147,506 unvested non-qualified options at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. |
| Exhibit 5 | ||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition (Unaudited and in thousands) |
||||||||
| December 31, 2024 |
December 31, 2023 |
|||||||
| Assets | ||||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 68,611 | $ | 70,301 | ||||
| Investments | 1,354 | 219 | ||||||
| Receivables, net | 12,225 | 9,526 | ||||||
| Due from Silvercrest Funds | 945 | 558 | ||||||
| Furniture, equipment and leasehold improvements, net | 7,387 | 7,422 | ||||||
| Goodwill | 63,675 | 63,675 | ||||||
| Operating lease assets | 16,032 | 19,612 | ||||||
| Finance lease assets | 254 | 330 | ||||||
| Intangible assets, net | 16,644 | 18,933 | ||||||
| Deferred tax asset | 4,220 | 5,034 | ||||||
| Prepaid expenses and other assets | 3,085 | 3,964 | ||||||
| Total assets | $ | 194,432 | $ | 199,574 | ||||
| Liabilities and Equity | ||||||||
| Accounts payable and accrued expenses | $ | 1,953 | $ | 1,990 | ||||
| Accrued compensation | 39,865 | 37,371 | ||||||
| Borrowings under credit facility | — | 2,719 | ||||||
| Operating lease liabilities | 22,270 | 26,277 | ||||||
| Finance lease liabilities | 262 | 336 | ||||||
| Deferred tax and other liabilities | 10,389 | 9,071 | ||||||
| Total liabilities | 74,739 | 77,764 | ||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies (Note 10) | ||||||||
| Equity | ||||||||
| Preferred Stock, par value $0.01, 10,000,000 shares authorized; none issued and outstanding | — | — | ||||||
| Class A Common Stock, par value $0.01, 50,000,000 shares authorized; 10,450,559 and 9,376,280 issued and outstanding, respectively, as of December 31, 2024; 10,287,452 and 9,478,997 issued and outstanding, respectively, as of December 31, 2023 |
104 | 103 | ||||||
| Class B Common Stock, par value $0.01, 25,000,000 shares authorized; 4,373,315 and 4,431,105 issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively |
42 | 43 | ||||||
| Additional Paid-In Capital | 56,369 | 55,809 | ||||||
| Treasury stock, at cost, 1,074,279 and 808,455 shares as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively | (19,728 | ) | (15,057 | ) | ||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) | (43 | ) | (12 | ) | ||||
| Retained earnings | 43,953 | 41,851 | ||||||
| Total Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc.’s equity | 80,697 | 82,737 | ||||||
| Non-controlling interests | 38,996 | 39,073 | ||||||
| Total equity | 119,693 | 121,810 | ||||||
| Total liabilities and equity | $ | 194,432 | $ | 199,574 | ||||
| Exhibit 6 | ||||||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Total Assets Under Management (Unaudited and in billions) |
||||||||||||
| Total Assets Under Management: | ||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended December 31, |
% Change from December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2023 | ||||||||||
| Beginning assets under management | $ | 35.1 | $ | 31.2 | 12.5 | % | ||||||
| Gross client inflows | 2.2 | 0.9 | 144.4 | % | ||||||||
| Gross client outflows | (1.3 | ) | (1.3 | ) | 0.0 | % | ||||||
| Net client flows | 0.9 | (0.4 | ) | 325.0 | % | |||||||
| Market appreciation | 0.5 | 2.5 | -80.0 | % | ||||||||
| Ending assets under management | $ | 36.5 | $ | 33.3 | 9.6 | % | ||||||
| Year Ended December 31, |
% Change from December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2023 | ||||||||||
| Beginning assets under management | $ | 33.3 | $ | 28.9 | 15.2 | % | ||||||
| Gross client inflows | 5.1 | 5.4 | -5.6 | % | ||||||||
| Gross client outflows | (5.7 | ) | (4.8 | ) | 18.8 | % | ||||||
| Net client flows | (0.6 | ) | 0.6 | -200.0 | % | |||||||
| Market appreciation | 3.8 | 3.8 | 0.0 | % | ||||||||
| Ending assets under management | $ | 36.5 | $ | 33.3 | 9.6 | % | ||||||
| Exhibit 7 | ||||||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Discretionary Assets Under Management (Unaudited and in billions) |
||||||||||||
| Discretionary Assets Under Management: | ||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended December 31, |
% Change from December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2023 | ||||||||||
| Beginning assets under management | $ | 22.6 | $ | 20.5 | 10.2 | % | ||||||
| Gross client inflows | 1.8 | 0.7 | 157.1 | % | ||||||||
| Gross client outflows | (0.9 | ) | (1.1 | ) | -18.2 | % | ||||||
| Net client flows | 0.9 | (0.4 | ) | 325.0 | % | |||||||
| Market (depreciation) appreciation | (0.2 | ) | 1.8 | -111.1 | % | |||||||
| Ending assets under management | $ | 23.3 | $ | 21.9 | 6.4 | % | ||||||
| Twelve Months Ended December 31, |
% Change from December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2023 | ||||||||||
| Beginning assets under management | $ | 21.9 | $ | 20.9 | 4.8 | % | ||||||
| Gross client inflows | 3.9 | 3.0 | 30.0 | % | ||||||||
| Gross client outflows | (4.6 | ) | (4.1 | ) | 12.2 | % | ||||||
| Net client flows | (0.7 | ) | (1.1 | ) | 36.4 | % | ||||||
| Market appreciation | 2.1 | 2.1 | 0.0 | % | ||||||||
| Ending assets under management | $ | 23.3 | $ | 21.9 | 6.4 | % | ||||||
| Exhibit 8 | ||||||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Non-Discretionary Assets Under Management (Unaudited and in billions) |
||||||||||||
| Non-Discretionary Assets Under Management: | ||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended December 31, |
% Change from December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2023 | ||||||||||
| Beginning assets under management | $ | 12.5 | $ | 10.7 | 16.8 | % | ||||||
| Gross client inflows | 0.4 | 0.2 | 100.0 | % | ||||||||
| Gross client outflows | (0.4 | ) | (0.2 | ) | 100.0 | % | ||||||
| Net client flows | — | — | 0.0 | % | ||||||||
| Market appreciation | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | % | ||||||||
| Ending assets under management | $ | 13.2 | $ | 11.4 | 15.8 | % | ||||||
| Twelve Months Ended December 31, |
% Change from December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2023 | ||||||||||
| Beginning assets under management | $ | 11.4 | $ | 8.0 | 42.5 | % | ||||||
| Gross client inflows | 1.2 | 2.4 | -50.0 | % | ||||||||
| Gross client outflows | (1.1 | ) | (0.7 | ) | 57.1 | % | ||||||
| Net client flows | 0.1 | 1.7 | -94.1 | % | ||||||||
| Market appreciation | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.0 | % | ||||||||
| Ending assets under management | $ | 13.2 | $ | 11.4 | 15.8 | % | ||||||
| Exhibit 9 | ||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Assets Under Management (Unaudited and in billions) |
||||||||
| Three Months Ended December 31, |
||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | |||||||
| Total AUM as of September 30, | $ | 35.088 | $ | 31.187 | ||||
| Discretionary AUM: | ||||||||
| Total Discretionary AUM as of September 30, | $ | 22.639 | $ | 20.462 | ||||
| New client accounts/assets (1) | 1.370 | 0.188 | ||||||
| Closed accounts (2) | (0.011 | ) | (0.103 | ) | ||||
| Net cash inflow/(outflow) (3) | (0.458 | ) | (0.479 | ) | ||||
| Non-discretionary to Discretionary AUM (4) | (0.012 | ) | (0.002 | ) | ||||
| Market appreciation | (0.209 | ) | 1.819 | |||||
| Change to Discretionary AUM | 0.680 | 1.423 | ||||||
| Total Discretionary AUM at December 31, | 23.319 | 21.885 | ||||||
| Change to Non-Discretionary AUM (5) | 0.687 | 0.671 | ||||||
| Total AUM as of December 31, | $ | 36.455 | $ | 33.281 | ||||
Twelve Months Ended December 31, |
||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | |||||||
| Total AUM as of January 1, | $ | 33.281 | $ | 28.905 | ||||
| Discretionary AUM: | ||||||||
| Total Discretionary AUM as of January 1, | $ | 21.885 | $ | 20.851 | ||||
| New client accounts/assets (1) | 1.549 | 0.339 | ||||||
| Closed accounts (2) | (0.527 | ) | (0.202 | ) | ||||
| Net cash inflow/(outflow) (3) | (1.714 | ) | (1.272 | ) | ||||
| Non-discretionary to Discretionary AUM (4) | (0.018 | ) | (0.032 | ) | ||||
| Market (depreciation)/appreciation | 2.144 | 2.201 | ||||||
| Change to Discretionary AUM | 1.434 | 1.034 | ||||||
| Total Discretionary AUM at December 31, | 23.319 | 21.885 | ||||||
| Change to Non-Discretionary AUM (5) | 1.740 | 3.342 | ||||||
| Total AUM as of December 31, | $ | 36.455 | $ | 33.281 | ||||
| (1) | Represents new account flows from both new and existing client relationships. |
| (2) | Represents closed accounts of existing client relationships and those that terminated. |
| (3) | Represents periodic cash flows related to existing accounts. |
| (4) | Represents client assets that converted to Discretionary AUM from Non-Discretionary AUM. |
| (5) | Represents the net change to Non-Discretionary AUM. |
| Exhibit 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Silvercrest Asset Management Group Inc. Equity Investment Strategy Composite Performance1, 2 As of December 31, 2024 (Unaudited) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| PROPRIETARY EQUITY PERFORMANCE 1, 2 | ANNUALIZED PERFORMANCE | |||||||||||||||||||||
| INCEPTION | 1-YEAR | 3-YEAR | 5-YEAR | 7-YEAR | INCEPTION | |||||||||||||||||
| Large Cap Value Composite | 4/1/02 | 16.3 | 5.1 | 10.8 | 10.6 | 9.7 | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell 1000 Value Index | 14.4 | 5.6 | 8.7 | 8.4 | 7.9 | |||||||||||||||||
| Small Cap Value Composite | 4/1/02 | 10.1 | 4.3 | 8.8 | 7.1 | 10.3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell 2000 Value Index | 8.1 | 1.9 | 7.3 | 6.1 | 7.9 | |||||||||||||||||
| Smid Cap Value Composite | 10/1/05 | 15.7 | 2.6 | 7.6 | 7.0 | 9.5 | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell 2500 Value Index | 11.0 | 3.8 | 8.4 | 7.2 | 7.8 | |||||||||||||||||
| Multi Cap Value Composite | 7/1/02 | 16.1 | 2.6 | 9.2 | 8.5 | 9.7 | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell 3000 Value Index | 14.0 | 5.4 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.4 | |||||||||||||||||
| Equity Income Composite | 12/1/03 | 10.4 | 3.1 | 6.7 | 7.4 | 10.8 | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell 3000 Value Index | 14.0 | 5.4 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.5 | |||||||||||||||||
| Focused Value Composite | 9/1/04 | 16.7 | (0.2 | ) | 5.6 | 5.4 | 9.4 | |||||||||||||||
| Russell 3000 Value Index | 14.0 | 5.4 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.3 | |||||||||||||||||
| Small Cap Opportunity Composite | 7/1/04 | 14.9 | 4.5 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 11.0 | ||||||||||||||||
| Russell 2000 Index | 11.5 | 1.2 | 7.4 | 6.9 | 8.1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Small Cap Growth Composite | 7/1/04 | 13.6 | (2.9 | ) | 11.1 | 11.8 | 10.6 | |||||||||||||||
| Russell 2000 Growth Index | 15.2 | 0.2 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 8.5 | |||||||||||||||||
| Smid Cap Growth Composite | 1/1/06 | 20.9 | (3.2 | ) | 12.6 | 14.2 | 11.1 | |||||||||||||||
| Russell 2500 Growth Index | 13.9 | 0.0 | 8.1 | 8.8 | 9.5 | |||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Returns are based upon a time weighted rate of return of various fully discretionary equity portfolios with similar investment objectives, strategies and policies and other relevant criteria managed by Silvercrest Asset Management Group LLC (“SAMG LLC”), a subsidiary of Silvercrest. Performance results are gross of fees and net of commission charges. An investor’s actual return will be reduced by the advisory fees and any other expenses it may incur in the management of the investment advisory account. SAMG LLC’s standard advisory fees are described in Part 2 of its Form ADV. Actual fees and expenses will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of a particular account. Returns greater than one year are shown as annualized compounded returns and include gains and accrued income and reinvestment of distributions. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This piece contains no recommendations to buy or sell securities or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities or investment services or adopt any investment position. This piece is not intended to constitute investment advice and is based upon conditions in place during the period noted. Market and economic views are subject to change without notice and may be untimely when presented here. Readers are advised not to infer or assume that any securities, sectors or markets described were or will be profitable. SAMG LLC is an independent investment advisory and financial services firm created to meet the investment and administrative needs of individuals with substantial assets and select institutional investors. SAMG LLC claims compliance with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS®). |
| 2 | The market indices used to compare to the performance of Silvercrest’s strategies are as follows: |
| The Russell 1000 Index is a capitalization-weighted, unmanaged index that measures the 1000 largest companies in the Russell 3000. The Russell 1000 Value Index is a capitalization-weighted, unmanaged index that includes those Russell 1000 Index companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower expected growth values. | |
| The Russell 2000 Index is a capitalization-weighted, unmanaged index that measures the 2000 smallest companies in the Russell 3000. The Russell 2000 Value Index is a capitalization-weighted, unmanaged index that includes those Russell 2000 Index companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower expected growth values. | |
| The Russell 2500 Index is a capitalization-weighted, unmanaged index that measures the 2500 smallest companies in the Russell 3000. The Russell 2500 Value Index is a capitalization-weighted, unmanaged index that includes those Russell 2000 Index companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower expected growth values. | |
| The Russell 3000 Value Index is a capitalization-weighted, unmanaged index that measures those Russell 3000 Index companies with lower price-to-book ratios and lower forecasted growth. |
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Reports Full Year 2024 Revenues of $119.8 million
Full Year 2024 Recurring Revenues Grew 15% from Prior Year
Recurring Revenues Grew to 96% of Total Revenues from 84% in the Prior Year
AUSTIN, Texas, March 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Asure Software, Inc. (“we”, “us”, “our”, “Asure” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: ASUR), a leading provider of cloud-based Human Capital Management (“HCM”) software solutions, today reported results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2024.
Fourth Quarter 2024 Financial Highlights
Full Year 2024 Financial Highlights
Recent Business Highlights
(1)This financial measure is not calculated in accordance with GAAP and is defined on page 3 of this press release. A reconciliation of this non-GAAP measure to the most applicable GAAP measure begins on page 11 of this release.
Management Commentary
“We are pleased to report strong results for 2024, demonstrating the continued momentum of our business. Excluding the one-time impact of ERTC revenue, our fourth-quarter revenue grew 22% year-over-year, reaching $30.8 million—an impressive finish to the year. For the full year, total revenue increased modestly to $119.8 million, but when adjusted to exclude ERTC, our revenue growth was 17% year-over-year, underscoring the strength of our core business. Recurring revenue, the backbone of our model, grew 15% year-over-year and now represents 96% of total revenue, up from 84% in 2023. Additionally, our contracted revenue backlog continued to expand, providing further visibility into future growth,” said Asure Chairman and CEO Pat Goepel.
“Our performance in 2024 was particularly strong in key areas, including our Payroll Tax Management product, which drove several major multi-year agreements with enterprise clients. The success of this product, along with our growing backlog, reinforces the durability of our revenue streams and positions us well for the future.”
“We executed our strategy despite the anticipated headwind of replacing one-time ERTC revenue, and we are entering 2025 with a solid foundation for continued growth. Our plan for 2025 includes both organic and inorganic expansion, supported by the significant investments we’ve made in technology, operations, and new product development. With these improvements, we are confident in our ability to drive sustained, long-term growth.”
First Quarter 2025 and Full Year 2025 Revenue Guidance Ranges
The Company is providing the following guidance for the first quarter 2025 and full year 2025 based on the Company’s year-to-date results and recent business trends. The guidance for our first quarter 2025 and the full year 2025 excludes any contribution from future potential acquisitions.
Guidance for 2025
| Guidance Range | Q1-2025 | FY-2025 | ||
| Revenue | $ | 33.0 M – 35.0 M | $ | 134.0 M -138.0 M |
| Adjusted EBITDA(1) | $ | 6.0 M -7.0 M | 23% -24% | |
(1)This financial measure is not calculated in accordance with GAAP and is defined on page 3 of this press release. A reconciliation of this non-GAAP measure to the most applicable GAAP measure begins on page 11 of this release.
Management uses GAAP, non-GAAP and adjusted measures when planning, monitoring, and evaluating the Company’s performance. The primary purpose of using non-GAAP and adjusted measures is to provide supplemental information that may prove useful to investors and to enable investors to evaluate the Company’s results in the same way management does.
Management believes that supplementing GAAP disclosures with non-GAAP and adjusted disclosures provides investors with a more complete view of the Company’s operational performance and allows for meaningful period-to-period comparisons and analysis of trends in the Company’s business. Further, to the extent that other companies use similar methods in calculating adjusted financial measures, the provision of supplemental non-GAAP and adjusted information can allow for a comparison of the Company’s relative performance against other companies that also report non-GAAP and adjusted operating results.
Management has not provided a reconciliation of guidance of GAAP to non-GAAP or adjusted disclosures because management is unable to predict the nature and materiality of non-recurring expenses without unreasonable effort.
Management’s projections are based on management’s current beliefs and assumptions about the Company’s business, and the industry and the markets in which it operates; there are known and unknown risks and uncertainties associated with these projections. There can be no assurance that our actual results will not differ from the guidance set forth above. The Company assumes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, including its 2025 earnings guidance, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Please refer to the “Use of Forward-Looking Statements” disclosures on page 5 of this press release as well as the risk factors in our quarterly and annual reports on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission for more information about risk that affect our business and industry.
Conference Call Details
Asure management will host a conference call on Thursday, March 6, 2025, at 3:30 pm Central (4:30 pm Eastern). Asure Chairman and CEO Pat Goepel and CFO John Pence will participate in the conference call followed by a question-and-answer session. The conference call will be broadcast live and available for replay via the investor relations section of the Company’s website. Analysts may participate on the conference call by dialing 877-407-9219 or 201-689-8852.
About Asure Software, Inc.
Asure (Nasdaq: ASUR) provides cloud-based Human Capital Management (HCM) software solutions that assist organizations of all sizes in streamlining their HCM processes. Asure’s suite of HCM solutions includes HR, payroll, time and attendance, benefits administration, payroll tax management, and talent management. The company’s approach to HR compliance services incorporates AI technology to enhance scalability and efficiency while prioritizing client interactions. For more information, please visit www.asuresoftware.com.
Non-GAAP and Adjusted Financial Measures
This press release includes information about non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP sales and marketing expense, non-GAAP general and administrative expense, non-GAAP research and development expense, EBITDA, EBITDA margin, adjusted EBITDA, and adjusted EBITDA margin. These non-GAAP and adjusted financial measures are measurements of financial performance that are not prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and computational methods may differ from those used by other companies. Non-GAAP and adjusted financial measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP measures and should be read only in conjunction with the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements prepared in accordance with GAAP. Non-GAAP and adjusted financial measures are reconciled to GAAP in the tables set forth in this release and are subject to reclassifications to conform to current period presentations.
Non-GAAP gross profit differs from gross profit in that it excludes amortization, share-based compensation, and one-time items.
Non-GAAP sales and marketing expense differs from sales and marketing expense in that it excludes share-based compensation and one-time items.
Non-GAAP general and administrative expense differs from general and administrative expense in that it excludes share-based compensation and one-time items.
Non-GAAP research and development expense differs from research and development expense in that it excludes share-based compensation and one-time items.
EBITDA differs from net income (loss) in that it excludes items such as interest, income taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Asure is unable to predict with reasonable certainty the ultimate outcome of these exclusions without unreasonable effort.
Adjusted EBITDA differs from EBITDA in that it excludes share-based compensation, other income (expense), net and one-time expenses. Asure is unable to predict with reasonable certainty the ultimate outcome of these exclusions without unreasonable effort.
All adjusted and non-GAAP measures presented as “margin” are computed by dividing the applicable adjusted financial measure by total revenue.
Specifically, as applicable to the respective financial measure, management is adjusting for the following items when calculating non-GAAP and adjusted financial measures as applicable for the periods presented. No additional adjustments have been made for potential income tax effects of the adjustments based on the Company’s current and anticipated de minimis effective federal tax rate, resulting from the Company’s continued losses for federal tax purposes and its tax net operating loss balances.
Share-Based Compensation Expenses. The Company’s compensation strategy includes the use of share-based compensation to attract and retain employees and executives. It is principally aimed at aligning their interests with those of our stockholders and at long-term employee retention, rather than to motivate or reward operational performance for any particular period. Thus, share-based compensation expense varies for reasons that are generally unrelated to operational decisions and performance in any particular period.
Depreciation. The Company excludes depreciation of fixed assets. Also included in the expense is the depreciation of capitalized software costs.
Amortization of Purchased Intangibles. The Company views amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets, such as the amortization of the cost associated with an acquired company’s research and development efforts, trade names, customer lists and customer relationships, and acquired lease intangibles, as items arising from pre-acquisition activities determined at the time of an acquisition. While these intangible assets are continually evaluated for impairment, amortization of the cost of purchased intangibles is a static expense, one that is not typically affected by operations during any particular period.
Interest Expense, Net. The Company excludes accrued interest expense, the amortization of debt discounts and deferred financing costs.
Income Taxes. The Company excludes income taxes, both at the federal and state levels.
One-Time Expenses. The Company’s adjusted financial measures exclude the following costs to normalize comparable reporting periods, as these are generally non-recurring expenses that do not reflect the ongoing operational results. These items are typically not budgeted and are infrequent and unusual in nature.
Settlements, Penalties and Interest. The Company excludes legal settlements, including separation agreements, penalties and interest that are generally one-time in nature and not reflective of the operational results of the business.
Acquisition and Transaction Related Costs. The Company excludes these expenses as they are transaction costs and expenses that are generally one-time in nature and not reflective of the underlying operational results of our business. Examples of these types of expenses include legal, accounting, regulatory, other consulting services, severance and other employee costs.
Other non-recurring Expenses. The Company excludes these as they are generally non-recurring items that are not reflective of the underlying operational results of the business and are generally not anticipated to recur. Some examples of these types of expenses, historically, have included write-offs or impairments of assets, demolition of office space and cybersecurity consultants.
Other (Expense) Income, Net. The Company’s adjusted financial measures exclude Other (Expense) Income, Net because it includes items that are not reflective of the underlying operational results of the business, such as loan forgiveness, adjustments to contingent liabilities and credits earned as part of the CARES Act, passed by Congress in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.
Use of Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains certain statements made by management that may constitute “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements about our financial results may include expected or projected U.S GAAP, non-U.S GAAP and other operating and non-operating results. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “projects,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “should,” “plan,” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Examples of “forward-looking statements” include statements regarding our strategy, future operations, financial condition, results of operations, projected costs, revenue growth, earnings, and plans and objectives of management. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy, short-term and long-term business operations and objectives, and financial needs. The achievement or success of the matters covered by such forward-looking statements involves risks, uncertainties and assumptions, over many of which we have no control. If any such risks or uncertainties materialize or if any of the assumptions prove incorrect, our results could differ materially from the results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements we make. Additionally, we are under no obligation to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this press release or to confirm such statements to actual results.
The risks and uncertainties referred to above include—but are not limited to— risks associated with breaches of the Company’s security measures; risks related to material weaknesses; possible fluctuations in the Company’s financial and operating results; privacy concerns and laws and other regulations may limit the effectiveness of our applications; the financial and other impact of any previous and future acquisitions; domestic and international regulatory developments, including changes to or applicability to our business of privacy and data securities laws, money transmitter laws and anti-money laundering laws; regulatory pressures on economic relief enacted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic that change or cause different interpretations with respect to eligibility for such programs; risk of our software and solutions not functioning adequately; interruptions, delays or changes in the Company’s services or the Company’s Web hosting; may incur debt to meet future capital requirements; volatility and weakness in bank and capital markets; access to additional capital; significant costs as a result of operating as a public company; the expiration of Employee Retention Tax Credits (“ERTC”) and the impact of the Internal Revenue Service recent measures regarding ERTC claims and the corresponding cash collections of existing receivables; the inability to continue to release timely updates for changes in laws; the inability to develop new and improved versions of the Company’s services and technological developments; customer’s nonrenewal of their agreements and other similar changes could negatively impact revenue, operating results and financial conditions; the exposure of market, interest, credit and liquidity risk on client funds held int rust; the Company’s operation in highlight competitive markets; risk that our clients could have insufficient funds that could result in limitations in the ability to transmit ACH transactions; impairment of intangible assets; litigation and any related claims, negotiations and settlements, including with respect to intellectual property matters or industry-specific regulations; various financial aspects of the Company’s Software-as-a-Service model; adverse effects to our business a result of claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings; issues in the use of artificial intelligence in our HCM products and services; adverse changes to financial accounting standards to the Company; inability to maintain third-party licensed software; evolving regulation of the Internet, changes in the infrastructure underlying the Internet or interruptions in Internet; factors affecting the Company’s deferred tax assets and ability to value and utilize them; the nature of the Company’s business model; inability to adopt new or correctly interpret existing money service and money transmitter business status; the Company’s ability to hire, retain and motivate employees and manage the Company’s growth; interruptions to supply chains and extended shut down of businesses; potential enactment of adverse tax laws, regulation, political, economic and social factors; potential sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock along with its volatility; risks associate with potential equity-related transactions including dividends, rights under the stockholder plan to discourage certain actions and other impacts as a result of actions of our stockholders.
Please review the Company’s risk factors in its annual report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 6, 2025.
The forward-looking statements, including the financial guidance and 2025 outlook, contained in this press release represent the judgment of the Company as of the date of this press release, and the Company expressly disclaims any intent, obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in the Company’s expectations with regard to these forward looking statements or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statements are based. © 2025 Asure Software, Inc. All rights reserved
| ASURE SOFTWARE, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (in thousands, except per share amounts) |
|||||||
| December 31, 2024 | December 31, 2023 | ||||||
| ASSETS | |||||||
| Current assets: | |||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 21,425 | $ | 30,317 | |||
| Accounts receivable, net of allowance for credit losses of $6,328 and $4,787 at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively | 18,154 | 14,202 | |||||
| Inventory | 195 | 155 | |||||
| Prepaid expenses and other current assets | 4,888 | 3,471 | |||||
| Total current assets before funds held for clients | 44,662 | 48,145 | |||||
| Funds held for clients | 192,615 | 219,075 | |||||
| Total current assets | 237,277 | 267,220 | |||||
| Property and equipment, net | 19,669 | 14,517 | |||||
| Goodwill | 94,724 | 86,011 | |||||
| Intangible assets, net | 69,114 | 62,082 | |||||
| Operating lease assets, net | 4,041 | 4,991 | |||||
| Other assets, net | 11,813 | 9,047 | |||||
| Total assets | $ | 436,638 | $ | 443,868 | |||
| LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’EQUITY | |||||||
| Current liabilities: | |||||||
| Current portion of notes payable | $ | 7,008 | $ | 27 | |||
| Accounts payable | 1,364 | 2,570 | |||||
| Accrued compensation and benefits | 4,485 | 6,519 | |||||
| Operating lease liabilities, current | 1,438 | 1,490 | |||||
| Other accrued liabilities | 6,600 | 3,862 | |||||
| Deferred revenue | 8,363 | 6,853 | |||||
| Total current liabilities before client fund obligations | 29,258 | 21,321 | |||||
| Client fund obligations | 194,378 | 220,019 | |||||
| Total current liabilities | 223,636 | 241,340 | |||||
| Long-term liabilities: | |||||||
| Deferred revenue | 3,430 | 16 | |||||
| Deferred tax liability | 2,612 | 1,728 | |||||
| Notes payable, net of current portion | 5,709 | 4,282 | |||||
| Operating lease liabilities, noncurrent | 3,578 | 4,638 | |||||
| Other liabilities | 358 | 209 | |||||
| Total long-term liabilities | 15,687 | 10,873 | |||||
| Total liabilities | 239,323 | 252,213 | |||||
| Stockholders’ equity: | |||||||
| Preferred stock, $0.01 par value; 1,500 shares authorized; none issued or outstanding | — | — | |||||
| Common stock, $0.01 par value; 44,000 shares authorized; 26,671 and 25,382 shares issued, 26,671 and 24,998 shares outstanding at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively | 267 | 254 | |||||
| Treasury stock at cost, zero(1)and 384 shares at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, respectively | — | (5,017 | ) | ||||
| Additional paid-in capital | 504,849 | 487,973 | |||||
| Accumulated deficit | (307,226 | ) | (290,440 | ) | |||
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (575 | ) | (1,115 | ) | |||
| Total stockholders’ equity | 197,315 | 191,655 | |||||
| Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 436,638 | $ | 443,868 | |||
| (1) The aggregate Treasury stock of prior repurchases of the Company’s own common stock was retired and subsequently issued effective January 1, 2024. See the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity for the impact of this transaction. | |||||||
| ASURE SOFTWARE, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE LOSS (in thousands, except per share amounts) |
|||||||||||||||
| Three Months Ended December 31, |
Twelve Months Ended December 31, |
||||||||||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | 2024 | 2023 | ||||||||||||
| Revenue: | |||||||||||||||
| Recurring | $ | 28,521 | $ | 24,985 | $ | 114,471 | $ | 99,734 | |||||||
| Professional services, hardware and other | 2,271 | 1,279 | 5,321 | 19,348 | |||||||||||
| Total revenue | 30,792 | 26,264 | 119,792 | 119,082 | |||||||||||
| Cost of sales | 9,864 | 8,425 | 37,685 | 33,545 | |||||||||||
| Gross profit | 20,928 | 17,839 | 82,107 | 85,537 | |||||||||||
| Operating expenses: | |||||||||||||||
| Sales and marketing | 6,945 | 6,422 | 28,316 | 28,734 | |||||||||||
| General and administrative | 9,940 | 9,747 | 40,499 | 39,333 | |||||||||||
| Research and development | 2,103 | 1,739 | 7,807 | 6,846 | |||||||||||
| Amortization of intangible assets | 4,432 | 3,694 | 16,222 | 13,623 | |||||||||||
| Total operating expenses | 23,420 | 21,602 | 92,844 | 88,536 | |||||||||||
| Loss from operations | (2,492 | ) | (3,763 | ) | (10,737 | ) | (2,999 | ) | |||||||
| Interest income | 151 | 326 | 913 | 1,342 | |||||||||||
| Interest expense | (362 | ) | (302 | ) | (1,024 | ) | (5,639 | ) | |||||||
| Loss on extinguishment of debt | — | — | — | (1,517 | ) | ||||||||||
| Other income (expense), net | (2 | ) | (1 | ) | 8 | (292 | ) | ||||||||
| Loss from operations before income taxes | (2,705 | ) | (3,740 | ) | (10,840 | ) | (9,105 | ) | |||||||
| Income tax expense (benefit) | 499 | (158 | ) | 933 | 109 | ||||||||||
| Net loss | (3,204 | ) | (3,582 | ) | (11,773 | ) | (9,214 | ) | |||||||
| Other comprehensive income (loss): | |||||||||||||||
| Unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities | (565 | ) | 1,581 | 540 | 1,368 | ||||||||||
| Comprehensive loss | $ | (3,769 | ) | $ | (2,001 | ) | $ | (11,233 | ) | $ | (7,846 | ) | |||
| Basic and diluted loss per share | |||||||||||||||
| Basic | $ | (0.12 | ) | $ | (0.14 | ) | $ | (0.45 | ) | $ | (0.42 | ) | |||
| Diluted | $ | (0.12 | ) | $ | (0.14 | ) | $ | (0.45 | ) | $ | (0.42 | ) | |||
| Weighted average basic and diluted shares | |||||||||||||||
| Basic | 26,602 | 24,907 | 26,054 | 22,138 | |||||||||||
| Diluted | 26,602 | 24,907 | 26,054 | 22,138 | |||||||||||
| ASURE SOFTWARE, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (in thousands) |
|||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | |||||||
| 2024 | 2023 | ||||||
| Cash flows from operating activities: | |||||||
| Net loss | $ | (11,773 | ) | $ | (9,214 | ) | |
| Adjustments to reconcile loss to net cash provided by operations: | |||||||
| Depreciation and amortization | 22,142 | 19,135 | |||||
| Amortization of operating lease assets | 1,386 | 1,481 | |||||
| Amortization of debt financing costs and discount | 726 | 820 | |||||
| Non-cash interest expense | 298 | 1,471 | |||||
| Net accretion of discounts and amortization of premiums on available-for-sale securities | (377 | ) | (119 | ) | |||
| Provision for expected losses | 46 | 2,047 | |||||
| Provision for deferred income taxes | 884 | 225 | |||||
| Loss on extinguishment of debt | — | 990 | |||||
| Net realized gains on sales of available-for-sale securities | (2,609 | ) | (2,257 | ) | |||
| Share-based compensation | 6,444 | 5,430 | |||||
| Loss on disposals of long-term assets | — | 132 | |||||
| Change in fair value of contingent purchase consideration | — | 175 | |||||
| Changes in operating assets and liabilities: | |||||||
| Accounts receivable | (3,998 | ) | (4,126 | ) | |||
| Inventory | (41 | ) | 97 | ||||
| Prepaid expenses and other assets | (1,886 | ) | 5,101 | ||||
| Operating lease right-of-use assets | — | 546 | |||||
| Accounts payable | (1,206 | ) | 376 | ||||
| Accrued expenses and other long-term obligations | (1,103 | ) | 87 | ||||
| Operating lease liabilities | (1,555 | ) | (1,118 | ) | |||
| Deferred revenue | 2,010 | (2,379 | ) | ||||
| Net cash provided by operating activities | 9,388 | 18,900 | |||||
| Cash flows from investing activities: | |||||||
| Acquisition of intangible assets | (13,256 | ) | (7,651 | ) | |||
| Purchases of property and equipment | (692 | ) | (1,585 | ) | |||
| Software capitalization costs | (10,187 | ) | (7,027 | ) | |||
| Purchases of available-for-sale securities | (15,643 | ) | (27,647 | ) | |||
| Proceeds from sales and maturities of available-for-sale securities | 20,522 | 14,385 | |||||
| Net cash used in investing activities | (19,256 | ) | (29,525 | ) | |||
| Cash flows from financing activities: | |||||||
| Proceeds from notes payable, net of issuance costs | 4,995 | — | |||||
| Payments of notes payable | (420 | ) | (35,627 | ) | |||
| Debt extinguishment costs | — | (250 | ) | ||||
| Net proceeds from issuance of common stock | 1,370 | 46,800 | |||||
| Capital raise fees | (132 | ) | (338 | ) | |||
| Payments made on amounts due for the acquisition of intangibles | (1,513 | ) | (311 | ) | |||
| Net change in client fund obligations | (26,342 | ) | 13,931 | ||||
| Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities | (22,042 | ) | 24,205 | ||||
| Net increase (decrease) in cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and restricted cash equivalents | (31,910 | ) | 13,580 | ||||
| Cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents, beginning of period | 177,622 | 164,042 | |||||
| Cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents, end of period | $ | 145,712 | $ | 177,622 | |||
| ASURE SOFTWARE, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (continued) (in thousands) |
|||||||
| Year Ended December 31, | |||||||
| 2024 |
2023 |
||||||
| Reconciliation of cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and restricted cash equivalents to the Consolidated Balance Sheets | |||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 21,425 | $ | 30,317 | |||
| Restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents included in funds held for clients | 124,287 | 147,305 | |||||
| Total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and restricted cash equivalents | $ | 145,712 | $ | 177,622 | |||
| Supplemental information: | |||||||
| Cash paid for interest | $ | — | $ | 3,140 | |||
| Cash paid for income taxes | $ | 18 | $ | 432 | |||
| Non-cash investing and financing activities: | |||||||
| Acquisition of intangible assets | $ | 5,338 | $ | 357 | |||
| Notes payable issued for acquisitions | $ | 3,107 | $ | 1,209 | |||
| Shares issued for acquisitions | $ | 9,125 | $ | 2,543 | |||
| ASURE SOFTWARE, INC. RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP AND ADJUSTED FINANCIAL MEASURES (unaudited) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (in thousands) | Q4-24 | Q3-24 | Q2-24 | Q1-24 | Q4-23 | Q3-23 | Q2-23 | Q1-23 | ||||||||||||||||
| Revenue(1) | $ | 30,792 | $ | 29,304 | $ | 28,044 | $ | 31,652 | $ | 26,264 | $ | 29,334 | $ | 30,420 | $ | 33,064 | ||||||||
| Gross Profit to non-GAAP Gross Profit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gross Profit | $ | 20,928 | $ | 19,704 | $ | 18,868 | $ | 22,607 | $ | 17,839 | $ | 21,280 | $ | 22,018 | $ | 24,400 | ||||||||
| Gross Margin | 68.0 | % | 67.2 | % | 67.3 | % | 71.4 | % | 67.9 | % | 72.5 | % | 72.4 | % | 73.8 | % | ||||||||
| Share-based Compensation | 44 | 44 | 43 | 40 | 32 | 28 | 46 | 31 | ||||||||||||||||
| Depreciation | 1,190 | 1,232 | 1,145 | 1,110 | 921 | 984 | 1,309 | 1,009 | ||||||||||||||||
| Amortization – intangibles | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 268 | ||||||||||||||||
| One-time expenses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Settlements, penalties & interest | 25 | 2 | 3 | — | (6 | ) | 8 | — | 4 | |||||||||||||||
| Acquisition and transaction costs | 221 | 367 | 264 | 39 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Other non-recurring expenses | 84 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Non-GAAP Gross Profit | $ | 22,542 | $ | 21,399 | $ | 20,373 | $ | 23,846 | $ | 18,836 | $ | 22,350 | $ | 23,423 | $ | 25,712 | ||||||||
| Non-GAAP Gross Margin | 73.2 | % | 73.0 | % | 72.6 | % | 75.3 | % | 71.7 | % | 76.2 | % | 77.0 | % | 77.8 | % | ||||||||
| Sales and Marketing Expense to non-GAAP Sales and Marketing Expense | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sales and Marketing Expense | $ | 6,945 | $ | 6,680 | $ | 6,924 | $ | 7,767 | $ | 6,422 | $ | 6,597 | $ | 8,515 | $ | 7,200 | ||||||||
| Share-based Compensation | 251 | 269 | 237 | 243 | 180 | 210 | 149 | 124 | ||||||||||||||||
| Depreciation | — | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| One-time expenses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Settlements, penalties & interest | 78 | (5 | ) | 5 | 18 | 6 | 30 | 4 | 11 | |||||||||||||||
| Acquisition and transaction costs | 9 | 68 | 37 | 11 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Other non-recurring expenses | 52 | — | — | — | — | — | 180 | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Non-GAAP Sales and Marketing Expense | $ | 6,555 | $ | 6,347 | $ | 6,645 | $ | 7,494 | $ | 6,235 | $ | 6,357 | $ | 8,182 | $ | 7,065 | ||||||||
| General and Administrative Expense to non-GAAP General and Administrative Expense | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| General and Administrative Expense | $ | 9,940 | $ | 10,378 | $ | 10,118 | $ | 10,063 | $ | 9,747 | $ | 9,294 | $ | 10,336 | $ | 9,956 | ||||||||
| Share-based Compensation | 1,081 | 1,187 | 1,122 | 1,535 | 980 | 936 | 1,298 | 1,142 | ||||||||||||||||
| Depreciation | 269 | 264 | 256 | 251 | 225 | 200 | 234 | 210 | ||||||||||||||||
| One-time expenses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Settlements, penalties & interest | 142 | 377 | 304 | 98 | 284 | 101 | 432 | 102 | ||||||||||||||||
| Acquisition and transaction costs | 282 | 371 | 245 | 57 | 51 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Other non-recurring expenses | 220 | 253 | — | 86 | 53 | — | 453 | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Non-GAAP General and Administrative Expense | $ | 7,946 | $ | 7,926 | $ | 8,191 | $ | 8,036 | $ | 8,154 | $ | 8,057 | $ | 7,919 | $ | 8,502 | ||||||||
| Research and Development Expense to non-GAAP Research and Development Expense | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Research and Development Expense | $ | 2,103 | $ | 1,973 | $ | 1,962 | $ | 1,769 | $ | 1,739 | $ | 1,803 | $ | 1,325 | $ | 1,979 | ||||||||
| Share-based Compensation | 87 | 90 | 86 | 85 | 69 | 76 | 89 | 40 | ||||||||||||||||
| One-time expenses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Settlements, penalties & interest | 21 | — | 27 | 31 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Acquisition and transaction costs | 153 | 195 | 369 | 147 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Other non-recurring expenses | 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Non-GAAP Research and Development Expense | $ | 1,813 | $ | 1,688 | $ | 1,480 | $ | 1,506 | $ | 1,670 | $ | 1,727 | $ | 1,236 | $ | 1,939 | ||||||||
(1)Note that first quarters are seasonally strong as recurring year-end W2/ACA revenue is recognized in this period.
| ASURE SOFTWARE, INC. RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP AND ADJUSTED FINANCIAL MEASURES (cont.) (unaudited) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (in thousands) | Q4-24 | Q3-24 | Q2-24 | Q1-24 | Q4-23 | Q3-23 | Q2-23 | Q1-23 | ||||||||||||||||
| Revenue(1) | $ | 30,792 | $ | 29,304 | $ | 28,044 | $ | 31,652 | $ | 26,264 | $ | 29,334 | $ | 30,420 | $ | 33,064 | ||||||||
| GAAP Net (Loss) Income to Adjusted EBITDA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GAAP Net (Loss) Income | $ | (3,204 | ) | $ | (3,901 | ) | $ | (4,360 | ) | $ | (308 | ) | $ | (3,582 | ) | $ | (2,206 | ) | $ | (3,765 | ) | $ | 339 | |
| Interest expense, net | 211 | 109 | (53 | ) | (156 | ) | (24 | ) | 782 | 1,593 | 1,944 | |||||||||||||
| Income taxes | 499 | 170 | 231 | 33 | (158 | ) | (123 | ) | 627 | (237 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Depreciation | 1,460 | 1,497 | 1,402 | 1,361 | 1,148 | 1,185 | 1,542 | 1,219 | ||||||||||||||||
| Amortization – intangibles | 4,482 | 4,345 | 4,096 | 3,499 | 3,743 | 3,384 | 3,343 | 3,570 | ||||||||||||||||
| EBITDA | $ | 3,448 | $ | 2,220 | $ | 1,316 | $ | 4,429 | $ | 1,127 | $ | 3,022 | $ | 3,340 | $ | 6,835 | ||||||||
| EBITDA Margin | 11.2 | % | 7.6 | % | 4.7 | % | 14.0 | % | 4.3 | % | 10.3 | % | 11.0 | % | 20.7 | % | ||||||||
| Share-based Compensation | 1,463 | 1,591 | 1,488 | 1,902 | 1,260 | 1,251 | 1,582 | 1,337 | ||||||||||||||||
| One Time Expenses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Settlements, penalties & interest | 266 | 375 | 339 | 147 | 283 | 140 | 436 | 117 | ||||||||||||||||
| Acquisition and transaction costs | 665 | 1,001 | 914 | 254 | 51 | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Other non-recurring expenses | 385 | 253 | — | 86 | 53 | — | 633 | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Other expense (income), net | 2 | — | — | (10 | ) | 1 | 1,800 | 93 | (83 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA | $ | 6,229 | $ | 5,440 | $ | 4,057 | $ | 6,808 | $ | 2,775 | $ | 6,213 | $ | 6,084 | $ | 8,206 | ||||||||
| Adjusted EBITDA Margin | 20.2 | % | 18.6 | % | 14.5 | % | 21.5 | % | 10.6 | % | 21.2 | % | 20.0 | % | 24.8 | % | ||||||||
(1)Note that first quarters are seasonally strong as recurring year-end W2/ACA revenue is recognized in this period.
Investor Relations Contact
Patrick McKillop
Vice President, Investor Relations
617-335-5058
patrick.mckillop@asuresoftware.com
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
WARSAW, N.Y., March 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Financial Institutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: FISI), parent company of Five Star Bank (“Five Star” or the “Bank”) and Courier Capital, LLC, announced that Eric W. Marks has joined as Senior Vice President, Chief Consumer Banking Officer of the Bank.
As Chief Consumer Banking Officer, Mr. Marks will have executive leadership and strategic oversight of the Bank’s consumer lines of business, including Retail Banking, Residential Mortgage, and Small Business Banking, as well as its Customer Contact Center and Collections departments. Mr. Marks’ deep banking experience, which includes many facets of consumer banking leadership, financial oversight and strategic planning, will serve him well as he looks to drive sustainable customer growth and customer-service excellence in Five Star’s retail network and its 49 banking locations across Western and Central New York. Mr. Marks will report to President and CEO Martin K. Birmingham and join the Company’s Executive Management Committee.
“We are thrilled to welcome Eric Marks to Five Star Bank,” said Mr. Birmingham. “His deep understanding of all aspects of consumer banking, as well as his local roots and familiarity with our markets, will be very valuable as he supports the continued evolution, growth and, ultimately, the long-term success of our consumer banking offerings.”
Mr. Marks commented, “I am excited to join a community bank like Five Star, which has a deep history here in Upstate New York. I look forward to being a part of its continued success as we focus on delivering a simple, connected and trusted banking experience in our markets, and helping our customers and communities thrive.”
Mr. Marks joins Five Star from M&T Bank, where he had most recently served as its Retail Segment Chief Financial Officer. During his 19-year tenure at M&T, Mr. Marks held roles of increasing responsibility in several enterprise functions and lines of business, including corporate and consumer strategy, mortgage, branch distribution planning, consumer deposit pricing and portfolio management, as well as consumer indirect lending.
Mr. Marks, who is based at Five Star Bank Centre in Amherst, N.Y., earned his bachelor’s degree from Mercyhurst University and his M.B.A. from the University at Buffalo. He has also completed an executive leadership course at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. Mr. Marks has a long history of community volunteerism, previously serving on the boards of the Orchard Park Little League, the Orchard Park Boys and Girls Club, Western New York Heritage Press, and more.
About Financial Institutions, Inc. and Five Star Bank
Financial Institutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: FISI) is a financial holding company with approximately $6.1 billion in assets as of December 31, 2024, offering banking and wealth management products and services. Its Five Star Bank subsidiary provides consumer and commercial banking and lending services to individuals, municipalities and businesses through banking locations spanning Western and Central New York and a commercial loan production office serving the Mid-Atlantic region. Courier Capital, LLC offers customized investment management, financial planning and consulting services to individuals and families, businesses, institutions, non-profits and retirement plans. Learn more at Five-StarBank.com and FISI-Investors.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release may contain forward-looking statements as defined by Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve significant risks and uncertainties. In this context, forward-looking statements often address our expected future business and financial performance and financial condition, and often contain words such as “believe,” “anticipate,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “focus,” “”intend,” “may,” “plan,” “preliminary,” “should,” or “will.” Statements herein are based on certain assumptions and analyses by the Company and factors it believes are appropriate in the circumstances. Actual results could differ materially from those contained in or implied by such statements for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to: changes in interest rates; inflation; changes in deposit flows and the cost and availability of funds; the Company’s ability to implement its strategic plan, including by expanding its commercial lending footprint and integrating its acquisitions; whether the Company experiences greater credit losses than expected; whether the Company experiences breaches of its, or third party, information systems; the attitudes and preferences of the Company’s customers; legal and regulatory proceedings and related matters, including any action described in our reports filed with the SEC, could adversely affect us and the banking industry in general; the competitive environment; fluctuations in the fair value of securities in its investment portfolio; changes in the regulatory environment and the Company’s compliance with regulatory requirements; and general economic and credit market conditions nationally and regionally; and the macroeconomic volatility related to the impact of a pandemic or global political unrest. Consequently, all forward-looking statements made herein are qualified by these cautionary statements and the cautionary language and risk factors included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other documents filed with the SEC. Except as required by law, the Company undertakes no obligation to revise these statements following the date of this press release.
For additional information contact:
Kate Croft
Director, Investor and External Relations
716-817-5159
klcroft@five-starbank.com
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/45b81392-4098-491e-a8f4-0824ccb09934
Source: Thales Group
Headline: CSO-3 optical Earth-observation satellite successfully launched
Cannes, March 6th, 2025 – The CSO-3 military observation satellite has been successfully launched by Arianespace atop an Ariane 6 from Europe’s spaceport in French Guiana. Carrying a very-high-resolution optical instrument built by Thales Alenia Space, the joint venture between Thales (67%) and Leonardo (33%), the satellite was developed by prime contractor Airbus Defence & Space for the French defense procurement agency DGA on behalf of the French Air and Space Force’s Space Command, with delegated oversight from the French space agency CNES.
CSO © CNES
The third and last component in the CSO system for France’s MUSIS* military program, CSO-3 will provide increased coverage and revisit capabilities to enable more effective conduct of military operations and faster crisis response.
Designed to the most stringent intelligence and defense requirements, CSO-3 is equipped with a cutting-edge instrument developed by Thales Alenia Space. This instrument is the core of the mission, affording exceptional resolution and detail of Earth’s surface. Its unrivaled performance enables it to acquire imagery at extremely high resolution, even in low-light conditions and at night thanks to its infrared capabilities. Its advanced technologies include latest-generation optical systems and ultra-sensitive sensors.
CSO © CNES
Like for the previous Helios 1, Helios 2 and Pleiades satellites, Thales Alenia Space designed strategic equipment for the CSO system, including the solar arrays, very-high-throughput image telemetry systems, and encryption/decryption modules to ensure data security and confidentiality. The company also supplied the system’s telemetry, tracking and control transponders.
“The launch of CSO-3 is a major milestone for French sovereignty in space, both in terms of launch capabilities and satellite technology,” said Hervé Derrey, Thales Alenia Space CEO. “With the completion of this system, France is leading the way in optical space reconnaissance. The CSO system’s exceptional performance is based in particular on the optical instrument built by the teams at Thales Alenia Space and our industry partners. These unique skills in Europe are strategically important and demonstrate our ability to meet the new challenges facing French and European sovereignty.”
*Multinational Space-based Imaging System for Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Observation
Drawing on over 40 years of experience and a unique combination of skills, expertise and cultures, Thales Alenia Space delivers innovative solutions for telecommunications, navigation, Earth observation, environmental management, exploration, science and orbital infrastructures. Governments and private industry alike count on Thales Alenia Space to design and build satellite-based systems that provide anytime, anywhere connections and positioning, monitor our planet, enhance management of its resources and explore our Solar System and beyond. Thales Alenia Space sees space as a new horizon, helping to build a better, more sustainable life on Earth. A joint venture between Thales (67%) and Leonardo (33%), Thales Alenia Space also teams up with Telespazio to form the parent companies’ Space Alliance, which offers a complete range of services. Thales Alenia Space posted consolidated revenues of approximately €2.2 billion in 2023 and has around 8,600 employees in 8 countries, with 16 sites in Europe.
Source: Verizon
Headline: Verizon tells customers to put the phone down
NEW YORK – With the average Verizon home internet household boasting 18 connected devices and counting, Verizon recognizes the increasing challenge of managing screen time and its impact on overall well-being. That’s why, today, at the first-ever Verizon Digital Wellness Summit hosted by Drew Barrymore, Verizon is unveiling a series of initiatives aimed at promoting healthy digital habits for families.
“Building healthy habits in our digital lives is essential for overall well-being. Verizon is empowering families to have peace of mind around their children’s online lives by providing resources and tools that promote digital safety – and encouraging kids to put the phones down from time to time,” said Sampath, CEO, Verizon Consumer. “We’re committed to making sure that technology enhances our lives, rather than detracts from them, and our new initiatives are a significant step in that direction.”
“At Verizon, we’re committed to putting technology into the hands of those who otherwise might not have access to it. But access alone is not enough,” said Donna Epps, Chief Responsible Business Officer, Verizon. “Verizon wants to ensure everyone has the knowledge and skills to use technology safely and responsibly. That’s why we’re launching our digital wellness programs—empowering users of all ages with the training and resources necessary to build healthy habits and a healthy relationship with technology.”
IRL Gaming: To coincide with the Global Day of Unplugging, Verizon is launching the Verizon Arcade Unplugged pop-up experience, transforming digital games into life-sized, interactive challenges to encourage screen-free family time. The activation will be open to select partners on Friday, March 7 and A Parently Kidding member families on Saturday, March 8. Limited general admission tickets are available here. Verizon Arcade Unplugged is also gearing up for an exciting nationwide tour this summer hitting California, Texas and major cities starting in April. Stay tuned for more updates as the experience makes its way across the country.
Source: WTO
Headline: Members share experiences on going beyond tariff codes to implement environmental measures
Organized and moderated by Luis Oña-Garcés of Ecuador, the session featured experience-sharing by members implementing environmental measures which are controlled at the border based on tariff classification categories beyond the Harmonized System codes.
A series of key questions guided delegations in addressing environmental measures implemented through tariff classification, exploring the use of specific codes and additional categories designed for this purpose. Other mechanisms used at the border, such as certifications or licences, were also analysed. Good practices identified in the implementation and monitoring of these measures were shared. The objective was to understand the challenges and results of these strategies.
The European Union shared its process used to track trade in products covered by regulations of fluorinated greenhouse gases, ozone-depleting substances, and deforestation. This included the EU TARIC databases which identify specific products beyond 6-digit HS codes. This more exact definition helped customs operations by enhancing traceability and smoothing the cross-border process.
The EU suggested that the World Customs Organization (WCO) put in place a project aimed at improving the classification of green technology and environmentally friendly products by refining definitions and collaborating with international organizations. The EU noted that updating the current HS system to recognize products under green initiatives and the circular economy will streamline processes, enhance policy enforcement, and improve trade efficiency and traceability.
The United Kingdom indicated that collaboration between trade and customs is essential to understand limitations posed by the HS and to apply solutions that can be implemented at the border. The UK emphasized that differentiation of production processes or end-use, especially for environmental products, is challenging. It noted that national tariff lines and harmonized definitions/standards are alternatives to HS amendments.
The UK presented a case study showing that HS codes have no precise categories for recycling, reuse and waste of textiles, which hamper monitoring trade. Discrepancies in customs classification and contamination cause trade barriers due to HS code definitions not conforming with industry procedures. To avoid this, the UK said greater WTO member cooperation can enhance knowledge of trade restrictions due to unclear HS nomenclature.
The Dominican Republic reported on the successful implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and their integration into the country’s customs tariff system. It has introduced further subdivisions in its tariff structure, beyond the HS standard codes, to monitor environmentally sensitive products and institutionalised interagency planning and coordination through the creation of a Green Customs Department.
Addressing challenges and opportunities, the Dominican Republic noted the obstacles encountered, particularly on outdated law frameworks, and emphasized the significance of effective technology-driven customs regulation and staff training to improve understanding and implementation of environmental policies while maintaining trade efficiency.
Jamaica also highlighted its efforts in enforcing environmental policies on plastics pollution, hazardous waste treatment and disposal, and the development of renewable energy through customs policy. However, Jamaica noted the numerous challenges that hinder effective enforcement both at the national level and regionally within the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). These include insufficient stakeholder knowledge of MEAs and lack of coordination among regulatory and customs institutions. Jamaica said that enforcement continues to be difficult despite advancement because of a shortage of resources and the need for additional interagency coordination. The country continues to modernize customs practices and simplify policies according to international environmental commitments, with the aim of striking a balance between trade facilitation and sustainability goals.
The HS is a multipurpose international product nomenclature developed by the WCO. It comprises more than 5,000 commodity groups or categories, each of them identified by a six-digit code. See here for the current HS 2022 nomenclature.
The system is used by 212 economies as a basis for their customs tariffs and for the collection of international trade statistics. Over 98% of the merchandise in international trade is classified in terms of the HS.
A first thematic session on Greening the HS was held in June 2024. It provided a detailed presentation of the HS role and structure, including its potential and limitations in identifying goods of policy interest. The challenge of defining environmental goods and making them visible in the HS were discussed, as were proposed HS amendments by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions.
The Chair of the Committee on Market Access, Nicola Waterfield of Canada, said that the presentations gave members an opportunity to learn about a very wide range of challenges and solutions beyond the HS to implement their environmental policies. They also highlighted the crossovers between greening efforts and the work of the Committee on transparency in import and export restrictions and prohibitions which would be notified as quantitative restrictions.
As with past thematic sessions in the Committee, and to respond to a demand by members, the WTO Secretariat will prepare a factual summary report based on information shared.
Share
DHAKA, Bangladesh, March 6, 2025/ — The International Islamic Trade Finance Corporation (ITFC) (www.ITFC-idb.org), a member of the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) Group, and Mutual Trust Bank PLC (MTB) signed a Master Murabaha Agreement to strengthen trade finance support for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and the private sector in Bangladesh.
The agreement will enable ITFC to provide trade financing facilities against Letters of Credit (LCs) issued by Mutual Trust Bank, enhancing the bank’s capacity to support cross-border trade and contribute to the growth of SMEs. This collaboration underscores both institutions’ commitment to fostering economic development and private sector growth in Bangladesh.
The signing ceremony was held at Dhaka and attended by senior executives from both organizations. Mr. Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Managing Director and CEO of Mutual Trust Bank, and Mr. Nazeem Noordali, Officer-in-Charge, CEO of ITFC, led the signing on behalf of their respective institutions.
Mr. Nazeem Noordali emphasized the strategic importance of the partnership, stating, “We are proud to partner with Mutual Trust Bank to provide trade financing facilities that will support SME growth and the import of essential commodities in Bangladesh. Private sector development is a cornerstone of the country’s economic progress, and enabling SMEs to access trade finance is central to ITFC’s strategy. This initiative will also help SMEs integrate into global value chains, fostering sustainable economic growth.”
Mr. Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Managing Director and CEO of Mutual Trust Bank, expressed his enthusiasm for the agreement, saying, “The partnership with ITFC under this trade finance facility agreement is significant, especially given the current economic challenges faced by Bangladesh. This collaboration will enhance MTB’s reputation among correspondent banks globally, highlighting its resilience, commitment to best practices, and dedication to sustainable growth. Furthermore, it will provide our SME customers with greater access to financing and help facilitate the import of essential raw materials and soft commodities”.
The Master Murabaha Agreement reflects the shared vision of ITFC and Mutual Trust Bank to drive economic growth by supporting SMEs and the private sector. By facilitating access to trade finance, the partnership aims to empower businesses, create employment opportunities, and contribute to the sustainable development of Bangladesh.
About the International Trade Finance Corporation (ITFC):
The International Islamic Trade Finance Corporation (ITFC) is a member of the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) Group. It was established with the primary objective of advancing trade among OIC member countries, which would ultimately contribute to the overarching goal of improving socioeconomic conditions of the people across the world. Commencing operations in January 2008, ITFC has provided more than US$83 billion of financing to OIC member countries, making it the leading provider of trade solutions for these member countries’ needs. With a mission to become a catalyst for trade development for OIC member countries and beyond, the Corporation helps entities in member countries gain better access to trade finance and provides them with the necessary trade-related capacity building tools, which would enable them to successfully compete in the global market.