NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Banking

  • MIL-OSI: Real Estate Split Corp. Renews At-The-Market Equity Program

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Not for distribution to U.S. Newswire Services or for dissemination in the United States.

    TORONTO, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — (TSX: RS, RS.PR.A) Real Estate Split Corp. (the “Company”) is pleased to announce it has renewed its at-the-market equity program (“ATM Program”) that allows the Company to issue Class A and Preferred Shares (the “Class A Shares” and “Preferred Shares”, respectively) to the public from time to time, at the Company’s discretion. Any Class A Shares or Preferred Shares sold in the ATM Program will be sold through the Toronto Stock Exchange (the “TSX”) or any other marketplace in Canada on which the Class A Shares and Preferred Shares are listed, quoted or otherwise traded at the prevailing market price at the time of sale.

    Sales of Class A Shares and Preferred Shares through the ATM Program will be made pursuant to the terms of an equity distribution agreement dated February 14, 2025 (the “Equity Distribution Agreement”) with National Bank Financial Inc. (the “Agent”). Sales of Class A Shares and Preferred Shares will be made by way of “at-the-market distributions” as defined in National Instrument 44-102 Shelf Distributions on the TSX or on any marketplace for the Class A Shares and Preferred Shares in Canada. Since the Class A Shares and Preferred Shares will be distributed at the prevailing market prices at the time of the sale, prices may vary among purchasers during the period of distribution.

    The ATM Program is being offered pursuant to a prospectus supplement dated February 14, 2025 to the Company’s short form base shelf prospectus dated February 12, 2025. The maximum gross proceeds from the issuance of the shares will be $75,000,000 for each of the Class A and Preferred Shares. Copies of the prospectus supplement and the short form base shelf prospectus may be obtained from your registered financial advisor or from representatives of the Agent and are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca. The volume and timing of distributions under the ATM Program, if any, will be determined at the Company’s sole discretion. The ATM Program will be effective until March 13, 2027, unless terminated prior to such date by the Company.

    The Company intends to use the proceeds from the ATM Program in accordance with the investment objectives and investment strategies of the Company, subject to the investment restrictions of the Company. Real Estate Split Corp. has been designed to provide investors with a diversified, actively managed, high conviction portfolio comprised of issuers operating in the real estate or related sectors, including real estate investment trusts, that are engaged in E-Commerce, data infrastructure as well as the multi-family, retail, office and healthcare sectors. Middlefield Capital Corporation provides investment management advice to the Company.

    The investment objectives for the Class A Shares are to provide holders with non-cumulative monthly cash distributions and to provide holders with the opportunity for capital appreciation potential. On August 17, 2021, the monthly cash distribution was increased to $0.13 per Class A Share from $0.10 per Class A Share. The investment objectives for the Preferred Shares are to provide holders with fixed cumulative preferential quarterly cash distributions, currently in the amount of $0.13125 per Preferred Share, and to return the original issue price to holders of Preferred Shares on December 31, 2025.

    For further information, please visit our website at www.middlefield.com or contact Nancy Tham in our Sales and Marketing Department at 1.888.890.1868.

    You will usually pay brokerage fees to your dealer if you purchase or sell shares of the investment funds on the Toronto Stock Exchange or other alternative Canadian trading system (an “exchange”). If the shares are purchased or sold on an exchange, investors may pay more than the current net asset value when buying shares of the investment fund and may receive less than the current net asset value when selling them. There are ongoing fees and expenses associated with owning shares of an investment fund. An investment fund must prepare disclosure documents that contain key information about the funds. You can find more detailed information about the fund in the public filings available at www.sedar.com. The indicated rates of return are the historical annual compounded total returns including changes in share value and reinvestment of all distributions and do not take into account certain fees such as redemption costs or income taxes payable by any securityholder that would have reduced returns. Investment funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated.

    Certain statements in this press release may be viewed as forward-looking statements. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, intentions, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance (often, but not always, using words or phrases such as “expects”, “is expected”, “anticipates”, “plans”, “estimates” or “intends” (or negative or grammatical variations thereof), or stating that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved) are not statements of historical fact and may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual events or results to differ from those reflected in the forward-looking statements including as a result of changes in the general economic and political environment, changes in applicable legislation, and the performance of each fund. There are no assurances the funds can fulfill such forward-looking statements and the funds do not undertake any obligation to update such statements. Such forward-looking statements are only predictions; actual events or results may differ materially as a result of risks facing one or more of the funds, many of which are beyond the control of the funds. Investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Tom Geisel to Join Dime’s Senior Executive Leadership Team

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HAUPPAUGE, N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCOM) (the “Company” or “Dime”), the parent company of Dime Community Bank (the “Bank”), announced today that Thomas X. Geisel will join Dime as Senior Executive Vice President of Commercial Lending. Mr. Geisel will be responsible for the continued buildout and diversification of Dime’s commercial lending business.

    Stuart H. Lubow, President and CEO said, “Dime has had tremendous success growing core deposits and business loans over the past two years by taking advantage of the significant disruption in our marketplace and adding talent to our organization. Recruiting Tom to our organization is the next logical step in the execution of our business plan. Tom has a proven track record as a business leader and he was instrumental in the growth and transformation of Sterling National Bank into a highly profitable $30 billion institution. Tom is an experienced leader and well-known brand name in the New York Metropolitan market. I look forward to working with him closely as we advance Dime’s mission of being the best business bank in New York.”

    Mr. Geisel stated, “I’m very pleased to join Dime and be part of the growth story. Dime’s entrepreneurial culture and customer first mindset attracted me to the institution.  Its strong balance sheet and best-in-class capital strength provides an attractive foundation for talented commercial bankers. I look forward to working with Stu and the management team to leverage its positive momentum in creating a high performing, local champion.” 

    Mr. Geisel has a diverse financial services background, including leadership experience growing regional banks for more than twenty years. He was President of Corporate Banking, at Webster Bank (formally known as Sterling National Bank). Prior to Sterling National Bank, Mr. Geisel was President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Sun Bancorp. Prior to Sun Bancorp, Mr. Geisel was at KeyCorp, including serving as President of the Northeast Region where he was responsible for $20 billion of assets within seven states, including commercial, consumer and private banking. He also helped to build the company’s general M&A investment banking practice in the East and West regions. Most recently, he was recruited to lead a turnaround of Republic First, which culminated in an assisted transaction.

    ABOUT DIME COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.

    Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. is the holding company for Dime Community Bank, a New York State-chartered trust company with over $14 billion in assets and the number one deposit market share among community banks on Greater Long Island (1).

    Dime Community Bancshares, Inc.
    Investor Relations Contact:
    Avinash Reddy
    Senior Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
    Phone: 718-782-6200; Ext. 5909
    Email: avinash.reddy@dime.com

    1 Aggregate deposit market share for Kings, Queens, Nassau & Suffolk counties for community banks with less than $20 billion in assets.

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Bloomberg Tax: Warren Demands Watchdog Probe of Musk Team’s Treasury Access

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    February 07, 2025
    Democrats led by Senate Banking Committee ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called on Treasury and IRS watchdogs to probe federal payment system access granted to tech billionaire Elon Musk or his surrogates.
    Treasury has faced the ire of Democrats in both the House and Senate, and face lawsuits accusing the agency and newly confirmed Secretary Scott Bessent of breaking federal laws by providing access. Conflicting responses from Treasury and President Donald Trump about what happened is leading to more confusion. “
    Senators Warren, Wyden, and Reed each wrote to Secretary Bessent days ago seeking information about the facts underlying these disturbing reports. The Department of the Treasury’s (Department) response raised more questions than it answered,” Warren wrote in the letter.
    Bessent told Bloomberg News Thursday that Musk’s team had read-only access to federal payment data and denied any “tinkering.”
    Democrats in the House raised alarms this week that access could mean Musk and his team improperly reviewed confidential taxpayer information.
    …
    Read the full article here.
    By:  Chris CioffiSource: Bloomberg Tax
    Previous Article

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Post-war order facing ‘greatest test since its creation’: UN relief chief

    Source: United Nations MIL OSI

    20 February 2025 Humanitarian Aid

    The international system set up among the ashes of the Second World War which established the United Nations and other multilateral institutions is now facing the “greatest test since its creation,” the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator said on Thursday.

    Tom Fletcher was addressing the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) which was set up by the UN General Assembly in the early 1990s as a coordination forum for humanitarian aid worldwide.

    “The humanitarian community confronts a massive funding, morale, and legitimacy crisis,” he said, framing his remarks as personal reflections based on earlier discussions within the IASC.

    “We took time to recognize the devastating impact that funding cuts will have on those we serve, our partners, and our teams,” he continued.

    Without referencing any specific loss in funding – but against the backdrop of a suspension of most humanitarian spending by the new administration in Washington – Mr. Fletcher appealled for the aid community to be “calm, brave, principled, and united.”

    He said they need to make the case strongly for greater international solidarity.

    “We can draw confidence from extraordinary progress made by humanitarians over decades. The mission is right. Our allies are still out there. But the delivery system is struggling. We need to be lighter, faster, and less bureaucratic.”

    Four-point plan

    The UN relief chief said there needed to be four priorities: first, be clear that saving lives is paramount.

    “We agreed to remain independent, neutral, and impartial. This does not mean we do not pick a side: we are on the side of those in greatest need.”

    Secondly, he said duplication and bureaucracy must be pared down under a new “bold plan” of action.

    “Donors must simplify too. We must innovate or become obsolete. We will prioritize robustly and make the toughest choices. I have commissioned urgent work to identify how we could reach the 100 million people in greatest need.”

    ‘Genuine partnership’ with private sector

    He said aid chiefs must find new partners, not just rely on traditional sources and governments. This must include “genuine partnership” with the private sector and the World Bank.

    “I believe there is a movement of billions of people who care, and who want to act in solidarity with those in most need. We should launch a public campaign to fill in the gaps left by governments, targeting the equivalent of 0.7 per cent for each country.”

    Mr. Fletcher said turf wars between agencies need to end with each organization focusing on what it does “uniquely well”.

    Leadership needs to be empowered, he added, with great authority vested in UN Humanitarian Coordinators throughout the system.

    Third, there needs to be more devolution, giving more power and accountability to local partners who are suffering the most from cuts.

    Fourth, aid workers need to defend their work more robustly.

    End impunity

    “We need to call time on the era of impunity: end attacks on civilians and aid workers; and hold perpetrators to account. We must communicate more clearly the impact we have and the cost of inaction, with humanity not institutions at the heart of the story.”

    Humanitarians worldwide are “underfunded, overstretched and under attack,” he declared, but the argument for lifesaving aid has not been lost: “Our cause is mighty, and our movement is strong.”

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Kugler, Navigating Inflation Waves: A Phillips Curve Perspective

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you, Tom, and thank you for the invitation to give the Whittington Lecture.1 It is humbling to be here giving this lecture to honor the memory and legacy of Leslie Whittington. While I did not cross paths with Leslie here at Georgetown University, when I arrived, I heard so many stories about her contributions to the school, the university, and the students. She worked on research about the effects of economic policies on children and families, so I know that if I had had the good fortune to overlap with her as a colleague, I would have benefited greatly from her work and presence. It is also an honor to be giving this lecture, because so many dynamic leaders have previously stood before you, including some who have been inspirations to me in my career, such as Alice Rivlin and Cecilia Rouse.
    Today I will be discussing a topic that has certainly captured the attention of central bankers, and the public at large, in recent years: inflation and the relationship between inflation and unemployment. But before I talk about a lens through which to think about the inflation experienced in the pandemic period, I want to update you with my views on the current outlook for the U.S. economy and the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) efforts to sustainably return inflation to our 2 percent objective while maintaining a strong labor market.
    Economic OutlookThe overall picture is that the U.S. economy remains on a firm footing, with output growing at a solid pace. Real gross domestic product grew 2.5 percent in 2024. Consumer spending continued to drive this solid pace last year. While retail sales posted a decline last month, January data are often difficult to interpret. Bad weather and seasonal adjustment difficulties may have affected the release, and it should be noted the slowdown came after a strong pace of sales in the second half of last year. That said, as usual, I pay attention to many indicators to gauge the state of the economy. Employment readings show that the labor market is healthy and stable. Payroll job gains have been solid recently, averaging 189,000 per month over the past four months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). After touching 4.2 percent as recently as November, the unemployment rate has flattened to 4 percent since then, consistent with a labor market that is neither weakening nor showing signs of overheating.
    Inflation has fallen significantly since its peak in the middle of 2022, though the path continues to be bumpy and inflation remains somewhat elevated. Readings last week from the BLS showed price pressures persisted in the economy in January. Our preferred inflation gauge at the Fed, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, will be released next week. Based on the consumer price index and producer price index data for January, it is estimated that the PCE index advanced about 2.4 percent on a 12-month basis in January. Excluding food and energy costs, core prices are estimated to have risen 2.6 percent. Those readings show there is still some way to go before achieving the FOMC’s 2 percent objective.
    Regarding monetary policy, the FOMC judged in September that it was time to begin reducing our policy interest rate from levels that were strongly restrictive on aggregate demand and putting downward pressure on inflation. We reduced that rate 100 basis points through December, leaving our policy rate at moderately restrictive levels. At our latest meeting in January, I supported the decision to hold the policy rate steady. I see this as appropriate, given that the downward risks to employment have diminished but upside risks to inflation remain. The potential net effect of new economic policies also remains highly uncertain and will depend on the breadth, duration, reactions to, and, importantly, specifics of the measures adopted.
    Going forward, in considering the appropriate federal funds rate, we will watch these developments closely and continue to carefully assess the incoming data and evolving outlook.
    Now, turning back to the main topic of my speech, I will start with the core mission of the Federal Reserve: to pursue the dual mandate, given to us by Congress, of promoting maximum employment and stable prices. We saw firsthand during the pandemic period why the price-stability portion of the mandate is so important. High inflation imposes significant hardship and erodes Americans’ purchasing power, especially for those least able to meet the higher costs of essentials like food, housing, and transportation. As a policymaker and economist, I think it is vitally important to have a good understanding of inflation dynamics and how those dynamics may have evolved over time. This knowledge allows me to pursue the best policies to deliver stable prices while maintaining a solid labor market.
    Waves of InflationFive years after the pandemic took hold suddenly and with little warning, there is a tendency to remember the inflation buildup as a fast and uniform phenomenon. But that was not the case. Inflation stemming from the pandemic shock came in waves. Today I will first describe the different waves of inflation experienced in the pandemic period. Then I invite you aboard the sailboat that we will use to navigate those waves: You could call it the SS Phillips Curve. The Phillips curve is a model that has been used for a long time to try to explain inflation dynamics and the tradeoffs between inflation and unemployment. Finally, I will discuss with you how this voyage may have changed the charts for policymakers.
    Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S., and much of the world’s developed economies, experienced a prolonged period of low inflation. Then, when the economy broadly shut down in March and April 2020, the U.S. experienced a brief period of deflation. But by the middle of that year, we saw that the first of several waves of inflation began hitting the economy’s shores.
    The first notable wave of inflation came from food prices. With many restaurants closed and people fearful of gathering, consumers pivoted their spending to grocery stores and online grocery delivery to meet their families’ needs, with some stockpiling essential items because they feared future shortages. This jump in demand was met with snarled supply chains for food processing and groceries. Annual food inflation reached a first peak of 5 percent in June 2020. There was a second food inflation wave with the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the middle of 2022. Beyond the cost alone, grocery prices are an important determinant of inflation expectations for consumers since food is purchased so frequently.2 Another wave of inflation came from goods other than food and energy—what economists call “core goods.” In the years immediately before the pandemic, goods prices were not a significant source of inflation. During the expansion from 2009 until 2020, core goods inflation declined 0.5 percent annually on average. However, once the pandemic took hold, consumer demand rotated from services to goods. At the same time, additional supply chain issues arose, including closed factories and disrupted ports. As consumption rapidly shifted toward goods, their prices rose sharply.3 Core goods inflation picked up markedly in the spring of 2021 and reached a peak of 7.6 percent on a 12-month basis in February 2022. This was a notable development because, during most of this century, goods price deflation offset price increases in other categories and thus kept a lid on overall inflation.
    A third wave of inflation came from services costs, excluding housing. Near the start of the pandemic, millions of Americans lost their jobs, and many left the labor market, with some retiring and others fearful of being exposed to the virus. When the economy began to reopen from shutdowns, demand for workers rose faster than the supply. As a result, the labor market quickly became very tight. To attract workers, employers raised wages. And to offset that expense, many raised prices. Given that labor is the most important input into the production of services, core services inflation ensued, reaching a peak of 5.2 percent on a 12-month basis in December 2021. Core services inflation stayed persistently high until it began to turn down in February 2023.
    The final wave of inflation I will discuss came from PCE housing services inflation. During the pandemic, many Americans reassessed housing choices, including those who preferred to move to detached homes in the suburbs from multifamily dwellings in cities. The supply of housing has long been constrained, so when a further increase in demand met limited supply, prices rose. Housing inflation rose to a peak of 8.27 percent on a 12-month basis in April 2023 and has moved lower since then. The run-up in housing inflation came more slowly, but it is also the component most slowly to abate. This is an area that experienced catch-up inflation, as housing inflation rises and falls slowly because rents are reset infrequently, usually only once a year for most renters.
    For the remainder of this discussion, I will focus on core inflation, and specifically core goods and core services inflation. My objective is to discuss several additions to an augmented Phillips curve model that allow us to capture the dynamics of those waves we encountered on our journey.
    The Traditional Phillips CurveSince price stability and maximum employment are the two components of the Fed’s dual-mandate goal, it is important for policymakers to be able to interpret the inflation process and relate it to macroeconomic conditions, including unemployment. One traditional way of understanding the usual tradeoff between inflation and unemployment is the use of the Phillips curve. It was first employed by New Zealand economist A.W. Phillips in 1958 to describe a simple relationship between wage growth and unemployment. Basically, it demonstrates that wage inflation is lower when unemployment is high, and higher when unemployment is low. Since then, several variants and updates have been offered to the Phillips curve model, and I will offer updates, too.
    One of the most notable updates came from Milton Friedman in 1967 in his presidential address to the American Economic Association.4 In that speech, he argued that there is only a temporary tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, because inflation depends on both the unemployment rate relative to a natural rate (the unemployment gap) and expectations of future inflation.
    The unemployment gap measures how much unemployment is above or below some reference level such as the natural rate of unemployment, or NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), which is thought to be the normal level of unemployment absent cyclical forces. An unemployment rate that is above the reference level indicates that there is slack in the economy. Conversely, if the unemployment rate is below the reference level, the economy is tight. The unemployment gap has an inverse relation to wage and price inflation, because slack in the economy means that there are excess resources to meet demand while tightness in the labor market means there is little room to expand demand without putting upward pressure on prices. Let’s turn now to the other ingredient in Friedman’s Phillips curve: inflation expectations. Inflation expectations represent the rate at which people expect prices to rise in the future. A Phillips curve model that includes inflation expectations is called an “expectations-augmented Phillips curve.”
    The idea behind adding inflation expectations to a Phillips curve is that workers care about their inflation-adjusted wage, rather than nominal wages, over the course of a period of employment when bargaining their pay. Meanwhile, price-setting firms care about their relative price in pricing their products. Both sets of agents must forecast as best as possible the future path of inflation to efficiently bargain their wages or set their prices. In other words, both parties form expectations about the general price level, and these expectations will feed back into the inflation process.5 Friedman assumed that inflation expectations respond to lagged observed inflation—or what are called “adaptive expectations”—and when that is so, it provides a mechanism for inflation to be persistent.
    This view captured inflation dynamics in the 1970s and early 1980s fairly well; however, it was not broadly applicable to the period from the late 1980s through 2019, often called the “Great Moderation.” Rather, regarding inflation dynamics over an extended period, inflation appears to be more strongly related to long-run inflation expectations than to lagged inflation or short-run inflation expectations measures. Monetary policy can play an important role in setting long-run inflation expectations. Both wage seekers and price setters form their inflation expectations, in part, from their beliefs about the central bank’s inflation goal. When long-run inflation expectations stay close to the central bank’s goal, we say that inflation expectations are anchored at that goal. That goal is currently set at 2 percent, and long-run inflation expectations have indeed been in a tight range around that target.6
    The empirical literature on the Phillips curve has considered additional variables that may affect inflation and used those variables to create new versions of a Phillips curve. For example, Phillips curves have long included measures of “cost-push” pressures such as core import prices. These cost pressures more fully capture shocks to firms’ costs coming from global price pressures and not captured by other measures of slack. Other Phillips curves also include lags of inflation to capture persistence in the inflation process.7
    To summarize, the empirical literature has come to the conclusion that inflation dynamics can best be captured by a Phillips curve that includes lags of inflation, long-run inflation expectations, and a measure of slack, as well as import and energy prices as cost-push shocks. An instance of that formulation of a Phillips curve is included in former Chair Janet Yellen’s speech from 2015.8 Next, I would like to assess the accuracy of this baseline model during the recent run-up of inflation and consider how to augment the Phillips curve model with some new variables that may be able to capture some of the shocks experienced during the pandemic and post-pandemic period. A large literature has emerged on how to interpret the recent run-up in inflation, and more research is needed to fully understand this complicated episode. The Phillips curve model that I will use is another approach to consider. This is a simple approach, but it is possible to consider more complex models, such as models that consider the joint dynamics of inflation and other variables or models that explicitly consider nonlinearities.9 However, I still see value in starting from this simple framework, seeing what it can and cannot explain about pandemic inflation, and then seeing whether the addition of certain variables can help the model more fully account for inflation during the pandemic.
    Estimation of the Phillips Curve TodayAs I just explained, the Phillips curve model allows flexibility in the choice of variables, but economists employing the model must decide how to weight these variables. And those weights must be chosen in some way. Economists choose weights by examining available data and deciding which capture the inflation process in the best possible way. This decision is called “estimation.” The modern way to undertake such an estimation is called “training.” Economists train a model on a specific set of data and consider different cuts of the data set to determine different ways to compute those weights.
    I will consider quarterly data that have been consistently produced since 1964, allowing us to include the periods of the Great Inflation, the Great Moderation, and the most recent inflation run-up. We could use this entire data set to train the model. However, subsample analysis also serves to prove some valuable points.
    First Result: Examining the Great ModerationLet’s start by updating former Fed Chair Yellen’s results. She estimated the model using the data during the so-called Great Moderation; I will update her results by training the model through 2019, the last year before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the U.S. As the term “moderation” implies, this was a period in which both inflation and output became much less volatile. We do not know exactly what brought about the Great Moderation. Hypotheses include the effects of better inventory management or better monetary policy. We do know, however, that inflation settled into a trend near to or slightly below 2 percent during that period. We estimate the model with data from this period, and we decompose how much of inflation is explained by the variables and how much is left unexplained, which economists call the “residual.” As it turns out, this model does a good job of capturing the inflation process over that period before the pandemic, and my results are similar to Yellen’s. The model explains 70 percent of the variation in inflation, meaning that only 30 percent of the variation in inflation is attributed to unexplained residuals. An alternative way to understand the unexplained part is as the standard deviation of the residual or the unexplained portion of the model, which was 0.50 percentage point for the period from 2010 to 2019, compared with the standard deviation of inflation of about 0.8 percentage point.
    This model, however, struggles to explain the run-up in inflation in the years immediately after the pandemic took hold. The unexplained portion of inflation, the residual, rises dramatically in 2021 and 2022. In 2021, the unexplained portion is almost 2 percentage points, and the following year, it is about 1.5 percentage points. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the outcome. These years saw inflation reach a four-decade peak, but the model has been trained on a Great Moderation sample that saw relatively quiet inflation.10
    Second Result: Using a Longer SampleThe results are more encouraging if, instead, we also include data from the previous period of significant inflation and train the model on data starting in 1964. Intuitively, it makes sense that including a period with persistent inflation, like the 1970s, might help us better understand another inflationary episode. I stop at 2019 because I want to see if training on data from the previous 55-year period can explain the post-2020 inflation.
    The model captures more of the most recent run-up in inflation when using the longer period of analysis. The unexplained residual drops to about 1.5 percentage points in 2021 and to a bit above 0.5 percentage point in 2022. Allowing for greater persistence in inflation allows an inflation equation to fit the pandemic period better, though it does not settle the question of whether the pandemic inflation was caused by large and persistent shocks or by large shocks and a persistent inflation process—for example, because of greater feedback between wages and prices.
    To improve the model further, it would be useful to include additional explanatory variables that could better capture the overheating of the economy. In what follows, I include variables that might account for factors experienced in the most recent bout of inflation, such as a very tight labor market and supply chain snarls.
    Third Result: Alternative Measure of SlackAs I mentioned before, the very tight labor market was an important contributor to inflation in recent years, especially to services inflation, yet the weight on the unemployment gap in the Phillips curve for the more recent period is very small. This measure of slack has become less and less important over time in explaining inflation, except during selected episodes such as in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, which was characterized by a very sluggish recovery. Outside of that episode, and very few others, the Phillips curve places little weight on that measure of slack in explaining inflation over the Great Moderation, including during the recent run-up. This is also a reflection of training the model over the Great Moderation, in which inflation moved fairly tightly around a very flat trend. Notice that this would suggest a “flat Phillips curve” or a big penalty in terms of unemployment needed to reduce inflation. Instead, I focus on another very promising alternative measure that I have paid a lot of attention to since I was chief economist at the Department of Labor—and again since I joined the Board of Governors—and that I am very familiar with as a scholar of labor markets. The measure is the ratio of vacancies to the level of unemployment.11 In effect, this ratio measures how much competition there is for a given job, or the “tightness” of the labor market. Labor is an important input into most production processes, and, thus, tightness in the labor market is closely related to price pressures. I use the standard version of this ratio that measures job openings from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey as the numerator and the unemployment level from the Current Population Survey as the denominator. This allows me to use data back to the 1960s.12 The vacancy-to-unemployment ratio as a measure of slack is more effective at explaining inflation than the unemployment gap. This represents an interesting result because it offers a larger role to heated labor markets in explaining the run-up in inflation. My results echo research that finds the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio is a helpful measure of slack to consider in out-of-sample forecasting exercises.13
    Fourth Result: Supply Chain SnarlsAlthough the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio offers a promising measure of slack and supply chain pressures due to labor shortages, that measure does not necessarily capture supply chain snarls whose roots lie outside of the labor market. As I mentioned earlier, there were substantial supply chain disruptions during the past few years that came at the same time as strong demand. That resulted in material and labor shortages. Attempts at quantifying supply-side disruptions have been around for some decades now.14 I rely on a new monthly shortages index created by a team of Fed Board economists, which relies on textual analysis to scan news articles for sentences that include the word pairs “labor shortages,” “material shortages,” or “food shortages.”15 The Shortage Index allows us to better measure cost-push pressures from different sources and is constructed all the way back to the beginning of the previous century. Thus, it makes a difference to have access to advances in natural language processing.16 When I add the Shortage Index to the baseline Phillips curve or to the vacancy-to-unemployment–based Phillips curve, I obtain that the Shortage Index explains an even larger portion of the inflation run-up during and after the pandemic. The residual for 2020 is cut in half, the residual for 2021 is about 1 percentage point, and the residual is effectively eliminated in 2022. I judge this a noteworthy result and a proof of concept that with additional augmentation, the Phillips curve model can better capture inflation dynamics during the recent period. Through the lens of this model, supply shortages played an important role in 2022 in constraining output to grow at an anemic rate and in pushing up inflation. Moreover, the model is also able to capture the decline in inflation in 2023 and 2024 despite the strong expansion in real activity. I view the Shortage Index as a powerful indicator of the nonlinear effects stemming from a compounding of the contemporaneous interaction of demand and supply bottlenecks.
    I have offered additional variables to account for a measure of slack as it relates to labor supply and material supply. This exercise could be extended further to better account for some of the subcategories of inflation that caused the waves I discussed earlier. For example, food inflation, which is characterized by two distinct waves, can mostly be explained by the Food Shortage Index, which captures a large portion of the residual in the baseline model.
    Lessons for the PolicymakerToday I have discussed the waves of inflation the country faced starting five years ago. I also talked about how the vessel we use to navigate those choppy waters can be improved upon. As I conclude, I want to discuss with you how central bankers might recalibrate their compasses, based on what we learned from considering these augmentations to Phillips curve models. I think a clear lesson is that no single model alone can give a policymaker an understanding of every possible state of the economy. Policymakers must be open to various options, models, and frameworks—and not be afraid to experiment in search of more accurate answers. Policymakers must be very attentive to the most recent contributions from academia and empirical practitioners. Broadly, that is the approach I take, and why I apply the same rigor I did as an academic researcher to the monetary policy decisions that I confront.
    The recent run-up in inflation in many ways was a rather unique period, spurred, at least initially, by the first onset of a global pandemic in more than a century. Fully understanding the dynamics at play has provided a tough test for economists. The models I described today have had some success in capturing salient features of the inflation process during the pandemic period. I hope this illustrative analysis helps you see the difficulties of forecasting inflation in real time.
    Another lesson to be learned from this experience is that the feared harsh tradeoff between unemployment and inflation, one that requires large costs in terms of job loss and reduction in incomes in order to reduce inflation, did not materialize in the years immediately after the 2022 inflation peak. Inflation has been significantly reduced while the labor market has remained solid. This is a historically unusual, but most welcome, outcome. While this outcome is in part due to the actions of Fed policymakers, it is also possible to explain that remarkable result through the lens of the models that I have presented today. A large fraction of the rise in inflation, most specifically core goods inflation, can be explained by supply chain snarls. The untangling of supply chains contributed to a decline in inflation with little cost in terms of unemployment. Likewise, labor markets were very tight in this period. As workers returned to the labor force, labor markets became less tight, and the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio declined. That corresponded with a subsequent decline in inflation. That is a consistent result because services inflation is closely connected to the cost of labor.
    Thank you for your time today. Once again, it is humbling to be asked to give the Whittington Lecture to honor the memory of fellow educator Leslie Whittington. I look forward to your questions.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. D’Acunto, Malmendier, Ospina, and Weber (2021) show that consumers disproportionately rely on the price changes of goods in their grocery bundles when forming expectations about aggregate inflation; see Francesco D’Acunto, Ulrike Malmendier, Juan Ospina, and Michael Weber (2021), “Exposure to Grocery Prices and Inflation Expectations,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 129 (May), pp. 1615–39. Return to text
    3. Ferrante, Graves, and Iacoviello (2020) show that a sharp reallocation of demand from one sector to another can exacerbate supply chain disruption and cause aggregate inflation; see Francesco Ferrante, Sebastian Graves, and Matteo Iacoviello (2023), “The Inflationary Effects of Sectoral Reallocation,” Journal of Monetary Economics, supp., vol. 140 (November), pp. S64–81. Return to text
    4. See Milton Friedman (1968), “The Role of Monetary Policy,” American Economic Review, vol. 58 (March), pp. 1–17; and Edmund S. Phelps (1967), “Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time,” Economica, vol. 34 (135), pp. 254–81. Return to text
    5. Friedman did not consider forward-looking price-setting firms, but more recent advances in macroeconomics do, such as New Keynesian models; see Jordi Galí (2015), Monetary Policy, Inflation, and the Business Cycle: An Introduction to the New Keynesian Framework and Its Applications (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press). Return to text
    6. In an earlier speech, I have sketched a model in which agents infer the central bank target by observing inflation, interest rates, and unemployment data; see Adriana D. Kugler (2024), “Central Bank Independence and the Conduct of Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Albert Hirschman Lecture, 2024 Annual Meeting of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association and the Latin American and Caribbean Chapter of the Econometric Society, Montevideo, Uruguay, November 14. Return to text
    7. For a review of Phillips curve formulations, see Robert J. Gordon (2018), “Friedman and Phelps on the Phillips Curve Viewed from a Half Century’s Perspective,” Review of Keynesian Economics, vol. 6 (4), pp. 425–36. Return to text
    8. The model that I will use is similar to the one described by Janet Yellen in her famous speech at the University of Massachusetts in 2015; see Janet L. Yellen (2015), “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, September 24. Return to text
    9. See Pierpaolo Benigno and Gauti B. Eggertsson (2023), “It’s Baaack: The Surge in Inflation in the 2020s and the Return of the Non-Linear Phillips Curve,” NBER Working Paper Series 31197 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, April). Return to text
    10. The results that I obtain for the 1990–2019 period are similar to those that Yellen reports for the 1990–2014 period. Return to text
    11. The ratio of job openings to unemployment has attracted the attention of many researchers. See, for instance, Olivier J. Blanchard and Ben S. Bernanke (2023), “What Caused the US Pandemic-Era Inflation?” NBER Working Paper Series 31417 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, June). Return to text
    12. Although job openings from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) go back only as far as the early 2000s, I use here the extended series from Barnichon that pieces together JOLTS data for the more recent period with a corrected version of the help-wanted index originally from the Conference Board for the period before 2001. See Regis Barnichon (2010), “Building a Composite Help-Wanted Index,” Economics Letters, vol. 109 (December), pp. 175–78. Return to text
    13. See Regis Barnichon and Adam Shapiro (2022), “What’s the Best Measure of Economic Slack?” FRBSF Economic Letter 2022-04 (San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, February); and Régis Barnichon and Adam Hale Shapiro (2024), “Phillips Meets Beveridge,” Journal of Monetary Economics, supp., vol. 148 (November), 103660. Return to text
    14. The Institute for Supply Management’s Supplier Deliveries Index has been around since the 1950s, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index since 1998, and the Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization since 2008. Return to text
    15. See Dario Caldara, Matteo Iacoviello, and David Yu (2024), “Measuring Shortages since 1900,” working paper. Their index is available at https://www.matteoiacoviello.com/shortages.html. Return to text
    16. Other authors have used natural language processing in an attempt to produce a measure of shortages. For instance, see Paul E. Soto (2023), “Measurement and Effects of Supply Chain Bottlenecks Using Natural Language Processing,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 6). Blanchard and Bernanke use Google searches for the word “shortage” as an indicator of sectoral supply constraints in a Phillips curve equation; see Blanchard and Bernanke, “What Caused the US Pandemic-Era Inflation?” in note 11. For an early-attempt, hand-coded shortage index, see Owen Lamont (1997), “Do ‘Shortages’ Cause Inflation?” in Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, eds., Reducing Inflation: Motivation and Strategy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 281–306. Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Economics: African Development Bank Group and European Union improve access to electricity in Liberia

    Source: African Development Bank Group
    At Roberts International Airport in Monrovia, regular travellers have noted a quiet revolution: for the last several months, arriving and leaving airport buildings is suddenly a peaceful process. The deafening noise from diesel generators, which used to roar all day long, is no more. They are now sitting idle,…

    MIL OSI Economics –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Economics: African Development Bank Partners with Interpol to Combat Financial Crime and Strengthen Anti-Corruption Efforts in Africa

    Source: African Development Bank Group
    The African Development Bank Group has taken a significant step forward in its fight against corruption and financial crime by signing a Letter of Intent with the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) today. The Bank Group is the first multilateral development bank to establish such a…

    MIL OSI Economics –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoeven, Cornyn, Colleagues Call on ATF to Overturn Unconstitutional Biden Rules & Support Trump 2A Agenda

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for North Dakota John Hoeven

    02.20.25

    WASHINGTON – Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) joined Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and 28 of their Senate GOP colleagues in sending a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director Marvin Richardson urging him to align the agency with President Trump’s Second Amendment priorities as laid out in his recent Executive Order. The senators called on Richardson to identify and rescind former President Biden’s unlawful firearms regulations, including the “Engaged in the Business” rule, pistol brace rule, “ghost gun” rule and “zero tolerance” policy under which ATF has revoked the licenses of federal firearm licensees (FFLs) over minor bookkeeping violations.

               “On Friday, February 7, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took decisive action to reaffirm law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights in issuing his Executive Order, Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” the senators wrote. “We urge you to immediately align ATF’s rules and policies with the President’s strong support for the Second Amendment.”

    “Under former President Joe Biden, ATF adopted numerous policies and rules that infringed upon Americans’ Second Amendment protections. President Trump’s Executive Order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to review and develop a plan of action regarding President Biden’s unlawful firearms regulations,” the senators continued. “We ask that you work with the Attorney General to quickly identify and rescind these policies.”

    Joining Senators Hoeven and Cornyn in sending the letter are Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Barrasso (R-WY), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Jim Justice (R-WV), Jim Risch (R-ID), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Steve Daines (R-MT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Crapo (R-ID), James Lankford (R-OK), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Rick Scott (R-FL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Ted Budd (R-NC), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Todd Young (R-IN), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Jim Banks (R-IN), and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

    Full text of the letter can be found here

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Risch, Schmitt Introduce the Dismantle DEI Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Idaho James E Risch

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) introduced the Dismantle DEI Act,  to codify into law President Trump’s executive actions terminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and initiatives. This bill makes Trump’s actions permanent, preventing future administrations from reinstating similar Biden-era DEI policies. 

    “Woke identity politics have impeded American progress for the last time,” said Risch. “President Trump’s executive action to end wasteful DEI initiatives will save taxpayer dollars and elevate individuals with the proper merit to make America great again. The Dismantle DEI Act restores commonsense by ensuring a person’s qualifications and hard work are what qualifies them for a position, not divisive DEI ideology.” 

    “DEI has plagued our federal government, academic institutions, and other aspects of our society for far too long, all while disregarding merit in the process. America is the greatest meritocracy the world has ever seen, and no taxpayer dollars should be wasted on funding this divisive ideology which undercuts the values our country was founded on. President Trump understands that these programs have absolutely no business in the federal government, and I am proud to introduce this critical legislation with Congressman Cloud that will save taxpayer dollars and put a stop to this DEI madness,” said Schmitt. 

    On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.” This executive action terminates DEI programs and initiatives throughout all federal departments and agencies, while also compiling a list of those federal contractors and grantees associated with those same programs. President Trump helped reverse many of the Biden administration’s prior executive actions on DEI programs.

    The Dismantle DEI Act helps build on the President’s agenda by:

    • Ensuring all DEI offices are terminated and prohibiting agencies from renaming or repurposing them to continue the same functions under new titles.

    • Barring federal funds from being used for DEI training, grants, or programs—including identity-based quotas and critical race theory.

    • Granting individuals the legal right to challenge any of these violations in court.

    Risch and Schmitt are joined by U.S. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in introducing this legislation. ?

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Logansport Financial Corp. Announces First Quarter Dividend

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LOGANSPORT, Ind., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Logansport Financial Corp. (OTCBB – Symbol “LOGN”), an Indiana corporation which is the holding company for Logansport Savings Bank, a State Commercial bank located in Logansport, Indiana, announces that Logansport Financial Corp. has declared a quarterly cash dividend of $.45 on each share of its common stock for the first quarter of 2025. The dividend is payable on April 14, 2025 to the holders of record on March 13, 2025.

    Contact: Kristie Richey
    Chief Financial Officer
    Phone 574-722-3855
    Fax 574-722-3857

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation Prices Public Offering of $300,000,000 6.340% Notes due 2030

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LOS ANGELES, CA, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation (NASDAQ: OCSL) (“OCSL” or the “Company”), a specialty finance company, today announced that it has priced an underwritten public offering of $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of 6.340% notes due 2030. The notes will mature on February 27, 2030 and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the Company’s option at any time at par plus a “make-whole” premium, if applicable.

    OCSL expects to use the net proceeds of this offering to reduce its outstanding debt under its revolving credit facilities and for general corporate purposes.

    SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., ING Financial Markets LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, CIBC World Markets Corp., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC are acting as joint book-running managers for this offering. KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., First Citizens Capital Securities, LLC, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., A Stifel Company, R. Seelaus & Co., LLC, B. Riley Securities, Inc., Blaylock Van, LLC, Citizens JMP Securities, LLC, Jefferies LLC and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. are acting as co-managers for this offering. The offering is expected to close on February 27, 2025, subject to customary closing conditions.

    Investors are advised to carefully consider the investment objective, risks, charges and expenses of OCSL before investing. The pricing term sheet dated February 20, 2025, the preliminary prospectus supplement dated February 20, 2025 and the accompanying prospectus dated February 7, 2023, each of which have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contain this and other information about the Company and should be read carefully before investing.

    The pricing term sheet, the preliminary prospectus supplement, the accompanying prospectus and this press release are not offers to sell any securities of OCSL and are not soliciting an offer to buy such securities in any jurisdiction where such offer and sale is not permitted.

    The offering may be made only by means of a preliminary prospectus supplement and an accompanying prospectus. Copies of the preliminary prospectus supplement (and accompanying prospectus) may be obtained by calling SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. at 1-212-224-5135, BNP Paribas Securities Corp. at 1-800-854-5674, ING Financial Markets LLC at 1-877-446-4930 or Wells Fargo Securities, LLC at 1-800-645-3751.

    About Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation

    Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation (NASDAQ:OCSL) is a specialty finance company dedicated to providing customized one-stop credit solutions to companies with limited access to public or syndicated capital markets. The Company’s investment objective is to generate current income and capital appreciation by providing companies with flexible and innovative financing solutions including first and second lien loans, unsecured and mezzanine loans, and preferred equity. The Company is regulated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and is externally managed by Oaktree Fund Advisors, LLC, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    Some of the statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements because they relate to future events, future performance or financial condition. The forward-looking statements may include statements as to: future operating results of the Company and distribution projections; business prospects of the Company and the prospects of its portfolio companies; and the impact of the investments that the Company expects to make. In addition, words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “seek,” “plan,” “should,” “estimate,” “project” and “intend” indicate forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements include these words. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release involve risks and uncertainties. Certain factors could cause actual results and conditions to differ materially from those projected, including the uncertainties associated with (i) changes in the economy, financial markets and political environment, including the impacts of inflation and elevated interest rates; (ii) risks associated with possible disruption in the operations of the Company or the economy generally due to terrorism, war or other geopolitical conflict (including the current conflicts in Ukraine and Israel), natural disasters, pandemics or cybersecurity incidents; (iii) future changes in laws or regulations (including the interpretation of these laws and regulations by regulatory authorities); (iv) conditions in the Company’s operating areas, particularly with respect to business development companies or regulated investment companies; and (v) other considerations that may be disclosed from time to time in the Company’s publicly disseminated documents and filings. The Company has based the forward-looking statements included in this press release on information available to it on the date of this press release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, you are advised to consult any additional disclosures that it may make directly to you or through reports that the Company in the future may file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.

    Contacts
    Investor Relations:
    Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation
    Dane Kleven
    (213) 356-3260
    ocsl-ir@oaktreecapital.com

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Renasant Corporation Declares Quarterly Dividend

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TUPELO, Miss., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The board of directors of Renasant Corporation (NYSE: RNST) approved the payment of a quarterly cash dividend of twenty-two cents ($0.22) per share to be paid March 31, 2025, to shareholders of record as of March 17, 2025.

    ABOUT RENASANT CORPORATION:
    Renasant Corporation is the parent of Renasant Bank, a 120-year-old financial services institution. Renasant has assets of approximately $18.0 billion and operates 186 banking, lending, mortgage, and wealth management offices throughout the Southeast as well as offering factoring and asset-based lending on a nationwide basis.

    For more information, please visit www.renasantbank.com or Renasant’s IR site at www.renasant.com.

    Contacts:  For Media: For Financials:
      John S. Oxford James C. Mabry IV
      Senior Vice President Executive Vice President
      Chief Marketing Officer Chief Financial Officer
      (662) 680-1219 (662) 680-1281
      joxford@renasant.com jim.mabry@renasant.com

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: LPL Financial Reports Monthly Activity for January 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    SAN DIEGO, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — LPL Financial LLC (“LPL Financial”), a wholly owned subsidiary of LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) (the “Company”), today released its monthly activity report for January 2025.

    Total advisory and brokerage assets at the end of January were $1.81 trillion, an increase of $71.1 billion, or 4.1%, compared to the end of December 2024.

    Total net new assets for January were $34.1 billion, which included $0.1 billion of acquired net new assets resulting from Liquidity & Succession activity.

    Total organic net new assets for January were $34.0 billion, translating to a 23.4% annualized growth rate. This included $13.5 billion of assets from Prudential Advisors (“Prudential”) and $15.2 billion of assets from Wintrust Investments, LLC and certain private client business at Great Lakes Advisors, LLC (collectively, “Wintrust”) that onboarded in January, and $0.2 billion of assets that off-boarded as part of the previously disclosed planned separation from misaligned large OSJs. Prior to these impacts, organic net new assets were $5.4 billion, translating to a 3.9% annualized growth rate.

    Total client cash balances at the end of January were $52.2 billion, a decrease of $2.9 billion compared to the end of December 2024. Net buying in January was $14.5 billion.

    (End of period $ in billions, unless noted) January December Change January Change
    2025 2024 M/M 2024 Y/Y
    Advisory and Brokerage Assets          
    Advisory assets 992.4 957.0 3.7% 740.7 34.0%
    Brokerage assets 819.4 783.7 4.6% 621.1 31.9%
    Total Advisory and Brokerage Assets 1,811.8 1,740.7 4.1% 1,361.8 33.0%
               
    Organic Net New Assets          
    Organic net new advisory assets 13.4 12.5 n/m 2.4 n/m
    Organic net new brokerage assets 20.5 12.9 n/m (0.4) n/m
    Total Organic Net New Assets 34.0 25.5 n/m 2.0 n/m
               
    Acquired Net New Assets          
    Acquired net new advisory assets 0.1 0.0 n/m 0.0 n/m
    Acquired net new brokerage assets 0.0 0.2 n/m 0.0 n/m
    Total Acquired Net New Assets 0.1 0.3 n/m 0.0 n/m
               
    Total Net New Assets          
    Net new advisory assets 13.5 12.6 n/m 2.4 n/m
    Net new brokerage assets 20.6 13.2 n/m (0.4) n/m
    Total Net New Assets 34.1 25.8 n/m 2.0 n/m
               
    Net brokerage to advisory conversions 2.1 2.0 n/m 1.0 n/m
               
    Client Cash Balances          
    Insured cash account sweep 36.2 38.3 (5.5%) 33.7 7.4%
    Deposit cash account sweep 10.0 10.7 (6.5%) 8.9 12.4%
    Total Bank Sweep 46.3 49.0 (5.5%) 42.6 8.7%
    Money market sweep 4.1 4.3 (4.7%) 2.4 70.8%
    Total Client Cash Sweep Held by Third Parties 50.4 53.3 (5.4%) 45.0 12.0%
    Client cash account(1) 1.8 1.8 —% 1.9 (5.3%)
    Total Client Cash Balances 52.2 55.1 (5.3%) 46.9 11.3%
               
    Net buy (sell) activity 14.5 13.5 n/m 12.0 n/m
               
    Market Drivers          
    S&P 500 Index (end of period) 6,041 5,882 2.7% 4,846 24.7%
    Russell 2000 Index (end of period) 2,288 2,230 2.6% 1,947 17.5%
    Fed Funds daily effective rate (average bps) 433 448 (3.3%) 533 (18.8%)
               

    For additional information regarding these and other LPL Financial business metrics, please refer to the Company’s most recent earnings announcement, which is available in the quarterly results section of investor.lpl.com.

    Contacts

    Investor Relations
    investor.relations@lplfinancial.com

    Media Relations
    media.relations@lplfinancial.com

    About LPL Financial

    LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: LPLA) is among the fastest growing wealth management firms in the U.S. As a leader in the financial advisor-mediated marketplace, LPL supports nearly 29,000 financial advisors and the wealth management practices of approximately 1,200 financial institutions, servicing and custodying approximately $1.7 trillion in brokerage and advisory assets on behalf of approximately 6 million Americans. The firm provides a wide range of advisor affiliation models, investment solutions, fintech tools and practice management services, ensuring that advisors and institutions have the flexibility to choose the business model, services, and technology resources they need to run thriving businesses. For further information about LPL, please visit www.lpl.com.

    Securities and advisory services offered through LPL Financial LLC (“LPL Financial”), a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer, member FINRA/SIPC.

    Throughout this communication, the terms “financial advisors” and “advisors” are used to refer to registered representatives and/or investment advisor representatives affiliated with LPL Financial.

    We routinely disclose information that may be important to shareholders in the “Investor Relations” or “Press Releases” section of our website.


    Note: Totals may not foot due to rounding.
    (1) During the first quarter of 2024, the Company updated its definition of client cash account balances to exclude other client payables. Prior period disclosures have been updated to reflect this change as applicable.

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Employers Holdings, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter 2024 and Full-Year Financial Results; Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend of $0.30 per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    RENO, Nev., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Employers Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) (NYSE:EIG), a holding company with subsidiaries that are specialty providers of workers’ compensation insurance and services focused on small and mid-sized businesses engaged in low-to-medium hazard industries, today reported financial results for its fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024.

    Full-Year 2024 Financial Highlights

    (All comparisons versus full-year 2023)

    • Net income of $118.6 million ($4.71 per diluted share), versus $118.1 million ($4.45 per diluted share);
    • Adjusted net income of $94.0 million ($3.73 per diluted share), versus $101.7 million ($3.83 per diluted share);
    • Net investment income of $107.0 million, versus $106.5 million;
    • Gross premiums written of $776.3 million, versus $767.7 million;
    • Net premiums earned of $749.5 million, versus $721.9 million;
    • Net favorable prior year loss reserve development of $18.4 million, versus $44.9 million;
    • GAAP combined ratio of 97.9% (98.6% excluding the LPT), versus 95.0% (96.0% excluding the LPT);
    • Returned $71.7 million to stockholders through a combination of share repurchases and regular quarterly dividends;
    • Record number of ending policies in-force of 130,767, versus 126,409; and
    • Adjusted Book value per share of $50.71, up 9.8% including dividends declared.

    Fourth Quarter 2024 Financial Highlights

    (All comparisons versus fourth quarter 2023)

    • Net income of $28.3 million ($1.14 per diluted share), versus $45.6 million ($1.77 per diluted share);
    • Adjusted net income of $28.7 million ($1.15 per diluted share), versus $36.1 million ($1.40 per diluted share);
    • Net investment income of $26.7 million, versus $26.2 million;
    • Gross premiums written of $176.3 million, versus $178.2 million;
    • Net premiums earned of $190.2 million, versus $187.5 million;
    • Net favorable prior year loss reserve development of $9.1 million, versus $24.9 million;
    • GAAP combined ratio of 95.5% (including and excluding the LPT), versus 88.1% (88.8% excluding the LPT); and
    • Returned $17.5 million to stockholders through a combination of share repurchases and a regular quarterly dividend.

    CEO Commentary

    Chief Executive Officer Katherine Antonello commented: “We are pleased with our fourth quarter and full-year 2024 results. In fact, we closed the year with the highest levels of written and earned premium, ending in-force premium and policies and net investment income in the Company’s history.

    We achieved solid growth in new and renewal premium in 2024, but that growth was offset by lower final audit premiums and endorsements. Our investment performance contributed nicely to our overall results and financial strength. In addition to the record level of net investment income we generated, we also recognized $24.1 million of after-tax unrealized gains from our common stocks and other investments.”

    Ms. Antonello continued, “Our current accident year loss and LAE ratio on voluntary business was 64.0%, slightly above the loss and LAE ratio we maintained throughout 2023 and consistent with that of 2022. Our fourth quarter full reserve study led to the recognition of $8.6 million of net favorable prior year loss reserve development from our voluntary business. Those actions, coupled with our continual focus on our underwriting expenses, yielded an ex-LPT combined ratio of 95.5% for the fourth quarter, and 98.6% for the full year.

    Our active capital management efforts throughout 2024, which consisted of $41.7 million of share repurchases and $30.0 million of regular quarterly dividends, contributed to year-over-year increases of 10.6% and 9.8% in our book value per share including the deferred gain and adjusted book value per share, respectively. Our focus on disciplined underwriting, prudent risk management, and strategic investments has positioned us strongly in the workers’ compensation insurance market, which is evidenced by the recent upgrade to our insurance companies’ AM Best Financial Strength Rating to “A” (Excellent).

    Beyond our financial results, we continue to offer direct-to-consumer policies through the Cerity brand but, with the Cerity integration that was undertaken a year ago, we now do so without any meaningful fixed underwriting expenses. Further, our continued focus for 2025 will be on further appetite expansion, increased self-service options for policyholders, agents and injured workers and greater operational efficiencies.

    Finally, we are saddened by the California wildfires and the impact on the Los Angeles area community and small businesses. Our thoughts are with all of those who have lost their homes, businesses, and livelihoods, and we are working with our partners to provide immediate and long-term assistance. As a monoline workers’ compensation insurance provider, these catastrophic events would not typically have a significant impact on our results, nor our long-term trends. We have analyzed the loss exposure and experience in the affected fire zones and have determined that approximately 1% of our in-force policies, representing less than 1% of our payroll exposure, are within the impacted areas and we are not currently experiencing any significant impacts from these devastating fires.”

    Summary of Consolidated Fourth Quarter 2024 Results

    (All comparisons versus fourth quarter 2023, unless otherwise noted)

    Gross premiums written were $176.3 million, a decrease of 1%. The slight decrease was due to higher new and renewal business writings being offset by lower final audit premiums and endorsements. Net earned premiums were $190.2 million, an increase of 1%.

    Losses and loss adjustment expenses were $113.2 million, an increase of 22%. The increase was due to higher earned premium, lower net favorable prior year loss reserve development and a slightly higher current accident year loss and loss adjustment expense provision. The Company recognized $9.1 million of favorable prior year loss reserve development versus $24.9 million. The Company’s loss and loss adjustment expense ratio was 59.5% for the quarter (including and excluding the LPT) versus 49.5% (50.2% excluding the LPT).

    Total underwriting expenses (consisting of commissions, other underwriting and general and administrative expenses) were $68.6 million, a decrease of 5%. The decrease was primarily related to lower information technology expenses resulting from the Cerity integration plan that was executed in the fourth quarter of 2023, lower compensation-related expenses and a non-recurring commission adjustment, partially offset by higher bad debt expense. The Company’s total underwriting expense ratio was 36.0% versus 38.6%.

    Within the 2024 periods presented herein, the Company refined its presentation of certain expenses associated with its involuntary premium. This revision, which was immaterial, had the effect of reducing both its fourth quarter and full year 2024 commission expense ratios by approximately 0.3 percentage points, and increasing its respective underwriting and general and administrative expense ratios by the same amount. This revision had no net effect on the Company’s total underwriting expenses or net income.

    Net investment income was $26.7 million, an increase of 2%. The increase was due to higher investment yields, partially offset by lower invested balances of fixed maturity securities, short-term investments and cash and cash equivalents, as measured by amortized cost.

    Net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on investments reflected on the income statement were $(0.4) million versus $12.1 million.

    Interest and financing expenses were $0.1 million versus $0.6 million. The decrease resulted from the unwinding of our former Federal Home Loan Bank leveraged investment strategy in the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Other expenses of $1.6 million recorded in the fourth quarter of 2023 consisted of a non-recurring charge in connection with previously capitalized cloud computing costs.

    Federal and state income tax expense was $6.4 million (18.4% effective rate) versus $12.6 million (21.6% effective rate). The effective rates in each period reflect applicable income tax benefits and exclusions associated with tax-advantaged investment income, LPT adjustments, pre-privatization loss and loss adjustment expense reserve adjustments and deferred gain amortization.

    The Company’s book value per share including the deferred gain of $47.35 increased by 10.6% during 2024 and its adjusted book value per share of $50.71 increased by 9.8% during 2024, each including dividends declared. These measures were favorably impacted by $24.1 million of net after tax unrealized gains arising from equity securities and other investments.

    Share Repurchases and First Quarter 2025 Dividend Declaration

    During the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company repurchased 193,857 shares of its common stock at an average price of $51.20 per share. During the period from January 1, 2025 through February 19, 2025, the Company repurchased a further 222,438 shares of its common stock at an average price of $49.38 per share. The Company currently has a remaining share repurchase authorization of $18.7 million.

    On February 19, 2025, the Board of Directors declared a first quarter dividend of $0.30 per share. The dividend is payable on March 19, 2025 to stockholders of record as of March 5, 2025.

    Earnings Conference Call and Webcast

    The Company will host a conference call on Friday, February 21, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time / 8:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time.

    To participate in the live conference call, you must first register here. Once registered you will receive dial-in numbers and a unique PIN number.

    The webcast will be accessible on the Company’s website at www.employers.com through the “Investors” link.

    Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures to GAAP

    Within this earnings release we present various financial measures, some of which are “non-GAAP financial measures” as defined in Regulation G pursuant to Section 401 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002. A description of these non-GAAP financial measures, as well as a reconciliation of such non-GAAP measures to our most directly comparable GAAP financial measures is included in the attached Financial Supplement. Management believes that these non-GAAP measures are important to the Company’s investors, analysts and other interested parties who benefit from having an objective and consistent basis for comparison with other companies within our industry. Management further believes that these measures are more relevant than comparable GAAP measures in evaluating our financial performance.

    The information in this press release should be read in conjunction with the Financial Supplement that is attached to this press release and available on our website.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    In this press release, the Company and its management discuss and make statements based on currently available information regarding their intentions, beliefs, current expectations, and projections of, among other things, the Company’s future performance, economic or market conditions, including current or future levels of inflation, changes in interest rates, labor market expectations, catastrophic events or geo-political conditions, legislative or regulatory actions or court decisions, business growth, retention rates, loss costs, claim trends and the impact of key business initiatives, future technologies and planned investments. Certain of these statements may constitute “forward-looking” statements as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts and are often identified by words such as “may,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “target,” “project,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “pro forma,” “seek,” “likely,” or “continue,” or other comparable terminology and their negatives. The Company and its management caution investors that such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Risks and uncertainties are inherent in the Company’s future performance. Factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements include, among other things, those discussed or identified from time to time in the Company’s public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including the risks detailed in the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K. Except as required by applicable securities laws, the Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

    Filings with the SEC

    The Company’s filings with the SEC and its quarterly investor presentations can be accessed through the “Investors” link on the Company’s website, www.employers.com. The Company’s filings with the SEC can also be accessed through the SEC’s EDGAR Database at www.sec.gov (EDGAR CIK No. 0001379041).

    About Employers Holdings, Inc.

    Employers Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: EIG), is a holding company with subsidiaries that are specialty providers of workers’ compensation insurance and services (collectively “EMPLOYERS®”) focused on small and mid-sized businesses engaged in low-to-medium hazard industries. EMPLOYERS leverages over a century of experience to deliver comprehensive coverage solutions that meet the unique needs of its customers. Drawing from its long history and extensive knowledge, EMPLOYERS empowers businesses by protecting their most valuable asset – their employees – through exceptional claims management, loss control, and risk management services, creating safer work environments.

    EMPLOYERS is also proud to offer Cerity®, which is focused on providing digital-first, direct-to-consumer workers’ compensation insurance solutions with fast, and affordable coverage options through a user-friendly online platform.

    EMPLOYERS operates throughout the United States, apart from four states that are served exclusively by their state funds. Insurance is offered through Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, Employers Compensation Insurance Company, Employers Preferred Insurance Company, Employers Assurance Company and Cerity Insurance Company, all rated A (Excellent) by AM Best. Not all companies do business in all jurisdictions. EIG Services, Inc., and Cerity Services, Inc., are subsidiaries of Employers Holdings, Inc. EMPLOYERS® is a registered trademark of EIG Services, Inc., and Cerity® is a registered trademark of Cerity Services, Inc. For more information, please visit www.employers.com and www.cerity.com.

    Contact Information

    Mike Paquette (775) 327-2562 or mpaquette@employers.com

    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Table of Contents

    Page

    1. Consolidated Financial Highlights
    2. Summary Consolidated Balance Sheets
    3. Summary Consolidated Income Statements
    4. Return on Equity
    5. Combined Ratios
    6. Roll-forward of Unpaid Losses and LAE
    7. Consolidated Investment Portfolio
    8. Book Value Per Share
    9. Earnings Per Share
    10. Non-GAAP Financial Measures
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Consolidated Financial Highlights (unaudited)
    $ in millions, except per share amounts
                        
        Three Months Ended           Years Ended      
        December 31,           December 31,      
        2024       2023     % change     2024       2023     % change
    Selected financial highlights:                          
    Gross premiums written  $ 176.3     $ 178.2     (1 )%   $ 776.3     $ 767.7     1 %
    Net premiums written   174.7       176.4     (1 )     769.5       760.6     1  
    Net premiums earned   190.2       187.5     1       749.5       721.9     4  
    Net investment income   26.7       26.2     2       107.0       106.5     —  
    Net income excluding LPT (1)   28.4       44.4     (36 )     113.0       110.9     2  
    Adjusted net income (1)   28.7       36.1     (20 )     94.0       101.7     (8 )
    Net income before income taxes   34.7       58.2     (40 )     146.7       148.4     (1 )
    Net income   28.3       45.6     (38 )     118.6       118.1     —  
    Comprehensive income (loss)   (8.9 )     116.2     (108 )     122.1       171.0     (29 )
    Total assets                   3,541.3       3,550.4     —  
    Stockholders’ equity                   1,068.7       1,013.9     5  
    Stockholders’ equity including the Deferred Gain (2)                   1,162.7       1,113.1     4  
    Adjusted stockholders’ equity (2)                   1,245.2       1,199.1     4  
    Annualized adjusted return on stockholders’ equity (3)   9.3 %     12.2 %   (24 )%     7.7 %     8.5 %   (9 )
    Amounts per share:                          
    Cash dividends declared per share  $ 0.30     $ 0.28     7 %   $ 1.18     $ 1.10     7 %
    Earnings per diluted share (4)   1.14       1.77     (36 )     4.71       4.45     6  
    Earnings per diluted share excluding LPT (4)           1.72     (34 )     4.49       4.18     7  
    Adjusted earnings per diluted share(4)   1.14       1.40     (18 )     3.73       3.83     (3 )
    Book value per share (2)   1.15               43.52       39.96     9  
    Book value per share including the Deferred Gain (2)                   47.35       43.88     8  
    Adjusted book value per share (2)                   50.71       47.26     7  
    Combined ratio excluding LPT: (5)                          
    Loss and loss adjustment expense ratio:                          
    Current year   64.2 %     63.5 %         64.1 %     63.4 %    
    Prior Year   (4.7 )     (13.3 )         (2.5 )     (6.2 )    
    Loss and loss adjustment expense ratio   59.5 %     50.2 %         61.6 %     57.2 %    
    Commission expense ratio   12.8       14.0           13.5       13.9      
    Underwriting and general and administrative expense ratio   23.2       24.6           23.5       24.9      
    Combined ratio excluding LPT   95.5 %     88.8 %         98.6 %     96.0 %    
         
    (1) See Page 5 for calculations and Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
    (2) See Page 10 for calculations and Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
    (3) See Page 6 for calculations and Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
    (4) See Page 11 for calculations and Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
    (5) See Page 7 for calculations and Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.  
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Summary Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited)
    $ in millions, except per share amounts
      December 31,
    2024
        December 31,
    2023
     
    ASSETS            
    Available for sale:            
    Investments, cash and cash equivalents $ 2,532.4   $ 2,504.7  
    Accrued investment income   15.7     16.3  
    Premiums receivable, net   361.3     359.4  
    Reinsurance recoverable, net of allowance, on paid and unpaid losses and LAE   417.8     433.8  
    Deferred policy acquisition costs   59.6     55.6  
    Deferred income taxes, net   38.3     43.4  
    Contingent commission receivable—LPT Agreement   —     14.2  
    Other assets   116.2     123.0  
    Total assets $ 3,541.3   $ 3,550.4  
                 
    LIABILITIES            
    Unpaid losses and LAE $ 1,808.2   $ 1,884.5  
    Unearned premiums   402.2     379.7  
    Commissions and premium taxes payable   65.8     66.0  
    Deferred Gain   94.0     99.2  
    Other liabilities   102.4     107.1  
    Total liabilities $ 2,472.6   $ 2,536.5  
                 
    STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY            
    Common stock and additional paid-in capital $ 424.8   $ 420.4  
    Retained earnings   1,472.9     1,384.3  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net   (82.5 )   (86.0 )
    Treasury stock, at cost   (746.5 )   (704.8 )
    Total stockholders’ equity   1,068.7     1,013.9  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 3,541.3   $ 3,550.4  
                 
    Stockholders’ equity including the Deferred Gain (1) $ 1,162.7   $ 1,113.1  
    Adjusted stockholders’ equity (1)   1,245.2     1,199.1  
    Book value per share (1) $ 43.52   $ 39.96  
    Book value per share including the Deferred Gain (1)   47.35     43.88  
    Adjusted book value per share (1)   50.71     47.26  
                 
    (1) See Page 10 for calculations and Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.            
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Summary Consolidated Income Statements (unaudited)
    $ in millions
                             
      Three Months Ended     Years Ended
     
      December 31,     December 31,
     
        2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Revenues:        
    Net premiums earned $ 190.2   $ 187.5   $ 749.5   $ 721.9  
    Net investment income   26.7     26.2     107.0     106.5  
    Net realized and unrealized (losses) gains on investments (1)   (0.4 )   12.1     24.1     22.7  
    Other income (loss)   0.1     (0.1 )   0.1     (0.2 )
    Total revenues   216.6     225.7     880.7     850.9  
    Expenses:        
    Losses and LAE incurred   113.2     92.9     456.2     405.7  
    Commission expense   24.4     26.3     101.2     100.0  
    Underwriting and general and administrative expenses   44.2     46.1     176.5     180.0  
    Interest and financing expenses   0.1     0.6     0.1     5.8  
    Other expenses   —     1.6     —     11.0  
    Total expenses   (181.9 )   (167.5 )   (734.0 )   (702.5 )
    Net income before income taxes   34.7     58.2     146.7     148.4  
    Income tax expense   (6.4 )   (12.6 )   (28.1 )   (30.3 )
    Net income   28.3     45.6     118.6     118.1  
    Unrealized AFS investment (losses) gains arising during the period, net of tax   (39.2 )   66.6     (3.5 )   46.6  
    Reclassification adjustment for realized AFS investment gains in net income, net of tax   2.0     4.0     7.0     6.3  
    Total Comprehensive income $ (8.9 ) $ 116.2   $ 122.1   $ 171.0  
    Net income $ 28.3   $ 45.6   $ 118.6   $ 118.1  
    Amortization of the Deferred Gain – losses   (1.6 )   (1.5 )   (6.1 )   (6.3 )
    Amortization of the Deferred Gain – contingent commission   —     (0.3 )   (0.8 )   (1.5 )
    LPT reserve adjustment   1.7     0.9     1.7     0.9  
    LPT contingent commission adjustments   —     (0.3 )   (0.4 )   (0.3 )
    Net income excluding LPT Agreement (2) $ 28.4   $ 44.4   $ 113.0   $ 110.9  
    Net realized and unrealized losses (gains) on investments   0.4     (12.1 )   (24.1 )   (22.7 )
    Lease termination and asset impairment charges   —     1.6     —     11.0  
    Income tax (benefit) expense related to items excluded from Net income   (0.1 )   2.2     5.1     2.5  
    Adjusted net income (2) $ 28.7   $ 36.1   $ 94.0   $ 101.7  
                             
    (1) Includes unrealized gains on equity securities and other invested assets of $2.4 million and $17.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, and $30.5 million and $36.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively
    (2) See Page 12 regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Return on Equity (unaudited)
    $ in millions
                             
      Three Months Ended    Years Ended  
      December 31,
       December 31,
     
        2024     2023     2024     2023  
           
    Net income A $ 28.3   $ 45.6   $ 118.6   $ 118.1  
    Impact of the LPT Agreement     0.1     (1.2 )   (5.6 )   (7.2 )
    Net realized and unrealized losses (gains) on investments     0.4     (12.1 )   (24.1 )   (22.7 )
    Lease termination and asset impairment charges     —     1.6     —     11.0  
    Income tax (benefit) expense related to items excluded from Net income     (0.1 )   2.2     5.1     2.5  
    Adjusted net income (1) B $ 28.7   $ 36.1   $ 94.0   $ 101.7  
               
    Stockholders’ equity – end of period   $ 1,068.7   $ 1,013.9   $ 1,068.7   $ 1,013.9  
    Stockholders’ equity – beginning of period     1,093.4     919.0     1,013.9     944.2  
    Average stockholders’ equity C $ 1,081.1   $ 966.5   $ 1,041.3   $ 979.1  
               
    Stockholders’ equity – end of period   $ 1,068.7   $ 1,013.9   $ 1,068.7   $ 1,013.9  
    Deferred Gain – end of period     94.0     99.2     94.0     99.2  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss, before taxes – end of period     104.5     108.9     104.5     108.9  
    Income tax related to accumulated other comprehensive loss – end of period     (22.0 )   (22.9 )   (22.0 )   (22.9 )
    Adjusted stockholders’ equity – end of period     1,245.2     1,199.1     1,245.2     1,199.1  
    Adjusted stockholders’ equity – beginning of period     1,232.5     1,175.8     1,199.1     1,189.2  
    Average adjusted stockholders’ equity (1) D $ 1,238.9   $ 1,187.5   $ 1,222.2   $ 1,194.2  
               
    Return on stockholders’ equity A / C   2.6 %   4.7 %   11.4 %   12.1 %
    Annualized return on stockholders’ equity     10.5     18.9      
               
    Adjusted return on stockholders’ equity (1) B / D   2.3     3.0     7.7     8.5  
    Annualized adjusted return on stockholders’ equity (1)     9.3     12.2      
               
    (1) See Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.     
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Combined Ratios (unaudited)
    $ in millions, except per share amounts
                                   
          Three Months Ended      Years Ended  
          December 31,     December 31,  
            2024     2023        2024     2023  
    Net premiums earned A   $ 190.2   $ 187.5     $ 749.5   $ 721.9  
    Losses and LAE incurred B     113.2     92.9       456.2     405.7  
    Amortization of deferred reinsurance gain – losses       1.6     1.5       6.1     6.3  
    Amortization of deferred reinsurance gain – contingent commission       —     0.3       0.8     1.5  
    LPT reserve adjustment       (1.7 )   (0.9 )     (1.7 )   (0.9 )
    LPT contingent commission adjustments       —     0.3       0.4     0.3  
    Losses and LAE excluding LPT (1) C   $ 113.1   $ 94.1     $ 461.8   $ 412.9  
    Prior year loss reserve development       (9.1 )   (24.9 )     (18.4 )   (44.9 )
    Losses and LAE excluding LPT – current accident year D   $ 122.2   $ 119.0     $ 480.2   $ 457.8  
    Commission expense E   $ 24.4   $ 26.3     $ 101.2   $ 100.0  
    Underwriting and general and administrative expense F   $ 44.2   $ 46.1     $ 176.5   $ 180.0  
    GAAP combined ratio:            
    Loss and LAE ratio B/A     59.5 %   49.5 %     60.9 %   56.2 %
    Commission expense ratio E/A     12.8     14.0       13.5     13.9  
    Underwriting and general and administrative expense ratio F/A     23.2     24.6       23.5     24.9  
    GAAP combined ratio       95.5 %   88.1 %     97.9 %   95.0 %
    Combined ratio excluding LPT: (1)            
    Loss and LAE ratio excluding LPT C/A     59.5 %   50.2 %     61.6 %   57.2 %
    Commission expense ratio E/A     12.8     14.0       13.5     13.9  
    Underwriting and general and administrative expense ratio F/A     23.2     24.6       23.5     24.9  
    Combined ratio excluding LPT       95.5 %   88.8 %     98.6 %   96.0 %
    Combined ratio excluding LPT: current accident year: (1)            
    Loss and LAE ratio excluding LPT D/A     64.2 %   63.5 %     64.1 %   63.4 %
    Commission expense ratio E/A     12.8     14.0       13.5     13.9  
    Underwriting and general and administrative expenses ratio F/A     23.2     24.6       23.5     24.9  
    Combined ratio excluding LPT: current accident year       100.2 %   102.1 %     101.1 %   102.2 %
                 
    (1) See Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.      
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Roll-forward of Unpaid Losses and LAE (unaudited)
    $ in millions
                                   
      Three Months Ended      Years Ended  
      December 31,     December 31,  
        2024       2023       2024       2023  
                                   
    Unpaid losses and LAE at beginning of period $ 1,836.5     $ 1,913.4     $ 1,884.5     $ 1,960.7  
    Less reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses and LAE   413.1       426.6       428.4       445.4  
    Net unpaid losses and LAE at beginning of period   1,423.4       1,486.8       1,456.1       1,515.3  
    Losses and LAE incurred:        
    Current year   122.2       119.1       480.2       457.8  
    Prior years – voluntary business   (8.6 )     (24.6 )     (17.9 )     (44.6 )
    Prior years – involuntary business   (0.5 )     (0.3 )     (0.5 )     (0.3 )
    Total losses incurred   113.1       94.2       461.8       412.9  
    Losses and LAE paid:        
    Current year   57.9       47.6       127.1       111.7  
    Prior years   82.8       77.3       395.0       360.4  
    Total paid losses   140.7       124.9       522.1       472.1  
    Net unpaid losses and LAE at end of period   1,395.8       1,456.1       1,395.8       1,456.1  
    Reinsurance recoverable, excluding CECL allowance, on unpaid losses and LAE   412.4       428.4       412.4       428.4  
    Unpaid losses and LAE at end of period $ 1,808.2     $ 1,884.5     $ 1,808.2     $ 1,884.5  
     
    Total losses and LAE shown in the above table exclude amortization of the Deferred Gain, LPT Reserve Adjustments, and LPT Contingent Commission Adjustments, which totaled $(0.1) million and $1.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, and $5.6 million and $7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively.
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Consolidated Investment Portfolio (unaudited)
    $ in millions
                                 
       December 31, 2024      December 31, 2023   
    Investment Positions:   Cost or
    Amortized
    Cost (1)
      Net Unrealized
    Gain (Loss)
        Fair Value %       Fair Value %  
    Fixed maturity securities $ 2,203.1 $ (104.6)   $ 2,097.4 83 %   $ 1,936.3 77 %
    Equity securities   150.7   109.1     259.8 10       217.2 9  
    Other invested assets   90.9   15.7     106.6 4       91.5 4  
    Short-term investments   0.1   —     0.1 —       33.1 1  
    Cash and cash equivalents   68.3   —     68.3 3       226.4 9  
    Restricted cash and cash equivalents   0.2   —     0.2 —       0.2 —  
    Total investments and cash $ 2,513.3 $ 20.2   $ 2,532.4 100 %   $ 2,504.7 100 %
                                 
    Breakout of Fixed Maturity Securities:                            
    U.S. Treasuries and Agencies $ 61.4 $ (2.1 ) $ 59.3 3 %   $ 60.5 3 %
    States and Municipalities   163.0   (3.7 )   159.3 8       210.2 11  
    Corporate Securities   849.2   (46.0 )   803.0 38       895.8 46  
    Mortgage-Backed Securities   733.1   (47.9 )   684.9 33       426.0 22  
    Asset-Backed Securities   216.0   (2.0 )   214.0 10       128.0 7  
    Collateralized loan obligations   35.5   (0.2 )   35.3 2       91.5 5  
    Bank loans and other   144.9   (2.7 )   141.6 7       124.3 6  
    Total fixed maturity securities $ 2,203.1 $ (104.6 ) $ 2,097.4 100 %   $ 1,936.3 100 %
    Weighted average ending book yield on fixed income securities, cash, and cash equivalents   4.5 %     4.3 %
    Average credit quality (S&P) A+ A
    Duration   4.5       4.5  
     
    (1) Amortized cost excludes an allowance for current expected credit losses (CECL) of $1.1 million  
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Book Value Per Share (unaudited)
    $ in millions, except per share amounts
                       
            December 31,
    2024
          December 31,
    2023
     
    Numerators:                  
    Stockholders’ equity A   $ 1,068.7     $ 1,013.9  
    Deferred Gain       94.0       99.2  
    Stockholders’ equity including the Deferred Gain (1) B     1,162.7       1,113.1  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss, before taxes       104.5       108.9  
    Income taxes related to accumulated other comprehensive loss, before taxes       (22.0 )     (22.9 )
    Adjusted stockholders’ equity (1) C   $ 1,245.2     $ 1,199.1  
             
    Denominator (shares outstanding) D     24,556,706       25,369,753  
             
    Book value per share (1) A / D   $ 43.52     $ 39.96  
    Book value per share including the Deferred Gain (1) B / D     47.35       43.88  
    Adjusted book value per share (1) C / D     50.71       47.26  
             
    Cash dividends declared per share     $ 1.18     $ 1.10  
             
    YTD Change in: (2)        
    Book value per share       11.9 %     18.1 %
    Book value per share including the Deferred Gain       10.6       16.3  
    Adjusted book value per share       9.8       10.5  
                       
    (1) See Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.
    (2) Reflects the change per share after taking into account dividends declared in the period.
    EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS, INC.
    Earnings Per Share (unaudited)
    $ in millions, except per share amounts
                             
      Three Months Ended   Years Ended  
      December 31,
      December 31,
     
        2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Numerators:            
    Net income A   $ 28.3   $ 45.6   $ 118.6   $ 118.1  
    Impact of the LPT Agreement       0.1     (1.2 )   (5.6 )   (7.2 )
    Net income excluding LPT (1) B   $ 28.4   $ 44.4   $ 113.0   $ 110.9  
    Net realized and unrealized (gains) losses on investments       0.4     (12.1 )   (24.1 )   (22.7 )
    Lease termination and asset impairment charges       —     1.6     —     11.0  
    Income tax (benefit) expense related to items excluded from Net income       (0.1 )   2.2     5.1     2.5  
    Adjusted net income (1) C   $ 28.7   $ 36.1   $ 94.0   $ 101.7  
                                 
    Denominators:                            
    Average common shares outstanding (basic) D     24,725,425     25,645,821     25,050,605     26,368,801  
    Average common shares outstanding (diluted) E     24,902,459     25,801,380     25,194,814     26,523,651  
                                 
    Earnings per share:                            
    Basic A / D   $ 1.14   $ 1.78   $ 4.73   $ 4.48  
    Diluted A / E     1.14     1.77     4.71     4.45  
                                 
    Earnings per share excluding LPT: (1)                            
    Basic B / D     1.15     1.73     4.51     4.21  
    Diluted B / E     1.14     1.72     4.49     4.18  
                                 
    Adjusted earnings per share: (1)                            
    Basic C / D   $ 1.16   $ 1.41   $ 3.75   $ 3.86  
    Diluted C / E     1.15     1.40     3.73     3.83  
                                 
    (1) See Page 12 for information regarding our use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    Within this earnings release we present the following measures, each of which are “non-GAAP financial measures.” A reconciliation of these measures to the Company’s most directly comparable GAAP financial measures is included herein. Management believes that these non-GAAP measures are important to the Company’s investors, analysts and other interested parties who benefit from having an objective and consistent basis for comparison with other companies within our industry. Management further believes that these measures are more relevant than comparable GAAP measures in evaluating our financial performance.

    The LPT Agreement is a non-recurring transaction that no longer provides any ongoing cash benefits to the Company. Management believes that providing non-GAAP measures that exclude the effects of the LPT Agreement (amortization of deferred reinsurance gain, adjustments to LPT Agreement ceded reserves and adjustments to the contingent commission receivable) is useful in providing investors, analysts and other interested parties a meaningful understanding of the Company’s ongoing underwriting performance.

    Deferred reinsurance gain (Deferred Gain) reflects the unamortized gain from the LPT Agreement. This gain has been deferred and is being amortized using the recovery method, whereby the amortization is determined by the proportion of actual reinsurance recoveries to total estimated recoveries, except for the contingent profit commission, which was amortized through June 30, 2024, the date of its final determination. Amortization is reflected in losses and LAE incurred.

    Adjusted net income (see Page 5 for calculations) is net income excluding the effects of the LPT Agreement, and net realized and unrealized gains and losses on investments (net of tax), and any miscellaneous non-recurring transactions (net of tax). Management believes that providing this non-GAAP measures is helpful to investors, analysts and other interested parties in identifying trends in the Company’s operating performance because such items have limited significance to its ongoing operations or can be impacted by both discretionary and other economic factors and may not represent operating trends.

    Stockholders’ equity including the Deferred Gain (see Page 10 for calculations) is stockholders’ equity including the Deferred Gain. Management believes that providing this non-GAAP measure is useful in providing investors, analysts and other interested parties a meaningful measure of the Company’s total underwriting capital.

    Adjusted stockholders’ equity (see Page 10 for calculations) is stockholders’ equity including the Deferred Gain, less accumulated other comprehensive income (net of tax). Management believes that providing this non-GAAP measure is useful to investors, analysts and other interested parties since it serves as the denominator to the Company’s adjusted return on stockholders’ equity metric.

    Return on stockholders’ equity and Adjusted return on stockholders’ equity (see Page 6 for calculations). Management believes that these profitability measures are widely used by our investors, analysts and other interested parties.

    Book value per share, Book value per share including the Deferred Gain, and Adjusted book value per share (see Page 10 for calculations). Management believes that these valuation measures are widely used by our investors, analysts and other interested parties.

    Net income excluding LPT (see Page 5 for calculations). Management believes that these performance and underwriting measures are widely used by our investors, analysts and other interested parties.

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: XAI Octagon Floating Rate & Alternative Income Trust Will Host Q4 2024 Quarterly Webinar on March 5, 2024

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CHICAGO, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — XAI Octagon Floating Rate & Alternative Income Trust (NYSE: XFLT) (the “Trust”) today announced that it plans to host the Trust’s Quarterly Webinar on March 5, 2025 at 11:00 am (Eastern Time). Kevin Davis, Managing Director at XA Investments (“XAI”) will moderate the Q&A style webinar with Kimberly Flynn, President at XAI, and Lauren Law, Senior Portfolio Manager at Octagon Credit Investors.

    TO JOIN VIA WEB: Please go to the Knowledge Bank section of xainvestments.com or click here to find the online registration link.

    TO USE YOUR TELEPHONE: After joining via web, if you prefer to use your phone for audio, you must select that option and call in using a number below, based on your current location.

    Dial: (312) 626-6799 or (267) 831-0333 or (646) 558-8656 or (213) 338-8477 or (720) 928-9299
    Webinar ID: 829 2498 4014

    REPLAY: A replay of the webinar will be available in the Knowledge Bank section of xainvestments.com.

    The investment objective of the Trust is to seek attractive total return with an emphasis on income generation across multiple stages of the credit cycle. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing in a dynamically managed portfolio of opportunities primarily within the private credit markets. Under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in floating rate credit instruments and other structured credit investments. There can be no assurance that the Trust will achieve its investment objective.

    The Trust’s common shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “XFLT,” and the Trust’s 6.50% Series 2026 Term Preferred Shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “XFLTPRA.”

    About XA Investments
    XA Investments LLC (“XAI”) serves as the Trust’s investment adviser. XAI is a Chicago-based firm founded by XMS Capital Partners in April 2016. In addition to investment advisory services, the firm also provides investment fund structuring and consulting services focused on registered closed-end funds to meet institutional client needs. XAI offers custom product build and consulting services, including development and market research, sales, marketing, fund management and administration. XAI believes that the investing public can benefit from new vehicles to access a broad range of alternative investment strategies and managers. XAI provides individual investors with access to institutional-caliber alternative managers. For more information, please visit www.xainvestments.com.

    About XMS Capital Partners
    XMS Capital Partners, LLC, established in 2006, is a global, independent, financial services firm providing M&A, corporate advisory and asset management services to clients. It has offices in Chicago, Boston and London. For more information, please visit www.xmscapital.com.

    About Octagon Credit Investors
    Octagon Credit Investors, LLC (“Octagon”) serves as the Trust’s investment sub-adviser. Octagon is a 25+ year old, $33.4B below-investment grade corporate credit investment adviser focused on leveraged loan, high yield bond and structured credit (collateralized loan obligation debt and equity) investments. Through fundamental credit analysis and active portfolio management, Octagon’s investment team identifies attractive relative value opportunities across below-investment grade asset classes, sectors and issuers. Octagon’s investment philosophy and methodology encourage and rely upon dynamic internal communication to manage portfolio risk. Over its history, the firm has applied a disciplined, repeatable and scalable approach in its effort to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for its investors. For more information, please visit www.octagoncredit.com.

    XAI does not provide tax advice; please consult a professional tax advisor regarding your specific tax situation. Income may be subject to state and local taxes, as well as the federal alternative minimum tax.

    Investors should consider the investment objectives and policies, risk considerations, charges and expenses of the Trust carefully before investing. For more information on the Trust, please visit the Trust’s webpage at www.xainvestments.com.

    This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the laws of such state or jurisdiction.

    NOT FDIC INSURED     NO BANK GUARANTEE

    Paralel Distributors, LLC – Distributor

    MAY LOSE VALUE
         

    Media Contact:

    Kimberly Flynn, President
    XA Investments LLC
    Phone: 312-374-6931
    Email: kflynn@xainvestments.com
    www.xainvestments.com

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis Announces Fourth Quarter 2024 Dividends, Reports Earnings

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    INDIANAPOLIS, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Today the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis (“FHLBank Indianapolis” or “Bank”) declared its fourth quarter 2024 dividends on Class B-2 activity-based capital stock and Class B-1 non-activity-based stock at annualized rates of 9.50% and 4.50%, respectively. The higher dividend rate on activity-based stock reflects the Board’s discretion under the Bank’s capital plan to reward members that use FHLBank Indianapolis in support of their liquidity needs.

    The dividends will be paid in cash on February 21, 2025.

    “I am proud that FHLBank Indianapolis delivered strong financial results in 2024, a reflection of our steadfast commitment to serving our members’ liquidity needs while maintaining the Bank’s financial strength and stability,” President and CEO Cindy Konich said.

    She added: “In addition to another strong dividend for our members, these results allowed us to invest at record levels in the communities our members serve, including an additional voluntary contribution of 7.5% of 2023 net earnings – bringing the total support of housing and community initiatives in 2024 to 17.5%. Building on the success of 2024, we look forward to continuing this support in 2025 at 17.5% of 2024 net earnings.”

    Earnings Highlights

    Net income, for the fourth quarter of 2024, was $67 million, a net decrease of $37 million compared to the corresponding quarter in the prior year. The decrease was primarily due to a significant increase in voluntary contributions to affordable housing and community investment programs and unrealized losses on qualifying fair-value hedging relationships.

    Net income, for the year ended December 31, 2024, was $342 million, a net decrease of $35 million compared to the prior year. The decrease was primarily due to a significant increase in voluntary contributions to affordable housing and community investment programs and net realized gains on the extinguishment of consolidated obligations in 2023 that did not occur in 2024. However, such decrease was partially offset by higher earnings on the portion of the Bank’s assets funded by its capital.1

    Affordable Housing Program Allocation

    The Bank’s Affordable Housing Program (“AHP”) provides grant funding to support housing for low- and moderate-income families in communities served by its Michigan and Indiana members. For the year ended December 31, 2024, AHP assessments2 totaled $40 million. Such required allocations will be available to the Bank’s members in 2025 to help address their communities’ affordable housing needs, including construction, rehabilitation, accessibility improvements and homebuyer down-payment assistance.

    In addition, as part of the Bank’s commitment to further support its AHP and additional affordable housing and community investment programs, the Bank voluntarily contributed additional funding in 2024 totaling $33 million. Additionally, the Bank made a supplemental voluntary contribution to its AHP totaling $4 million. As a result, voluntary contributions to housing and community investment programs in 2024 totaled $37 million, all of which have been recognized and reported in other expenses.

    The Bank’s combined required and voluntary allocations recognized in 2024 totaled $77 million, an increase of $29 million, or 60%, compared to the prior year.

    __________________

    1 FHLBank Indianapolis earns interest income on advances to and mortgage loans purchased from its Michigan and Indiana member financial institutions, as well as on long- and short-term investments. Net interest income is primarily determined by the size of the Bank’s balance sheet and the spread between the interest earned on its assets and the interest cost of funding with consolidated obligations. Because of the Bank’s inherent relatively low interest-rate spread, it has historically derived a substantial portion of its net interest income from deploying its interest-free capital in floating-rate assets.

    2 Each year, Federal Home Loan Banks are required to allocate to the AHP 10% of earnings, defined for this purpose as income before assessments plus interest expense on mandatorily redeemable capital stock.

    Condensed Statements of Income

    The following table presents unaudited condensed statements of income ($ amounts in millions):

        Three Months Ended
    December 31,
      Year Ended
    December 31,
          2024     2023     2024     2023
    Interest income(a)   $ 989   $ 1,013   $ 4,130   $ 3,755
    Interest expense(a)     866     873     3,623     3,260
    Provision for credit losses     —     —     —     —
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     123     140     507     495
    Other income(b)     6     7     32     46
    Other expenses(c)     54     31     157     120
    AHP assessments     8     12     40     44
                     
    Net income   $ 67   $ 104   $ 342   $ 377
    (a) Includes hedging gains (losses) and net interest settlements on fair-value hedge relationships. The Bank uses derivatives, specifically interest-rate swaps, to hedge the risk of changes in the fair value of certain of its advances, available-for-sale securities and consolidated obligations. These derivatives are designated as fair-value hedges and, therefore, changes in the estimated fair value of the derivative, and changes in the fair value of the hedged item that are attributable to the hedged risk, are recorded in net interest income.
    (b) Includes impact of purchase discount (premium) recorded through mark-to-market gains (losses) on trading securities and net interest
    settlements on derivatives hedging trading securities, while generally offsetting interest income on trading securities is included in
    interest income.
    (c) Includes voluntary contributions to the Bank’s AHP and other affordable housing, small business and community investment programs.
       

    Balance Sheet Highlights

    Total assets, at December 31, 2024, were $84.5 billion, a net increase of $7.9 billion, or 10%, from December 31, 2023, primarily due to an increase in advances and mortgage loans outstanding.

    Advances 3

    The carrying value of advances outstanding, at December 31, 2024, totaled $39.8 billion, a net increase of $4.3 billion, or 12%, from December 31, 2023. The par value of advances outstanding increased by 12% to $40.1 billion, which included a net increase in short-term advances of 54% and a net decrease in long-term advances of 4%. At December 31, 2024, based on contractual maturities, long-term advances composed 63% of advances outstanding, while short-term advances composed 37%.

    The par value of advances outstanding to depository institutions — comprising commercial banks, savings institutions and credit unions — increased by 18%, while advances outstanding to insurance companies increased by 1%. As a percent of total advances outstanding at par value at December 31, 2024, advances to commercial banks and savings institutions were 52% and advances to credit unions were 14%, resulting in total advances to depository institutions of 66%, while advances to insurance companies were 34%.

    In general, advances fluctuate in accordance with members’ funding needs, primarily determined by their deposit levels, mortgage pipelines, loan growth, investment opportunities, available collateral, other balance sheet strategies, and the cost of alternative funding options.

    Mortgage Loans Held for Portfolio 4

    Mortgage loans held for portfolio, at December 31, 2024, totaled $10.8 billion, a net increase of $2.2 billion, or 25%, from December 31, 2023, as the Bank’s purchases from its members significantly exceeded principal repayments by borrowers. Purchases of mortgage loans from members, for the year ended December 31, 2024, totaled $3.2 billion.

    In general, the Bank’s volume of mortgage loans purchased is affected by several factors, including interest rates, competition, the general level of housing and refinancing activity in the United States, consumer product preferences, the Bank’s balance sheet capacity and risk appetite, and regulatory considerations.

    Liquidity Investments 5

    Liquidity investments, at December 31, 2024, totaled $12.9 billion, a net increase of $759 million, or 6%, from December 31, 2023. The Bank’s liquidity remained well above regulatory requirements and continues to enable the Bank to be a reliable liquidity provider to its members.

    Cash and short-term investments increased by $271 million, or 2%, to $11.8 billion. The portion of U.S. Treasury obligations classified as trading securities increased by $488 million, or 81%, to $1.1 billion. As a result of this activity, cash and short-term investments represented 92% of the total liquidity investments at December 31, 2024, while U.S. Treasury obligations represented 8%.

    The total outstanding balance and composition of the Bank’s liquidity investments are influenced by its liquidity needs, regulatory requirements, actual and anticipated member advance activity, market conditions, and the availability of short-term investments at attractive interest rates, relative to the cost of funds.

    Other Investment Securities

    Other investment securities, which consist substantially of mortgage-backed securities and U.S. Treasury obligations classified as held-to-maturity or available-for-sale, at December 31, 2024, totaled $20.2 billion, a net increase of $738 million, or 4%, from December 31, 2023.

    Consolidated Obligations 6

    FHLBank Indianapolis’ consolidated obligations outstanding, at December 31, 2024, totaled $78.1 billion, a net increase of $7.0 billion, or 10%, from December 31, 2023, which reflected increased funding needs associated with the net increase in the Bank’s total assets.

    Capital 7

    Total capital, at December 31, 2024, was $4.2 billion, a net increase of $491 million, or 13%, from December 31, 2023. The net increase resulted primarily from issuances of capital stock to support advance activity and the growth in retained earnings.

    The Bank’s regulatory capital-to-assets ratio8, at December 31, 2024, was 5.44%, which exceeds all applicable regulatory capital requirements.

    __________________

    3 Advances are secured loans that the Bank provides to its member institutions.
    4 The Bank purchases mortgage loans from its members to support its housing mission, provide an additional source of liquidity to its members, and diversify its investments.
    5 The Bank’s liquidity investments consist of cash, interest-bearing deposits, securities purchased under agreements to resell, federal funds sold and U.S. Treasury obligations.
    6 The primary source of funds for FHLBank Indianapolis, and for the other FHLBanks, is the sale of FHLBanks’ consolidated obligations in the capital markets. FHLBank Indianapolis is the primary obligor for the payment of the principal and interest on the consolidated obligations issued on its behalf; additionally, it is jointly and severally liable with each of the other FHLBanks for all of the FHLBanks’ consolidated obligations outstanding.
    7 FHLBank Indianapolis is a cooperative whose member financial institutions and former members own all of its capital stock as a condition of membership and to support outstanding credit products.
    8 Total regulatory capital, which consists of capital stock, mandatorily redeemable capital stock and retained earnings, as a percentage of total assets.

    Condensed Statements of Condition

    The following table presents unaudited condensed statements of condition ($ amounts in millions):

        December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Advances   $ 39,833     $ 35,562  
    Mortgage loans held for portfolio, net     10,796       8,614  
    Liquidity investments     12,911       12,152  
    Other investment securities(a)     20,189       19,451  
    Other assets     806       829  
             
    Total assets   $ 84,535     $ 76,608  
             
    Consolidated obligations   $ 78,085     $ 71,053  
    MRCS     363       369  
    Other liabilities     1,852       1,442  
    Total liabilities     80,300       72,864  
             
    Capital stock(b)     2,555       2,285  
    Retained earnings(c)     1,684       1,532  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)     (4 )     (73 )
    Total capital     4,235       3,744  
             
    Total liabilities and capital   $ 84,535     $ 76,608  
             
    Total regulatory capital(d)   $ 4,602     $ 4,186  
             
    Regulatory capital-to-assets ratio     5.44 %     5.46 %
    (a) Includes held-to-maturity and available-for-sale securities.
    (b) Putable by members at par value.
    (c) Includes restricted retained earnings, at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, of $466 million and $398 million, respectively.
    (d) Consists of total capital less accumulated other comprehensive income plus mandatorily redeemable capital stock.
       

    All amounts referenced above are unaudited. More detailed information about FHLBank Indianapolis’ financial condition as of December 31, 2024, and its results for the year then ended, will be included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in the Bank’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

    Safe Harbor Statement

    This news release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events and performance. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as “will,” “believes,” “may,” “temporary,” “estimates,” and “expects” or the negative of these words or comparable terminology. Each forward-looking statement contained in this news release reflects FHLBank Indianapolis’ current beliefs and expectations. Actual results or performance may differ materially from what is expressed in any forward-looking statements.

    Any forward-looking statement contained in this news release speaks only as of the date on which it was made. FHLBank Indianapolis undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required by law. Readers are referred to the documents filed by the Bank with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), specifically reports on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q, which include factors that could cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements. These reports are available at www.sec.gov.

    Media Contact:
    Scott Thien
    Senior Corporate Communications Associate
    317-902-3103
    sthien@fhlbi.com

    Building Partnerships. Serving Communities.
    FHLBank Indianapolis is a regional bank included in the Federal Home Loan Bank System. FHLBanks are government-sponsored enterprises created by Congress to provide access to low-cost funding for their member financial institutions, with particular attention paid to providing solutions that support the housing and small business needs of members’ customers. FHLBanks are privately capitalized and funded, and receive no Congressional appropriations. FHLBank Indianapolis is owned by its Indiana and Michigan financial institution members, including commercial banks, credit unions, insurance companies, savings institutions and community development financial institutions. For more information about FHLBank Indianapolis, visit www.fhlbi.com. Also, follow the Bank on LinkedIn, as well as Instagram and X at @FHLBankIndy. Please note that content the Bank shares on its website and social media is not incorporated by reference into any of its filings with the SEC unless, and only to the extent that, a filing by the Bank with the SEC expressly provides to the contrary.

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Economics: Frank Elderson: Interview with Nederlandse Vereniging Duurzame Energie (NVDE)

    Source: European Central Bank

    Interview with Frank Elderson, conducted by NVDE

    20 February 2025

    TIME has named you one of the 100 most influential climate leaders in business. Why are you so motivated to integrate climate and nature-related risks into exercising the mandate of central banks and supervisors?

    Climate, nature and the economy are deeply interconnected and interdependent. The twin climate and nature crises are sources of financial risk. For central banks and supervisors, addressing these issues is therefore neither an option nor a political choice – it is an obligation that falls squarely within our mandate. If central bankers and supervisors want to effectively pursue their tasks of maintaining price stability and keeping the banking sector safe, they need to be mindful of the environment in which they operate. This means considering the impact of the climate and nature crises on inflation and banks’ safety and soundness.

    Is the energy transition in Europe progressing too slowly? If so, why?

    Europe has made significant progress in its energy transition, but if it wants to reach the agreed target, it needs to remain determined and avoid undermining what has been achieved so far. The facts are that current policies put Europe on a 3.1°C warming trajectory over the course of the century, which is too far from the 1.5°C target.[1] The economic risks associated with delayed action are stark: a late, abrupt transition away from fossil fuels would weaken the economy and increase losses for the financial system, making the path to net zero far more costly.[2] In fact, the United Nations has warned that climate mitigation must increase sixfold globally to stay on track for the Paris Agreement.[3] These figures underscore the urgent need for Europe not to relent in its transition efforts if it wants to avoid severe economic and environmental consequences.

    In a previous study, you demonstrated that most European companies and banks face significant financial risks when natural ecosystems collapse due to climate change and biodiversity loss. What are examples of these financial risks? What is the most important recommendation in the report?

    The interdependencies between banks, businesses and nature lead to financial risks. Damage to ecosystems through nature degradation and biodiversity loss poses a significant threat to the economic viability of companies and, by extension, to the financial stability of banks that grant them loans. The study you mention showed that, in the euro area, 72% of non-financial corporations rely heavily on at least one ecosystem service, while 75% of corporate bank loans – approximately €3.24 trillion – are tied to these ecosystem-dependent borrowers.[4] Key ecosystem services such as surface and ground water, together with mass stabilisation[5] and erosion control, are particularly critical, exposing banks to credit risks through affected firms.

    One of the most important lessons from the report is the recognition that biodiversity loss is both an economic and financial risk. A second lesson is that climate and biodiversity are, to a large extent, two sides of the same coin, and they cannot be addressed in isolation. Lastly, the report shows that we are still missing the data needed to better take into account the risks stemming from nature loss. To address this, we need to improve the way we collect and organise information about nature.

    What is the impact of climate change on inflation?

    The economic impacts of climate change and extreme weather events are impossible to ignore. Following 2023’s record-breaking temperatures, 2024 became the warmest year on record globally, reaching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.[6] Europe, the fastest-warming continent, saw temperatures soar to 2.9°C above pre-industrial levels in 2024. The physical impacts of climate change – such as more frequent and severe weather events like floods, droughts, and city and forest fires – disrupt supply chains, reduce agricultural yields and drive up food prices. For example, an interdisciplinary study by ECB economists and climate scientists showed that the 2022 heatwave in Europe added 0.8 percentage points to euro area food price inflation.[7]

    The green transition will also bring about structural economic changes, which could influence inflation. Although the overall impact of the green transition remains very uncertain and may vary over time, we need to account for it to effectively deliver on our mandate. This is why we are increasingly incorporating green transition policies, such as climate-related fiscal policies or assumptions on carbon pricing under the EU Emissions Trading System 2, into our macroeconomic analyses.[8]

    To what extent do oil and gas reserves, as stranded assets – losing their value due to the necessity of staying within the 1.5°C climate goal – pose an economic risk?

    Generally, stranded assets pose greater economic and financial risks to the extent that industries and banks are not prepared. As the economy moves towards meeting climate goals, industries need to adjust how they operate. And since most companies in the EU with high-emitting production facilities rely on bank financing, this also has a significant impact on banks’ balance sheets. Last year, we released a study on the banking sector’s alignment with EU climate objectives, where we found that 90% of analysed banks faced elevated transition risks due to substantial misalignment with the Paris Agreement.[9] The biggest risk stems from exposures to companies in the energy sector that are lagging behind in phasing out high-carbon production processes and are slow to scale up renewable energy production.[10]

    To what extent does the ECB incorporate climate-related risks into its monetary policy?

    The ECB has taken significant steps to integrate climate-related risks into its monetary policy framework. It has reduced the carbon footprint of the Eurosystem’s corporate bond holdings and expanded annual climate disclosures to cover over 99% of assets held for monetary policy purposes. We’re also making progress in embedding climate considerations in our modelling and forecasting. Through exercises such as climate stress tests, we’ve deepened our understanding of the impact of the green transition and the physical impacts of the climate crisis. To improve data availability, which is key if we want to keep incorporating climate and nature risks, the ECB has developed climate-related statistical indicators.

    How does the ECB ensure that the financial sector properly manages the risks associated with climate change?

    Five years on from the publication of the ECB Guide on C&E risks in 2020, banks have made significant progress in managing climate-related and environmental (C&E) risk. Initially, fewer than 25% of banks had worked on climate-related risk management, and in 2021 a self-assessment conducted by the banks revealed that 90% of their practices fell short of our expectations.

    Following thorough assessments in 2022, we came to the conclusion that the glass was filling up, but that it wasn’t yet half full. Based on what the banks themselves considered reasonable when we first started discussing C&E risk management with them, we set interim deadlines resulting in three milestones: by March 2023 banks were expected to draw up adequate materiality assessments; by December 2023 they needed to integrate C&E risks into their governance, strategy and risk management; and by the end of 2024 they were expected to comply with the full scope of ECB expectations on C&E risk.

    Encouragingly, most banks met the targets set by the 2023 deadlines, and frameworks for climate and nature-related risks are now broadly in place. However, a few banks are still lagging behind and could face potential penalties. For the third and final deadline, which just passed at the end of 2024, we are proceeding with our compliance assessments in the same way as for the two previous deadlines.

    What specific sustainability measure will you personally advocate for within the ECB in 2025?

    In 2025 we will closely monitor progress and, where necessary, use all the tools at our disposal to ensure the banking sector is resilient in the face of the unfolding climate and nature crises. As part of the ECB’s multi-year agenda for banking supervision, we will make sure that the banks we supervise directly – whose assets total over €26 trillion – fully account for climate and nature-related risks in their strategies and risk management. Ensuring banks comply with the new regulatory requirement to develop transition plans to prepare for the risks and potential changes in their business models associated with the green transition is particularly high on the agenda.

    What are your thoughts on Mario Draghi’s report, particularly his call for further financial and economic integration within the EU through, for example, establishing a capital markets union? This plan aims to create a single integrated capital market in the EU, allowing investments and savings to flow more freely across borders.

    From an ECB perspective, we have always been supportive of a deeper capital markets union (CMU). The renewed political momentum we have seen recently in furthering CMU – or a savings and investment union – has come at a crucial time. In fact, the bulk of the additional financing needed for the green transition has to come from the private sector.[11]

    The European Commission estimates that the EU needs an extra €477 billion (equivalent to 3.4% of GDP in 2023) of green investment per year by 2030. This number increases to €620 billion when considering the EU’s broader environmental ambitions. While banks are expected to make an important contribution, expanding and integrating capital markets is essential for directing the flow of funds towards green innovation. The public sector also has a key role to play in mobilising private green investment by crowding in private investment through, for example, lowering borrowers’ financing costs or de-risking green investment activities.

    Sustainable energy technologies and electricity infrastructure have higher investment costs than fossil fuel technologies. As a result, high interest rates slow the energy transition, despite its potential to help combat inflation. Recent high inflation was partly driven by high fossil energy prices. Could a lower interest rate for investments in sustainable energy accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels?

    The ECB’s primary objective is to maintain price stability, and this will always remain the cornerstone of our actions. But we also have a secondary objective, which requires us to support the general economic policies in the EU, including contributing to a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.[12] Within this mandate, accounting for the effects of climate and nature-related events is part and parcel of our tasks. Importantly, any direct incentives and tools must align with our monetary policy stance. In the specific case you mention, further challenges – such as data coverage and quality, defining appropriate green targeting criteria and establishing robust verification processes – still exist. Some of these issues require agreement on a European level, where we are dependent on legislation.

    Having said that, the ECB’s euro area bank lending survey tells us that European banks are already offering more favourable lending conditions to green firms or firms in transition.[13] In addition, governments can support green projects in a more targeted and effective way by offering more favourable lending through for instance public development banks. Despite this, the ECB still actively monitors regulatory developments.

    Are you optimistic about the energy transition in Europe?

    I am generally an optimistic person. In this case, the progress made speaks for itself: the share of renewables in the EU’s final energy use more than doubled between 2005 and 2023.[14] And last year, nearly half of the EU’s electricity was powered by renewables.[15] Much-needed investment in climate change mitigation has also grown, increasing by 42% between 2005 and 2022.[16]

    We know progress is possible, but we now need to go further and faster. Our research shows that a quicker transition will lower costs – being ready can offer a competitive advantage. Consumer preferences are already changing and these will support the transition. In that respect, we welcome the European Commission’s focus on both decarbonisation and competitiveness.

    Last but not least, through my involvement with the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), which I co-founded and of which I was the first Chair, I’ve also witnessed first-hand the impact a committed group of central banks and supervisors working towards a common goal can have. The NGFS has grown from its original eight members to 143 members today. This “coalition of the committed” is prepared to help future-proof the economy and the banking sector. Regardless of the political winds that are blowing, the reality of the climate and nature crises doesn’t change. And as most Europeans know, it is a reality we must face head on.

    How sustainably do you live and travel?

    We have a fully electric car, and as a proud Dutchman, I love to ride my bike.

    MIL OSI Economics –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: President von der Leyen at the CARICOM Leaders’ Summit to strengthen partnership between the European Union and the Caribbean

    Source: European Commission

    European Commission Press release Brussels, 20 Feb 2025 During the first-ever visit of a European Commission President to the Caribbean, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed Europe’s commitment to deepening its relations and partnership with the region.

    At the invitation of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Chair, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, President von der Leyen met the 15 leaders of the Caribbean Community during the 48th Regular Meeting of the CARICOM.  The visit aims at further strengthening the EU’s presence in the region and lay the groundwork for the EU-CELAC Summit, planned for later this year.  

    In a new era of harsh geostrategic competition, Europe stands for openness, partnership and outreach. The visit took place in the context of the Commission’s effort to build new partnerships and strengthen old ones, which includes recent agreements with Mercosur, Mexico and Malaysia.

    President von der Leyen said: “Europe and the Caribbean may be an ocean apart, but we are close allies. We share so many interests and values, including our mutual support for Ukraine. Europe stands with the Caribbean countries in the fight against climate change, protecting nature and biodiversity, strengthening trade, and boosting investments through Global Gateway. Europe wants to be a fair and trusted partner for all regions of the world that want to work with us.”

    President von der Leyen also discussed with Caribbean partners the situation in Haiti. She underlined the EU’s commitment to Haiti’s recovery and security and its support to CARICOM efforts in this regard. In this context, a package of €19.5 million EU support was announced during the visit. This new financial support will complement ongoing efforts to deliver essential services to Haitians as well as support the country’s macroeconomic stability.

    President von der Leyen highlighted the EU’s commitment to supporting Caribbean partners in fighting climate change and its devastating impact on the islands. As the leading provider of climate finance, the EU is determined to work together on innovative financing, while promoting private sector investments.

    At global level, the EU and the Caribbean are stepping up their energy partnership following the launch of the Global Energy Transition Forum by President von der Leyen in Davos last month. She welcomed the 8 countries (Barbados, Guyana, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica)* that joined the forum during the summit, committing to action to meet the global targets of tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.

    During the visit, President von der Leyen underscored the reliability of the EU as a trade and investment partner to the region working together on mutually beneficial projects. President von der Leyen launched several projects under Europe’s Global Gateway strategy on renewable energy, digital transformation, pharmaceutical production and economic resilience. The projects will invest in a stronger, greener and better connected Caribbean.

    Key Global Gateway projects in the Caribbean

    Expanding Renewable Energy: Global Gateway energy projects are underway in 13 Caribbean countries, leveraging European expertise, technology, and financing tools. In this context, President von der Leyen and Prime Minister Mottley announced a €160 million green hydrogen storage project by the French company HDF Energy, the first of its kind in the Caribbean.

    Advancing the Digital Agenda: The EU and the Caribbean are strengthening their digital partnership with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Caribbean and the European satellite company Hispasat during the CARICOM meeting. It will improve the Caribbean’s satellite internet connectivity and sovereignty within the framework of the EU–LAC Digital Alliance. As part of this initiative, the EU and Spain will provide a €10 million grant to support satellite broadband expansion and promote digital inclusion across the region.

    Developing Local Pharmaceutical Production: The EU’s €8.9 million investment to promote local production and regulatory alignment with European standards was also taken forward in the framework of the CARICOM meeting. A joint declaration to cooperate on twinning Caribbean and EU regulatory agencies, capacity-building initiatives, and research collaborations was signed during the meeting. Additionally, the first investment from a European pharmaceutical company, Biomed X in Barbados, will support research and manufacturing, further reinforcing the region’s health resilience.

    Supporting Post-Hurricane Reconstruction: As part of the assistance given to Grenada in rebuilding Carriacou and Petite Martinique after Hurricane Beryl, the EU is supporting the islands to become 100% powered by renewable energy. This initiative will serve as a global model for small islands striving for climate resilience.

    Combating the Sargassum Challenge: The EU, in collaboration with regional partners, is transforming the environmental and economic challenge of sargassum seaweed into an opportunity for sustainable development. Through an ongoing €386 million Global Gateway initiative, the EU is working with financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank and the private sector to develop sustainable value chains for sargassum, particularly in Grenada.

    For More Information

    Opening remarks by President von der Leyen at the opening ceremony of the 48th Regular Session of the Conference of CARICOM

    Statement by President von der Leyen at the joint press conference with Barbadian Prime Minister Mottley

    * Updated on 20/02/2025 at 14:55

    Quote(s)

     Europe and the Caribbean may be an ocean apart, but we are close allies. We share so many interests and values, including our mutual support for Ukraine. Europe stands with the Caribbean countries in the fight against climate change, protecting nature and biodiversity, strengthening trade, and boosting investments through Global Gateway. Europe wants to be a fair and trusted partner for all regions of the world that want to work with us.

    Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: NorthEast Community Bancorp, Inc. Announces Date of 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    WHITE PLAINS, N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — NorthEast Community Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: NECB) (the “Company”), the holding company for NorthEast Community Bank, today announced that its annual meeting of stockholders will be held on Thursday, May 22, 2025.

    About NorthEast Community Bancorp

    NorthEast Community Bancorp, headquartered at 325 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601, is the holding company for NorthEast Community Bank, which conducts business through its eleven branch offices located in Bronx, New York, Orange, Rockland, and Sullivan Counties in New York and Essex, Middlesex, and Norfolk Counties in Massachusetts and three loan production offices located in New City, New York, White Plains, New York, and Danvers, Massachusetts. For more information about NorthEast Community Bancorp and NorthEast Community Bank, please visit www.necb.com.

    Forward Looking Statement

    This press release contains certain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding anticipated future events and can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They often include words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” and “intend” or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” or “may.” Forward-looking statements, by their nature, are subject to risks and uncertainties. Certain factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from expected results include, but are not limited to, changes in market interest rates, regional and national economic conditions (including higher inflation and its impact on regional and national economic conditions), the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic (including its impact on NorthEast Community Bank’s business operations and credit quality, on our customers and their ability to repay their loan obligations and on general economic and financial market conditions), legislative and regulatory changes, monetary and fiscal policies of the United States government, including policies of the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board, the quality and composition of the loan or investment portfolios, demand for loan products, deposit flows, competition, demand for financial services in NorthEast Community Bank’s market area, changes in the real estate market values in NorthEast Community Bank’s market area and changes in relevant accounting principles and guidelines. Additionally, other risks and uncertainties may be described in our annual and quarterly reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), which are available through the SEC’s website located at www.sec.gov. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating any forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Except as required by applicable law or regulation, the Company does not undertake, and specifically disclaims any obligation, to release publicly the result of any revisions that may be made to any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of the statements or to reflect the occurrence of anticipated or unanticipated events.

    CONTACT:      Kenneth A. Martinek
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
         
    PHONE:   (914) 684-2500
         

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Frank Elderson: Interview with Nederlandse Vereniging Duurzame Energie (NVDE)

    Source: European Central Bank

    Interview with Frank Elderson, conducted by NVDE

    20 February 2025

    TIME has named you one of the 100 most influential climate leaders in business. Why are you so motivated to integrate climate and nature-related risks into exercising the mandate of central banks and supervisors?

    Climate, nature and the economy are deeply interconnected and interdependent. The twin climate and nature crises are sources of financial risk. For central banks and supervisors, addressing these issues is therefore neither an option nor a political choice – it is an obligation that falls squarely within our mandate. If central bankers and supervisors want to effectively pursue their tasks of maintaining price stability and keeping the banking sector safe, they need to be mindful of the environment in which they operate. This means considering the impact of the climate and nature crises on inflation and banks’ safety and soundness.

    Is the energy transition in Europe progressing too slowly? If so, why?

    Europe has made significant progress in its energy transition, but if it wants to reach the agreed target, it needs to remain determined and avoid undermining what has been achieved so far. The facts are that current policies put Europe on a 3.1°C warming trajectory over the course of the century, which is too far from the 1.5°C target.[1] The economic risks associated with delayed action are stark: a late, abrupt transition away from fossil fuels would weaken the economy and increase losses for the financial system, making the path to net zero far more costly.[2] In fact, the United Nations has warned that climate mitigation must increase sixfold globally to stay on track for the Paris Agreement.[3] These figures underscore the urgent need for Europe not to relent in its transition efforts if it wants to avoid severe economic and environmental consequences.

    In a previous study, you demonstrated that most European companies and banks face significant financial risks when natural ecosystems collapse due to climate change and biodiversity loss. What are examples of these financial risks? What is the most important recommendation in the report?

    The interdependencies between banks, businesses and nature lead to financial risks. Damage to ecosystems through nature degradation and biodiversity loss poses a significant threat to the economic viability of companies and, by extension, to the financial stability of banks that grant them loans. The study you mention showed that, in the euro area, 72% of non-financial corporations rely heavily on at least one ecosystem service, while 75% of corporate bank loans – approximately €3.24 trillion – are tied to these ecosystem-dependent borrowers.[4] Key ecosystem services such as surface and ground water, together with mass stabilisation[5] and erosion control, are particularly critical, exposing banks to credit risks through affected firms.

    One of the most important lessons from the report is the recognition that biodiversity loss is both an economic and financial risk. A second lesson is that climate and biodiversity are, to a large extent, two sides of the same coin, and they cannot be addressed in isolation. Lastly, the report shows that we are still missing the data needed to better take into account the risks stemming from nature loss. To address this, we need to improve the way we collect and organise information about nature.

    What is the impact of climate change on inflation?

    The economic impacts of climate change and extreme weather events are impossible to ignore. Following 2023’s record-breaking temperatures, 2024 became the warmest year on record globally, reaching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.[6] Europe, the fastest-warming continent, saw temperatures soar to 2.9°C above pre-industrial levels in 2024. The physical impacts of climate change – such as more frequent and severe weather events like floods, droughts, and city and forest fires – disrupt supply chains, reduce agricultural yields and drive up food prices. For example, an interdisciplinary study by ECB economists and climate scientists showed that the 2022 heatwave in Europe added 0.8 percentage points to euro area food price inflation.[7]

    The green transition will also bring about structural economic changes, which could influence inflation. Although the overall impact of the green transition remains very uncertain and may vary over time, we need to account for it to effectively deliver on our mandate. This is why we are increasingly incorporating green transition policies, such as climate-related fiscal policies or assumptions on carbon pricing under the EU Emissions Trading System 2, into our macroeconomic analyses.[8]

    To what extent do oil and gas reserves, as stranded assets – losing their value due to the necessity of staying within the 1.5°C climate goal – pose an economic risk?

    Generally, stranded assets pose greater economic and financial risks to the extent that industries and banks are not prepared. As the economy moves towards meeting climate goals, industries need to adjust how they operate. And since most companies in the EU with high-emitting production facilities rely on bank financing, this also has a significant impact on banks’ balance sheets. Last year, we released a study on the banking sector’s alignment with EU climate objectives, where we found that 90% of analysed banks faced elevated transition risks due to substantial misalignment with the Paris Agreement.[9] The biggest risk stems from exposures to companies in the energy sector that are lagging behind in phasing out high-carbon production processes and are slow to scale up renewable energy production.[10]

    To what extent does the ECB incorporate climate-related risks into its monetary policy?

    The ECB has taken significant steps to integrate climate-related risks into its monetary policy framework. It has reduced the carbon footprint of the Eurosystem’s corporate bond holdings and expanded annual climate disclosures to cover over 99% of assets held for monetary policy purposes. We’re also making progress in embedding climate considerations in our modelling and forecasting. Through exercises such as climate stress tests, we’ve deepened our understanding of the impact of the green transition and the physical impacts of the climate crisis. To improve data availability, which is key if we want to keep incorporating climate and nature risks, the ECB has developed climate-related statistical indicators.

    How does the ECB ensure that the financial sector properly manages the risks associated with climate change?

    Five years on from the publication of the ECB Guide on C&E risks in 2020, banks have made significant progress in managing climate-related and environmental (C&E) risk. Initially, fewer than 25% of banks had worked on climate-related risk management, and in 2021 a self-assessment conducted by the banks revealed that 90% of their practices fell short of our expectations.

    Following thorough assessments in 2022, we came to the conclusion that the glass was filling up, but that it wasn’t yet half full. Based on what the banks themselves considered reasonable when we first started discussing C&E risk management with them, we set interim deadlines resulting in three milestones: by March 2023 banks were expected to draw up adequate materiality assessments; by December 2023 they needed to integrate C&E risks into their governance, strategy and risk management; and by the end of 2024 they were expected to comply with the full scope of ECB expectations on C&E risk.

    Encouragingly, most banks met the targets set by the 2023 deadlines, and frameworks for climate and nature-related risks are now broadly in place. However, a few banks are still lagging behind and could face potential penalties. For the third and final deadline, which just passed at the end of 2024, we are proceeding with our compliance assessments in the same way as for the two previous deadlines.

    What specific sustainability measure will you personally advocate for within the ECB in 2025?

    In 2025 we will closely monitor progress and, where necessary, use all the tools at our disposal to ensure the banking sector is resilient in the face of the unfolding climate and nature crises. As part of the ECB’s multi-year agenda for banking supervision, we will make sure that the banks we supervise directly – whose assets total over €26 trillion – fully account for climate and nature-related risks in their strategies and risk management. Ensuring banks comply with the new regulatory requirement to develop transition plans to prepare for the risks and potential changes in their business models associated with the green transition is particularly high on the agenda.

    What are your thoughts on Mario Draghi’s report, particularly his call for further financial and economic integration within the EU through, for example, establishing a capital markets union? This plan aims to create a single integrated capital market in the EU, allowing investments and savings to flow more freely across borders.

    From an ECB perspective, we have always been supportive of a deeper capital markets union (CMU). The renewed political momentum we have seen recently in furthering CMU – or a savings and investment union – has come at a crucial time. In fact, the bulk of the additional financing needed for the green transition has to come from the private sector.[11]

    The European Commission estimates that the EU needs an extra €477 billion (equivalent to 3.4% of GDP in 2023) of green investment per year by 2030. This number increases to €620 billion when considering the EU’s broader environmental ambitions. While banks are expected to make an important contribution, expanding and integrating capital markets is essential for directing the flow of funds towards green innovation. The public sector also has a key role to play in mobilising private green investment by crowding in private investment through, for example, lowering borrowers’ financing costs or de-risking green investment activities.

    Sustainable energy technologies and electricity infrastructure have higher investment costs than fossil fuel technologies. As a result, high interest rates slow the energy transition, despite its potential to help combat inflation. Recent high inflation was partly driven by high fossil energy prices. Could a lower interest rate for investments in sustainable energy accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels?

    The ECB’s primary objective is to maintain price stability, and this will always remain the cornerstone of our actions. But we also have a secondary objective, which requires us to support the general economic policies in the EU, including contributing to a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.[12] Within this mandate, accounting for the effects of climate and nature-related events is part and parcel of our tasks. Importantly, any direct incentives and tools must align with our monetary policy stance. In the specific case you mention, further challenges – such as data coverage and quality, defining appropriate green targeting criteria and establishing robust verification processes – still exist. Some of these issues require agreement on a European level, where we are dependent on legislation.

    Having said that, the ECB’s euro area bank lending survey tells us that European banks are already offering more favourable lending conditions to green firms or firms in transition.[13] In addition, governments can support green projects in a more targeted and effective way by offering more favourable lending through for instance public development banks. Despite this, the ECB still actively monitors regulatory developments.

    Are you optimistic about the energy transition in Europe?

    I am generally an optimistic person. In this case, the progress made speaks for itself: the share of renewables in the EU’s final energy use more than doubled between 2005 and 2023.[14] And last year, nearly half of the EU’s electricity was powered by renewables.[15] Much-needed investment in climate change mitigation has also grown, increasing by 42% between 2005 and 2022.[16]

    We know progress is possible, but we now need to go further and faster. Our research shows that a quicker transition will lower costs – being ready can offer a competitive advantage. Consumer preferences are already changing and these will support the transition. In that respect, we welcome the European Commission’s focus on both decarbonisation and competitiveness.

    Last but not least, through my involvement with the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), which I co-founded and of which I was the first Chair, I’ve also witnessed first-hand the impact a committed group of central banks and supervisors working towards a common goal can have. The NGFS has grown from its original eight members to 143 members today. This “coalition of the committed” is prepared to help future-proof the economy and the banking sector. Regardless of the political winds that are blowing, the reality of the climate and nature crises doesn’t change. And as most Europeans know, it is a reality we must face head on.

    How sustainably do you live and travel?

    We have a fully electric car, and as a proud Dutchman, I love to ride my bike.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: EIB supports Bratislava in modernizing its water supply and wastewater management infrastructure

    Source: European Investment Bank

    • Investments ensures safe and reliable water supply and wastewater management, addressing climate change challenges, while also improving the protection of the Danube
    • EIB financing will improve efficiency of city’s water company Bratislavská vodárenská spoločnosť (BVS) by reducing its energy costs with further utilization of green fuel sources.
    • This is the first direct cooperation between EIB and a municipal company in Bratislava to boost investments in the water sector.

    European Investment Bank (EIB), one of the world’s largest multilateral investors in the water sector, is providing EUR 50 million in Bratislava municipal water utility company Bratislavská vodárenská spoločnosť (BVS) for necessary upgrades and extensions of its water supply and wastewater infrastructure. The financing will help aligning Bratislava water and wastewater management with EU regulations, ensuring the highest quality of drinking water in the city and also allow the BVS to increase utilization of green, biomass energy sources. 

    The modernization programme aims to increase the reliability of water supply for nearly half a million residents and businesses in Bratislava, Slovakia`s main business hub. It also fosters environmental responsibility, by making the city more resilient to adverse effects of climate change and allows BVS to further increase its efficiency and reduce its energy costs.

    “EIB cooperation with BVS means people and businesses in Bratislava can look forward to cleaner water, efficient wastewater management and eco-friendly practices that enhance the city’s quality of life,” said EIB Vice-President Kyriacos Kakouris. “Modern water management is crucial to ensuring the strength and sustainability of urban centres across the EU including Bratislava.”

    “The cooperation approval followed thorough preparation and extensive communication with the EIB. This financing is significantly more cost-effective for us compared to commercial banks. This partnership with BVS is expected to play a crucial role in achieving our ambitious goals of improving our customer services and supporting the environment in our operational area,” said CEO of BVS Ladislav Kizak.
     

    A modern water and wastewater infrastructure for Bratislava

    The modernization project financed by EIB will include the replacement of aging infrastructure with advanced, efficient technologies designed to minimize water loss and improve distribution efficiency as well as expansion of the BVS` network to accommodate the needs from the steadily expanding city.  Expansion of the water supply network will also increase protection of surface and underground waters in metropolitan Bratislava as well as improve protection of the Danube.

    Additionally, the adoption of biomass energy sources will significantly reduce the utility’s carbon footprint, aligning with the city’s commitment to climate action.

    Background information 

    European Investment Bank: The European Investment Bank (ElB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union, owned by its Member States. Built around eight core priorities, we finance investments that contribute to EU policy objectives by bolstering climate action and the environment, digitalisation and technological innovation, security and defence, cohesion, agriculture and bioeconomy, social infrastructure, the capital markets union, and a stronger Europe in a more peaceful and prosperous world.

    The EIB is one of the largest lenders to the global water sector, with over €88 billion invested in more than 1 700 projects improving sanitation, providing access to safe drinking water and reducing the risk of flooding.  

    The EIB Group, which also includes the European Investment Fund (EIF), signed nearly €89 billion in new financing for over 900 high-impact projects in 2024, boosting Europe’s competitiveness and security. 

    All projects financed by the EIB Group are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, as pledged in our Climate Bank Roadmap. Almost 60% of the EIB Group’s annual financing supports projects directly contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a healthier environment. 

    Fostering market integration and mobilising investment, the Group supported a record of over €100 billion in new investment for Europe’s energy security in 2024 and mobilised €110 billion in growth capital for startups, scale-ups and European pioneers

    Approximately half of the EIB’s financing within the European Union is directed towards cohesion regions, where per capita income is lower than the EU average.

    Bratislavská vodárenská spoločnosť (BVS): Bratislavská vodárenská spoločnosť, a.s. (BVS) supplies drinking water to approximately 740 000 regular customers in 118 municipalities across western Slovakia. It draws water primarily from exceptionally high-quality underground sources. Thanks to its advantageous location near the Danube River and the unique gravel-sand subsoil, these water sources are both high-quality and abundant. The 60 water sources that BVS currently operates could technically cover the consumption of more than half of Slovakia. The network of more than 3 200 kilometers of water pipes transports water in 130 water reservoirs and to its customers.

    The second key task of BVS is disposing of wastewater in municipalities connected to the public sewage network. For this purpose, more than 1 800 kilometers of sewer pipes are used, which transport wastewater to 23 wastewater treatment plants. One is the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant in Vrakuňa, the most significant Slovak wastewater treatment plant, with a capacity of 172 800 m3 per day, or 2 000 l per second.

    BVS controls the quality of drinking and treated wastewater in its accredited laboratories.

    BVS’s shares are owned by 89 shareholders, that are cities and municipalities from the region where BVS operates. The City of Bratislava is the majority shareholder, with a share of 59,29 percent. BVS itself holds more than 8 percent of its shares.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Security Federal Announces Cash Dividend Increase

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    AIKEN, S.C., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Security Federal Corporation, parent company of Security Federal Bank, is pleased to announce that a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share will be paid on or about March 15, 2025, to shareholders of record as of February 28. 2025. This increased dividend represents an increase of $0.01, or 7.1%, over the previous regular quarterly dividend.   

    This is the one hundred thirty-seventh consecutive quarterly dividend to shareholders since the Bank’s conversion in October of 1987 from a mutual to a stock form of ownership. The dividend was declared as a result of the Bank’s continued profitability.

    Security Federal Bank has nineteen full-service branch locations in Aiken, Ballentine, Clearwater, Columbia, Graniteville, Langley, Lexington, North Augusta, Ridge Spring, Wagener and West Columbia, South Carolina and Augusta and Evans, Georgia. A full range of financial services, including trust and investments, are provided by the Bank, and insurance services are provided by the Bank’s wholly owned subsidiary, Security Federal Insurance, Inc.

    Security Federal Corporation common stock is traded on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board under the symbol SFDL.

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Barr, Risks and Challenges for Bank Regulation and Supervision

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Banks play an indispensable role in an economy that works for everyone.1 They enable households to borrow to buy a home, save for the future, and deal with the ups and downs of managing finances. Banks provide the credit for businesses to smooth out income and expenses, supply capital to seize new opportunities and create jobs, and facilitate the flow of payments that are the lifeblood of our economy. And banks borrow from households and businesses as well, such as through federally insured deposits. Because of these vital roles, we need to make sure that banks are resilient and serve as a source of strength to the economy in both good times and when the financial system comes under stress. In our market economy, like any business, banks compete with each other and pursue profits by balancing risk-taking with safety and soundness. But because of the key role banks play in the economy, and the fact that banks do not fully internalize the costs of their own failure, regulation and supervision must ensure that banks do not take on excessive risks that can cause widespread harm to households and businesses.
    Bank failures are as old as banking, and we’ve seen repeated waves of bank failures over the centuries. America learned that hard lesson nearly 100 years ago, when bank failures played a central role in the Great Depression. In response, the United States—and many other countries around the globe—set up a system of deposit insurance and enabled emergency lending in times of stress. To balance the moral hazard of the federal safety net, Congress established a framework of regulation and supervision to make it more likely that banks internalize the costs to society of their risk-taking.
    But finance is always evolving, and the buildup of new risks led to the banking crisis of the 1980s, and then to the Global Financial Crisis, with devastating consequences. Weaknesses that were revealed in regulation and supervision led to unprecedented and unpopular bailouts, and shuttered American businesses, devastated local communities with foreclosures, and millions of individuals lost their jobs and their livelihoods. Government responded in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) and in regulatory reforms by significantly strengthening bank oversight to curb excessive risk-taking. The message from the American people was clear: risk-taking must be balanced with the overarching need to maintain a resilient banking system that can continue to play its crucial role for households and businesses in good times and in bad.
    Another, perennial lesson from the history of bank regulation and supervision is that the job is never done, and that the constant evolution of finance means risks will also evolve. As Vice Chair for Supervision, I have recognized the need to approach this mission with humility, aware that I don’t have all the answers or perfect foresight of where things can go wrong. Both regulators and banks are limited in our ability to comprehensively identify and measure risks. Our financial system is complex, interconnected, and evolving. We cannot fully appreciate how a specific vulnerability can interact with other vulnerabilities to amplify and propagate risk in the face of shocks, let alone accurately anticipate shocks in time to avoid them.
    When I became Vice Chair for Supervision in July 2022, the Global Financial Crisis was almost 15 years past, and much had been done to strengthen the resilience of the system to reflect lessons learned. But in March 2023, we experienced the second largest bank failure in history, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), and the subsequent failures of Signature Bank and First Republic Bank. SVB’s failure triggered stress throughout the system and required the issuance of a systemic risk exemption and the creation of an emergency bank lending program.2 We have made some progress toward addressing the gaps that led to the failures. But there will be headwinds that we must guard against in the coming years, as well as ongoing vulnerabilities and areas of risk that require continued vigilance.
    Earlier this year, I announced I would step down as Vice Chair for Supervision but remain a member of the Board of Governors. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve as vice chair for supervision, and to work with colleagues to help maintain the stability and strength of the U.S. financial system so that it can meet the needs of households and businesses. I’ve determined that I would be more effective in serving the American people from my role as governor. In this role, I’ll continue to participate in monetary policy deliberations and vote on matters before the Board, including those related to supervision and regulation.
    While it was a tough decision to make, I believe it was the right decision for the institution and, more importantly, for the public, whom we serve. The risk of a dispute over my position would be a distraction from our important mission. I feel strongly—as Chair Powell has said publicly many times—that the independence of the Federal Reserve is critical to our ability to meet our statutory mandates and serve the American public. Put simply, our mission is too important to let such a dispute distract from doing our job for the American people.
    Since my term for Vice Chair for Supervision will end later this month, I’d like to use one of my last opportunities as Vice Chair to discuss seven specific risks ahead: (1) maintaining and finishing post-financial crisis reforms; (2) maintaining the credibility of the stress test; (3) maintaining credible, consistent supervision; (4) encouraging responsible innovation; (5) addressing cyber and third-party risk; (6) risks in the nonbank sector; and (7) climate risk. Each will continue to be a risk in either the near- or long-term.
    Maintaining and Finishing Post-Financial Crisis ReformsThere is always push back on financial regulation. I felt that even in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, as I helped to draft the legislative response to that crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act.3 And I felt that over the last few years as we worked to finish the job of post-crisis financial reform and take up evolving threats revealed from the latest bank stress. It is important to get the balance right, but it is also important to stand up for the American people.
    I urge regulators to finish the job of implementing the final plank of the Global Financial Crisis reforms—and not to dismantle the hard-fought resilience that banks have built up in the process. Of course, there are always ways to increase efficiency and reform prior methods without costs to resiliency, and I support those efforts. But as I’ve spoken about many times, capital is critical to absorb losses and enable banks to continue operations through times of stress, and capital requirements should be aligned with the risks that banks take.4 The Basel III endgame reforms include many improvements to how we measure credit, trading, operational, and derivatives risks in light of our experience in the Global Financial Crisis. All major jurisdictions except the United States have finalized rules that would implement these standards for their internationally active banks.
    The Federal Reserve played a central role in developing these standards in the many years before my arrival as Vice Chair. The Board sought comment on a proposal in July 2023 to implement the Basel III reforms, and we received a wide range of comments on the proposal.5 On the basis of those comments, I took steps last fall to outline broad and material changes that would better balance the benefits and costs of capital in light of comments received and would result in a capital framework that appropriately reflects the risks of banks.6 These reforms had broad consensus on the Board and the support of the heads of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
    When the U.S. provides leadership in international forums like Basel and then follows through, we set a powerful example and establish a standard that other jurisdictions also uphold. Implementing international standards enables U.S. firms to compete on a level playing field across the globe and makes the system safer. When we don’t follow through on our commitments, for whatever reason, concerns about a level playing field rise in other jurisdictions, in an international “race to the bottom” on standards. This harms us all and makes U.S. banks less competitive. And unless the U.S. implements these standards, other jurisdictions will force U.S. banks operating abroad to meet their standards instead.
    Let me turn to unfinished business from the March 2023 banking stress. In that event, we learned that bank runs and bank failures can happen fast, much faster than before. Before SVB, the largest bank to fail did so over a period of several weeks. The deposit losses experienced by SVB were much greater in both relative and absolute terms, and they occurred in less than 24 hours.7
    Over the past two years, the Federal Reserve has worked with banks to improve their ability to borrow from the discount window, and the financial system’s collective readiness has improved significantly compared to pre-SVB, including with a substantial increase of $1 trillion in collateral pledged across the system.8 The Federal Reserve has also worked to improve the functioning of the discount window, through a concerted effort to gather public input and identify areas for modernization. These efforts have improved the ability of banks to weather stress, both individually and collectively, which enhances financial stability.
    However, there is still more work to do. For instance, banks, even the largest banks, are not currently required to establish a minimum level of readiness at the window, and, as a result, there are outlier firms that are not prepared for stress. This needs to change. Without a requirement there is also a significant risk of backtracking on the substantial progress in readiness we have made since March 2023.
    Another important lesson from SVB is a classic one: balance sheet vulnerabilities among a group of institutions can be a source of contagion for the financial system and thus a key stability risk. While we did much to improve the resilience of global systemically important banks (G-SIBs) in the past decade, March 2023 showed that significant systemic risks can develop and spread from stress anywhere in the system, including in large and regional banks that are not G-SIBs.9
    The resilience of these firms has improved as they have recognized their vulnerabilities, and we have worked through supervisory channels to encourage risk-management practices that put them on a firmer footing. But we also need to put in place more durable solutions to address risks. For one, the level of capital held by large banks needs to align with the underlying risks on their balance sheets. One important step would be to finalize the requirement that all large firms reflect unrealized losses on available for sale securities in their capital, which is a reform with broad agreement. This will help them manage interest rate risk before it gets to extreme levels, a significant problem revealed in the banking stress of two years ago.
    Another lesson from the spring of 2023 is that large and regional banks—as well as G-SIBs—should ensure that they can actually monetize the securities on which they rely for their liquidity. Why does this matter? Banks need to be able to turn a portion of their assets into cash with a speed sufficient to meet outflows when uninsured depositors or other short-term creditors demand it. Regulation needs to reflect realistic assumptions about monetization.
    We should also consider updating some assumptions about deposit outflows in our liquidity requirements so that they better align with observed stress behavior. During the stress in 2023, we saw uninsured deposits from high-net worth individuals and certain entities, such as venture capital firms, behave more like highly sophisticated financial counterparties than nonfinancial companies or ordinary retail depositors, which is how they are generally treated in regulations.10 This mis-measured risk of deposit outflows means banks may not have sufficient liquidity to manage a stress period.
    In a related vein, banks have stepped up their use of reciprocal deposit arrangements—arrangements where deposits are spread across many banks within a network—as a way to manage the risk of deposit amounts over $250,000.11 While this arrangement spreads risk across the banking system, it is a strategy that has not been tested in a large-scale stress event. It is only logical to wonder how the attenuation of relationships between customers and banks under reciprocal arrangements will affect the behavior of depositors worried about a bank run. We also need to be attentive to operational risks in these arrangements, as well as the risk-management capacity of these companies to manage these relationships under stress.
    A final lesson from the bank stress two years ago is that we need to do more to ensure that all banks that come under stress can be resolved in an orderly fashion. One way to do this would be to require all large banks—including those that are not G-SIBS—to issue certain amounts of long-term debt. This would have helped reassure depositors worried about the stability of bank funding and aided in the eventual resolution of at least some of the banks that came under stress in 2023. The banking agencies have proposed a rule on long-term debt requirements, we have received many helpful comments that led us to adjust it in draft form, and I support moving forward to finalize it with those adjustments.12
    As I mentioned, revised Basel III standards, revised long-term debt requirements, and to-be-proposed liquidity standards would help to address gaps in our current framework, and I continue to believe that they should move forward.
    Moreover, banks and supervisors should also stay vigilant to known risks in the current environment. For instance, risks remain in the commercial real estate market, particularly within the office segment, as borrowers may find it difficult to refinance maturing loans. And interest rate risk, especially for those with high levels of uninsured deposits, remains a key area of focus.
    Maintain the Credibility of the Stress TestWe face a challenging environment with the Federal Reserve’s annual stress tests. The stress tests helped the financial sector emerge from the Global Financial Crisis and rebuild its credibility. The annual stress tests are still important to the financial sector’s credibility today. The stress tests help banks, market participants, and supervisors understand the banks’ vulnerabilities to shocks and to guard against those shocks by holding sufficient capital.
    In December, the Board announced that, due to the evolving legal landscape, we would be undertaking significant changes to the stress tests to reduce capital volatility and improve transparency.13 While I recognize that we need to increase transparency to reflect changes in the legal environment in which we operate, there are good reasons why I and many of my colleagues and predecessors have been averse to such full disclosures since the inception of the stress test fifteen years ago. There are several risks that we will need to guard against.
    First, we need to guard against the risk that the process results in reduced capital requirements. As they did during the Basel III process, banks are likely to argue against various aspects of the Fed’s models that result in higher capital requirements, and not to highlight the areas in which the models underestimate risks. We should take those comments on the Fed’s models seriously and adjust the models as appropriate, but we should be careful not to overcorrect and lower bank capital requirements in ways that underestimate aggregate risk. The Administrative Procedure Act should be a vehicle for transparency and public input into agency action, not used to weaken regulatory requirements that preserve the safety and stability of our financial system.
    Second, we need to guard against the risk that banks lower their capital requirements because of increased transparency. Increased disclosure of details about the Fed’s stress models could enable banks to optimize stress test results by adjusting their balance sheet based on their knowledge of where the models underprice risk, in order to reduce their capital requirements without materially reducing risks. Gaming the test in this way would be a bad outcome for risk management and our economy.
    Third, banks are likely to change their behavior in other ways that increase risk. We should be aware of the risk that full transparency into the models and scenarios used by regulators could discourage banks from investing in their own risk management if the test becomes too predictable. Full transparency may also encourage concentration across the system in assets that receive comparably lighter treatment in the test. And banks are likely to reduce their management buffers over required levels, which will bring greater risks of breaching the minimums and regulatory buffers when a significant risk event eventually happens.
    The fourth risk, and perhaps the greatest one, is that over time, given the difficulty of navigating the notice and comment rulemaking process on an ongoing basis to update the models we use, the dynamism and accuracy of the stress test will fade.14 And as the events of two years ago show, it is hard to predict where risks will emerge in the financial system; an inherent challenge of preserving the relevancy of stress testing is coming up with a set of adverse scenarios that are novel enough, and dynamic enough, to reflect the risks that banks may face from unanticipated developments. I believe that the Fed should commit to investing in a credible, effective process to maintain the dynamism of the binding stress test by regularly updating its models and scenario variables to reflect changes in the environment and changes to bank behavior. This will require resources and a strong commitment up front and over time, but it will be necessary to maintain a credible stress test.
    One effort we’ve already undertaken should help: to maintain the dynamism of the stress test, we launched exploratory stress scenarios to consider a wider range of possible conditions.15 The Fed used this approach during the pandemic, and we’ve now made it a regular part of our annual stress test exercise.16 The exploratory scenarios are not used to set binding capital requirements and are only reported on an aggregate level, but they help the Fed better understand risks posed to individual banks and to the banking system as a whole that are not captured in binding scenarios. I hope and trust that the Fed will continue this important analytical work.
    As an additional backstop to help ensure banks have sufficient capital to withstand losses, the Fed should preserve its discretion to set individually binding capital requirements on firms based on supervisory judgment under the International Lending Supervision Act. Jurisdictions around the world undertake a similar process under a so-called Basel “Pillar 2” approach, and the United States would benefit from using such a framework as well. That is all the more important given the changes the Fed is undertaking for the binding stress tests.
    Maintaining Credible, Consistent SupervisionAnother area warranting continued vigilance is supervision. There will undoubtedly be calls to revamp supervision to reduce burden. And I am all for making sure supervision is the most effective and efficient it can be. Supervisors need to focus on the most urgent and important risks, and not burden firms with unnecessary or distracting matters. But we need to be careful to preserve and enhance the ability of supervisors to act with speed, force, and agility as appropriate to the risk.
    Supervisors have emphasized proactive supervisory engagement, which helps banks address issues before they grow so large as to threaten the bank or broader financial stability. Earlier intervention means that firms are likely to have more options to fix their problems, with little impact on bank profitability.17
    We should continue work to improve the effectiveness of our supervision and use data-driven analysis to improve our scoping and prioritization of supervisory issues. I support this work to the extent that it makes our supervision more effective and focused on the right issues. But the Board should resist initiatives that impede effective supervision by discouraging examiners to flag issues early, or initiatives that increase unnecessary process around issuing findings in a manner that impedes the speed and agility of supervision when it is needed. More generally, supervision is another area in which “efficiency and competitiveness” should not be used as an excuse for lax oversight that significantly impairs the safety and soundness of individual institutions and undermines broader financial stability.
    We should take caution from our experience with SVB. While some have claimed that the examiners at SVB did not focus on the right issues, it’s important to highlight that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that the Fed allocated an insufficient number of examiner resources to SVB while in the RBO portfolio, and that the examiners assigned to SVB as it was growing did not have sufficient expertise in supervising large, complex institutions.18 Once it was in the large bank portfolio, examiners highlighted the risk from interest rate risk and uninsured depositors, but did not act with sufficient force to get the bank to change course in a timely way. We’ve made important changes since then, but we need to be sure we get the staff resources in place, and provide support to examiners on the front line, so that they can act with the speed, force, and agility warranted by the facts.
    Encouraging Responsible InnovationAnother set of risks involve those related to the role of innovative technology in the financial sector. Innovation, when done responsibly, brings tremendous benefits to consumers, financial institutions, and the economy at large. For instance, blockchain technology underlying crypto-assets has the potential to make financial services better, cheaper, and faster. Responsible use of this technology could make banking more efficient and accessible to more consumers.
    With any new technology, there are new risks. To achieve the benefits in a durable manner over time, we must ensure that the associated risks are managed appropriately. With crypto-assets, investors do not currently have the structural protections they have relied on for many decades in other financial markets. It is important that those guardrails are put in place to avoid issues such as the misuse of client funds, misrepresentations, obfuscation about availability of deposit insurance, and fraud. We should also recognize that some of the attractive attributes of crypto-assets—the pseudonymous actors that are parties to transactions, the ease and speed of transfer, and the general irrevocability of transactions—also make crypto-assets attractive for use in money laundering and terrorist financing. It is encouraging to see innovators develop tools and processes to better manage these risks, while harnessing the benefits of the technology. But regulation and supervision also have an essential role to play.
    Responsible innovation is in everyone’s interest. In the past few years, we stood up the Novel Activities Supervision Program, which dedicates resources to understanding how technology is transforming banking and supports banks’ ability to innovate while ensuring that banks clearly understand and manage the risks associated with innovative activities.19 I hope and trust that approach will continue.
    Addressing Cyber and Third-Party RiskCyber risk from both foreign powers and non-state actors has become a major concern for banks, and regulators will need to ensure that these risks are being properly managed. The operational disruption propagated through a third-party security company last summer was a wake-up call for banks and regulators about vulnerabilities in a system where security is outsourced. Disruption of one of these critical systems may compromise a bank’s ability to execute important functions and adversely affect individual firm safety and soundness as well as the broader financial system. Given the significant concentration in the IT industry, we should expect operational failures at single IT entities to have potentially far-reaching effects, no matter their original cause. And advances in artificial intelligence are likely to give bad actors new tools for fraud and infiltration, while also providing banks with new tools to combat these attacks. Both banks and the Federal Reserve need to continue to invest in cyber resiliency.
    Risks in the Nonbank SectorLet me speak next to the perennial concerns of intermediation by financial firms outside the bank regulatory perimeter. An increasingly varied and evolving collection of nonbank clients, including hedge funds, private credit, and insurance companies, is playing a significant role in the global economy and presenting new risks.
    Beginning with hedge funds, bank exposures to hedge funds have risen over the past several years, and concurrently, hedge fund leverage remains near historic highs.20 Archegos’s failure revealed the risks presented by hedge funds and the degree of interconnectedness between banks and hedge funds. And the exploratory analysis as part of last year’s stress test showed that banks have material exposures to hedge funds under certain market conditions, and that the hedge fund counterparty exposures can vary significant based on the specific set of shocks.21
    One area that has grown substantially is the Treasury cash-futures basis trade.22 The basis trade helps provide liquidity and price discovery in normal times, as hedge funds trade with asset managers and other financial institutions to align returns to holding Treasury securities and related futures. But the trade involves high levels of leverage, which can contribute to a rapid unwinding in positions and exacerbate market stress, as we saw in the spring of 2020. In principle, margining practices and participants’ risk-management activities should limit these risks, but individual firms do not account for the spillovers their actions can have on market functioning. These externalities suggest a role for regulation, and the central clearing mandate for Treasury market trading is an important step in supporting the resilience of this market. At the same time, we need to continue to consider how we can support the collection of minimum margin across trading venues and in bilateral trades to avoid loopholes and risks, and continue to monitor banks’ credit risk management practices with these hedge fund counterparties.
    Another area that has experienced rapid growth in recent years is private credit, which is now comparable in size to the high-yield bond market and leveraged loan market.23 Traditional private credit arrangements rely on limited leverage and generally have long-term funding, making them less vulnerable to the deleveraging spiral associated with high leverage and short-term funding. Nonetheless, risks may be growing. The connections between private credit and banks have been expanding, and private credit remains opaque, with limited information relative to asset classes of similar size.24 Moreover, the rapid growth and opacity of the sector raise the risk that recent private credit arrangements may be assuming new risks. Retail investors can now gain exposure to the asset class through mutual or exchange traded funds, which could present the age-old consumer and financial stability risks we see when opaque, illiquid assets are converted to liquid ones.25
    We also need to monitor risks in the insurance industry. Households planning for retirement often rely on life insurance companies to provide them a steady stream of income. In principle, life insurance companies are the ultimate patient investor and thus the natural vehicle to finance long-maturity and risky projects. Indeed, while venture capital funding gets a lot of the attention, mobilized retirement savings through life insurance companies have supported long-term investments in capital-intensive projects. However, life insurance companies, just like other financial institutions, can overpromise and be tempted to take on greater risk than their liability holders or regulators appreciate. Given the complexity of some investment vehicles, the institutions themselves may not fully appreciate all of the risks. The life insurance sector has been changing. Even as the life insurance industry has been increasing its holdings of assets originated by private equity firms, private equity firms have been acquiring life insurers directly. Moreover, private-equity-affiliated insurers rely more heavily on nontraditional liabilities, which may prove flighty in a stress event. This is something to watch carefully. In the next business cycle downturn, it’s possible that unexpected losses at insurance companies could lead to a sharp pullback and deeper credit crunch.
    Climate RiskFinally, regulators will need to continue to confront the financial risks from climate change. The Federal Reserve has a responsibility to recognize emerging risks to the safety and soundness of banks, to the ability of households and businesses to access financial services, and to financial stability. Costly natural disasters could present just such risks.
    The recent wildfires in California should be a wake-up call that we need to focus on how insurance markets will need to adjust to more frequent and severe weather events. The loss of life and hardship borne by many households is tragic, and the economic losses associated with the wildfires, while uncertain, are likely to be among the largest losses from a natural disaster on record. The wildfires should remind us of the problems in property and casualty insurance markets—just as the severe flooding caused by Hurricane Helene reminded us of significant gaps in flood insurance coverage.
    Often the structure and regulation of insurance markets prevents risk from being appropriately priced, limiting the ability of market signals to influence development and adaptation in high-risk areas and contributing to the buildup of risks. And there is a broader question of the extent to which private capital will be sufficient to cover increasing natural disaster risk.
    The Federal Reserve has an important but narrow role to play with respect to climate change, and that is to focus on risks from climate change to bank safety and soundness and financial stability. The pilot climate scenario analysis conducted by the Federal Reserve was an important step forward in assessing the capacity of the largest banks, as well as in building our own capacity, to perform the kind of analysis that is increasingly crucial as risks arising from more severe weather events become a driver of financial risk for specific firms and the broader economy.26 Guidance for the largest banks also plays an important role in reminding banks of basic principles in prudent risk management as it applies to these types of climate-related risks.
    ConclusionIn conclusion, the United States has the benefit of a strong, vigorous economy, the deepest and most liquid markets in the world, and a critical place in the world economy through the role of the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve has an essential role in maintaining the strength and resilience of the U.S. economy, including through its vigilance about the risks I discussed today. A strong and resilient banking system benefits the American people. We need to be humble about our ability to predict shocks to the financial system, and how they will propagate through vulnerabilities in the system. That is why it is so important to have strong regulation and supervision as shock absorbers to protect households and businesses from risks emanating from the financial system.
    In closing, I want to speak directly to the staff of the Federal Reserve and express my deep gratitude. Your rigorous analysis and deep expertise are fundamental to our ability to promote a strong and stable financial system that serves the American people. Thank you for your outstanding service.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Department of the Treasury, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, “Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC,” press release, March 12, 2023; and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Federal Reserve Board Announces It Will Make Available Additional Funding to Eligible Depository Institutions to Help Assure Banks Have the Ability to Meet the Needs of All Their Depositors,” press release, March 12, 2023. Return to text
    3. See, e.g., U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Remarks by Assistant Secretary Michael Barr” (speech at the Financial Times Global Finance Forum, New York, NY, December 2, 2010). Return to text
    4. See, e.g., speeches by Michael S. Barr: “Why Bank Capital Matters” (speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., December 1, 2022); “Holistic Capital Review (PDF)” (speech at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, D.C., July 10, 2023); “The Next Steps on Capital” (speech at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., September 10, 2024); and “On Building a Resilient Regulatory Framework” (speech at Central Banking in the Post-Pandemic Financial System 28th Annual Financial Markets Conference, Fernandina Beach, FL, May 20, 2024). Return to text
    5. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Agencies Request Comment on Proposed Rules to Strengthen Capital Requirements for Large Banks,” press release, July 27, 2023. Return to text
    6. by Michael S. Barr: “The Next Steps on Capital” (speech at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., (September 10, 2024). Return to text
    7. See “Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr memo” in Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Review of the Federal Reserve’s Supervision and Regulation of Silicon Valley Bank (PDF) (Washington, April 2023). Return to text
    8. See “Discount Window Readiness”. Return to text
    9. For an earlier perspective, see Hearing on Prudential Oversight before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (PDF), July 23, 2015 (statement by Michael S. Barr). Return to text
    10. 12 CFR 249. 32-33. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Review of the Federal Reserve’s Supervision and Regulation of Silicon Valley Bank (Washington, April 2023); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC’s Supervision of First Republic Bank (PDF) (Washington: September 2023). Return to text
    11. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Financial Stability Report (PDF) (Washington: November 2024). Return to text
    12. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Agencies Request Comment on Proposed Rule to Require Large Banks to Maintain Long-Term Debt to Improve Financial Stability and Resolution,” press release, August 29, 2023. Return to text
    13. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Due to Evolving Legal Landscape and Changes in the Framework of Administrative Law, Federal Reserve Board Will Soon Seek Public Comment on Significant Changes to Improve Transparency of Bank Stress Tests and Reduce Volatility of Resulting Capital Requirements,” press release, December 23, 2024. Return to text
    14. That model sclerosis contributed to the failure of the supervisory stress test used for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the Global Financial Crisis, with devastating results. Scott Frame, Krisopher Gerardi, and Paul Willen, “The Failure of Supervisory Stress Testing: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and OFHEO,” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Working Paper No. 15-4 (October 2015). Return to text
    15. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Exploratory Analysis of Risks to the Banking System (PDF) (Washington: June 2024). Return to text
    16. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Assessment of Bank Capital during the Recent Coronavirus Event (PDF) (Washington: June 2020). Return to text
    17. Beverly Hirtle and Anna Kovner, “Bank Supervision,” Annual Review of Financial Economics 14 (2022): 39–56. Return to text
    18. Office of Inspector General, Material Loss Review of Silicon Valley Bank (PDF) (Washington: September 25, 2023). Return to text
    19. See https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/novel-activities-supervision-program.htm. Return to text
    20. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Financial Stability Report (PDF) (Washington: November 2024). Return to text
    21. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Exploratory Analysis of Risks to the Banking System (PDF) (Washington: June 2024). Return to text
    22. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Financial Stability Report (PDF) (Washington: November 2024). Return to text
    23. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Financial Stability Report (PDF) (Washington: November 2024). Return to text
    24. John Levin and Antoine Malfroy-Camine, “Bank Lending to Private Equity and Private Credit Funds: Insights from Regulatory Data,” Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Supervisory Research and Analysis Notes (February 2025). Return to text
    25. Chapter 2 The Rise and Risks of Private Credit in: Global Financial Stability Report, April 2024. Return to text
    26. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Pilot Climate Scenario Analysis Exercise: Summary of Participants’ Risk-Management Practices and Estimates (PDF) (Washington: May 2024). Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Federal Home Loan Bank of New York Announces Full-Year and Fourth Quarter 2024 Operating Highlights

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York (“FHLBNY”) today released its unaudited financial highlights for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2024. 

    The FHLBNY’s net income for 2024 was $738.5 million, a decrease of $12.6 million, or 1.7%, from record net income of $751.1 million for 2023. Net interest income for the year was $986.8 million, a decrease of $8.5 million, or 0.9%, from a record $995.3 million for 2023. Higher market interest rates and continued large earning asset balances contributed to strong net interest income. Yield on assets increased to 5.34% for 2024 from 5.14% in 2023. Other income increased by $35.5 million, to $112.6 million in 2024, mainly due to net unrealized fair value gains on derivatives and hedged items including trading securities held for liquidity purposes. The FHLBNY’s return on average equity (“ROE”) for 2024 was 8.49%, compared to ROE of 9.11% for 2023. Non-interest expense increased by $42.9 million, driven by an increase in voluntary contributions to the FHLBNY’s housing and community development support activities, as well as an increase in compensation and benefits driven by headcount additions and technology-related expenses.

    In the fourth quarter of 2024, the FHLBNY earned $153.3 million in net income, a decrease of $1.6 million, or 1.1%, from net income of $154.9 million for the fourth quarter of 2023. Net interest income for the quarter was $236.9 million, a decrease of $11.5 million, or 4.6%, from $248.4 million in the fourth quarter last year. Yield on assets decreased to 4.91% for the fourth quarter of 2024, from 5.45% for the fourth quarter 2023, reflecting changes in market interest rates. Member borrowings held steady during the period, with average advances balances, at par, of $105.2 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $104.7 billion for the fourth quarter of 2023. Other income increased by $18.0 million, to $24.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 from $6.4 million in the fourth quarter last year, primarily due to net unrealized fair value gains on derivatives and hedged items including trading securities held for liquidity purposes. Non-interest expense increased by $7.7 million, driven by the same factors as for the full year: voluntary contributions, headcount additions and technology-related expenses. The FHLBNY’s ROE for the fourth quarter of 2024 was 6.80%, compared to ROE of 7.76% for the fourth quarter of 2023. 

    “Throughout 2024, the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York’s continued focus on executing on our foundational liquidity mission in a safe and sound manner and serving the needs of our members and community partners drove our strong performance, resulting in our second-highest annual income and record contributions to our housing and economic development programs and products,” said Randolph C. Snook, president and CEO of the FHLBNY.

    As of December 31, 2024, total assets were $160.3 billion, an increase of $2.0 billion, or 1.2%, from total assets of $158.3 billion as of December 31, 2023. As of December 31, 2024, advances were $105.8 billion, a decrease of $3.1 billion, or 2.8%, from $108.9 billion as of December 31, 2023. Average advances balances, at par, were $110.3 billion in 2024, $1.4 billion or 1.2% lower than the average advances balance level of $111.7 billion in 2023.

    As of December 31, 2024, total capital was $8.4 billion, an increase of $0.2 billion from total capital of $8.2 billion at December 31, 2023. The FHLBNY’s retained earnings increased during 2024 by $0.2 billion to $2.5 billion as of December 31, 2024, of which approximately $1.3 billion is unrestricted retained earnings and $1.2 billion is restricted retained earnings. At December 31, 2024, the FHLBNY was in compliance with its regulatory capital ratios and liquidity requirements.

    The FHLBNY allocated $82.1 million from its 2024 earnings for its Affordable Housing Program, an annual statutory grant program that supports the creation and preservation of affordable housing. In addition, the FHLBNY made $47.7 million in voluntary housing and community development grants and contributions in 2024, including an additional voluntary contribution to the Affordable Housing Program of $22.9 million to support its housing programs for 2025.

    The FHLBNY will publish its 2024 audited financial results in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is expected to be filed on or about March 21, 2025.

               
    Selected Balance Sheet Items (dollars in millions)     
      December 31,   December 31,    
      2024   2023   Change
               
    Advances $ 105,838     $ 108,890     $ (3,052 )
    Mortgage loans held for portfolio   2,345       2,180       165  
    Mortgage-backed securities   19,397       19,582       (185 )
    Liquidity assets   30,344       25,340       5,004  
    Total assets $ 160,300     $ 158,333     $ 1,967  
               
    Consolidated obligations $ 148,411     $ 145,476     $ 2,935  
    Capital stock   6,014       6,050       (36 )
    Unrestricted retained earnings   1,286       1,277       9  
    Restricted retained earnings   1,209       1,061       148  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income   (100 )     (143 )     43  
    Total capital $ 8,410     $ 8,245     $ 165  
               
    Capital-to-assets ratio (GAAP)   5.25 %     5.21 %    
    Capital-to-assets ratio (Regulatory)   5.31 %     5.30 %    
               
    Operating Results (dollars in millions)               
      Quarter Ended December 31,       Year Ended December 31,      
      2024   2023 Change   2024   2023
      Change  
                                 
    Total interest income $ 2,002.6     $ 2,136.3     $ (133.7 )   $ 8,918.6     $ 8,400.4     $ 518.2    
    Total interest expense   1,765.7       1,887.9       (122.2 )     7,931.8       7,405.1       526.7    
    Net interest income   236.9       248.4       (11.5 )     986.8       995.3       (8.5 )  
    Provision (Reversal) for credit losses   0.5       (0.1 )     0.6       (0.2 )     1.7       (1.9 )  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses   236.4       248.5       (12.1 )     987.0       993.6       (6.6 )  
    Non-interest income (loss)   24.4       6.4       18.0       112.6       77.1       35.5    
    Non-interest expense   90.5       82.8       7.7       279.0       236.1       42.9    
    Affordable Housing Program assessments   17.0       17.2       (0.2 )     82.1       83.5       (1.4 )  
    Net income $ 153.3     $ 154.9     $ (1.6 )   $ 738.5     $ 751.1     $ (12.6 )  
                                                     
    Return on average equity   6.80 %     7.76 %             8.49 %     9.11 %          
    Return on average assets   0.37 %     0.39 %             0.44 %     0.46 %          
    Net interest margin   0.58 %     0.63 %             0.59 %     0.61 %          
                                                     

    Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
    The Federal Home Loan Bank of New York is a Congressionally chartered, wholesale Bank. It is part of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, a national wholesale banking network of 11 regional, stockholder-owned banks. As of December 31, 2024, the FHLBNY serves 341 member institutions in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Federal Home Loan Banks support the efforts of local members to help provide financing for America’s homebuyers.

    Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
    This report may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based upon our current expectations and speak only as of the date hereof. These statements may use forward-looking terms, such as “projected,” “expects,” “may,” or their negatives or other variations on these terms. The Bank cautions that, by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk or uncertainty and that actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements or could affect the extent to which a particular objective, projection, estimate, or prediction is realized. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties including, but not limited to, the Risk Factors set forth in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K and our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, as well as regulatory and accounting rule adjustments or requirements, changes in interest rates, changes in projected business volumes, changes in prepayment speeds on mortgage assets, the cost of our funding, changes in our membership profile, the withdrawal of one or more large members, competitive pressures, shifts in demand for our products, and general economic conditions. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason.

    CONTACT: Brian Finnegan
    (212) 441-6877
    brian.finnegan@fhlbny.com

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Canada: Protecting yourself from scams

    Source: Bank of Canada

    Recognizing a scam

    As Canada’s central bank, the Bank of Canada:

    • does not accept deposits from or on behalf of individuals
    • does not request the transfer of funds or payments from individuals
    • does not get involved in or partner with companies or individuals in investment schemes
    • does not collect personal or financial information from individuals through email or by telephone
    • does not request personal or financial information through social media messaging applications
    • does not sell or issue any form of cryptoasset

    The Bank’s employees and officers:

    • do not request personal or financial information by telephone, email or through social media messaging applications
    • do not participate in any internet-based communications that request information or payment for services

    Reporting a scam

    Take the following steps if you have concerns about the contents of any call or internet-based communication that purports to be from the Bank or about the Bank’s involvement in any investment scheme or suspicious activity:

    • Delete the email or message after contacting your local authorities.
    • Do not follow links. Access the Bank’s website by typing the URL yourself—https://www.bankofcanada.ca—and look for references to the program identified in the email.
    • Call our Public Information Office at 1‑800‑303‑1282 (toll-free in North America), or send us an
      with details of the scam.
    • Optionally, contact the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

    If you suspect your information may have been compromised, you may also wish to take precautionary measures to safeguard financial and personal information online, such as:

    • updating any passwords for credit cards, financial or other accounts
    • enabling multi-factor authentication on all accounts online
    • monitoring your financial and personal online accounts for any unusual activity

    MIL OSI Canada News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Canada: Government of Yukon celebrates recipients of the 2024 sport awards

    Government of Yukon celebrates recipients of the 2024 sport awards
    jlutz
    February 18, 2025 – 12:00 pm

    This is a joint news release between the Government of Yukon, Yukon Aboriginal Sport Circle, Sport Yukon and Special Olympics Yukon.

    The Government of Yukon, Sport Yukon, Yukon Aboriginal Sport Circle and Special Olympics Yukon celebrated the territory’s top athletes, coaches and volunteers with an award ceremony on February 17, 2025.

    The Government of Yukon recognizes recipients with two awards: the Premier’s Award of Sport Excellence and the Minister’s Award of Sport Recognition.

    The Premier’s Award, which recognizes the achievements of outstanding Yukon athletes who competed internationally or nationally, was presented to 32 athletes.

    The Minister’s Award, which is presented to athletes or teams who excelled at the Arctic Winter Games, Canada 55+ Games, provincials, Western Canadians or national competitions, was earned by 125 athletes and 8 teams.

    Annually, the Sport Yukon Major Awards are presented to Yukoners for their significant contributions and achievement in sport across various categories. A total of seven awards are presented for administrator, coach and athletes of the year.

    Special Olympics Yukon enriches the lives of over 120 Yukoners with an intellectual disability through sport. Each year, Special Olympics presents the following awards: Athletes of the Year, Most Improved Athletes of the Year, Athlete and Sport Volunteer Rising Stars and the Heather Miller Sport Volunteer of the Year.

    The Yukon Aboriginal Sport Circle awards were given to seven recipients including two Indigenous athletes of the year, an Indigenous coach of the year, an Indigenous sport and recreation community steward of the year and an exemplary person in arctic sports, dene games and archery.

    Backgrounder

    Premier’s Award of Sport Excellence

    Name Sport Competition(s) Event(s) Placing/Achievement
    Mya Wilson Archery Archery Canada Indoor Championships U18 barebow Gold
    Mikayla Therriault Archery Archery Canada Indoor Championships U15 barebow Gold 
    Dawson Widney Archery Archery Canada Indoor Championships U18 barebow Bronze
    Shiori Monzo Archery

    Archery Canada Indoor Championships 

    2024 Youth and Masters Pan Am Championships

    U15 Recurve

    Gold 

    Member of Team Canada

    Delia Therriault Archery 2024 Youth and Masters Pan Am Championships   Member of Team Canada
    Emmett Kapaniuk Archery  2024 Youth and Masters Pan Am Championships   Member of Team Canada
    Emily King Arctic Sports World Eskimo-Indian Olympics One-Foot High Kick World record set, four gold, one silver, and three bronze
    Nadia Moser Biathlon Biathlon Canada Nationals

    Women Sprint 

    Women Pursuit 

    Women 10 km

    Gold

    Silver 

    Silver

    Cole Germain Biathlon Biathlon Canada Nationals

    Youth Men/Women Relay 

    Youth Men Pursuit

    Gold

    Silver

    Cheyenne Tirschmann Biathlon Biathlon Canada Nationals

    Youth Men/Women Relay 

    Youth Women Pursuit 

    Youth Women Sprint

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Gold

    Mallory Pigage Bowling 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games 5-pin Bowling Singles F05 Gold
    Duncan McRae Bowling 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games 5-pin Bowling Singles M02 Silver
    Gracie Ryckman Bowling 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games 5-pin Bowling Singles F07 Silver
    Bobbi-Rae Patchett Bowling 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games 5-pin Bowling Singles F04 Gold 
    Darby McIntyre Cross Country Skiing 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games

    7.5 km Classic M1

    5 km Classic M1

    10 km Classic M1

    Silver

    Gold 

    Gold

    Owen Munroe Cross Country Skiing 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games

    7.5 km Classic M3

    5 km Classic M3 

    10 km Classic M2

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Silver

    Ernest Chua Cross Country Skiing 2024 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games

    1 km Classic M2 

    2.5 km Classic M4

    Silver 

    Bronze

    Minty Bradford Cross Country Skiing

    U16 Nordiq Canada Ski Nationals 

    Youth Olympic Games

    7.5 km free

    5 km free

    Gold

    Gold

    Member of Team Canada

    Derek Deuling Cross Country Skiing U23 Nordic World Ski Championship Mixed Relay  Gold while representing Team Canada
    Sonjaa Schmidt Cross Country Skiing U23 Nordic World Ski Championship Women’s Sprint Gold while representing Team Canada
    Sasha Masson Cross Country Skiing U23 Nordic World Ski Championship   Member of Team Canada
    Mara Roldan Cycling U23 Canadian Road National Championships

    Road Race 

    Time Trial 

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Callum Weir Futsal 2024 CONCACAF Futsal Championship   Member of Team Canada
    Emery Twardochleb Hockey U18 Women’s National Championship   Bronze
    Gavin McKenna Hockey

    U18 World Championship 

    U20 World Junior Championship

     

    Gold 

    Member of Team Canada

    Kaylee Fortier Judo Judo Canada   Open Nationals +63kg Newaza Open 

    Silver

    Lia Hinchey Judo Judo Canada Open Nationals -63kg Newaza Open Silver
    Jaymi Hinchey Judo

    Judo Canada Open Nationals

    Sask. Open 

    Manitoba Open

    U18 -52kg   

    U18 -52kg
    Senior-52kg 

    U21 -52kg Senior 

    Gold 

    Gold
    Gold

    Bronze
    Bronze

    Huxley Briggs Judo Manitoba Open U18 -50kg Gold
    Stian Langbakk Snowboarding

    Snowboarding Junior National Championships

    BC Provincial Series 1

    BC Provincial Series 2

    Slopestyle

    Slopestyle

    Slopestyle

    Bronze

    Gold

    Gold

    Tuja Dreyer Swimming 2024 Junior Pan Pacific Championships   Member of Team Canada
    Emma Boyd Volleyball 2024 NORCEA Pan Am Games   Member of Team Canada

    Minister’s Award of Sport Recognition 

    Name Sport Competition(s) Event(s) Placing/Achievement
    Helen Dewell Bowling 2024 Canada 55+ Games 65+ Singles Bowling  Gold
    John Hadvick Darts 2024 Canada 55+ Games 65+ Doubles Dart  Gold
    Tim McLachlan Darts 2024 Canada 55+ Games

    65+ Singles Darts

    65+ Doubles Darts

    Gold

    Gold

    Janet Brault Swimming 2024 Canada 55+ Games 55+ Predicted Swim Gold 
    Christine Cash Swimming 2024 Canada 55+ Games 60-64 100m Breaststroke Gold
    Nesta Leduc Swimming 2024 Canada 55+ Games 85+ 100m Freestyle Gold
    Therese Lindsay Swimming 2024 Canada 55+ Games

    60-64 years: 

    50m Freestyle 

    50m Backstroke

    100M Backstroke 

    100m Medley

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Barb Phillips Swimming 2024 Canada 55+ Games

    80-84 years: 

    100m Backstroke 

    50m Breaststroke 

    100m Breaststroke 

    100m Medley

    Gold 

    Gold                          

    Gold             

    Gold

    Maureen Wallingham Swimming 2024 Canada 55+ Games 65-69 years: 50m Butterfly Gold
    Marcella Abrams Track and Field 2024 Canada 55+ Games 75+ 1500m run  Gold
    Rachel Grantham Track and Field 2024 Canada 55+ Games 65-69 Javelin Gold
    Sheila Senger Track and Field 2024 Canada 55+ Games 75-79 200m sprint Gold
    Marg White Track and Field 2024 Canada 55+ Games 55+ 400m Predicted Walk Gold
    Team Yukon  Alpine Skiing Arctic Winter Games Overall Team Gold 
    Ellyann Dinn Alpine Skiing Arctic Winter Games

    Overall Team

    Slalom 08-09 F

    Parallel Slalom 08-09 F 

    Giant Slalom 08-09 F

    Gold

    Gold                          

    Gold 

    Gold

    Josephine de Jager Alpine Skiing Arctic Winter Games

    Overall Team 

    Parallel Slalom 10-11 F

    Gold 

    Gold

    Tom Vollmer Alpine Skiing Arctic Winter Games

    Overall Team 

    Parallel Slalom 08-09 M

    Gold

    Gold

    Zach Ball Alpine Skiing Arctic Winter Games

    Overall Team 

    Parallel Slalom 10-11 M

    Gold 

    Gold

    Kael Epp Archery Arctic Winter Games Individual Compound 2006 or later M Gold
    Dominick Watt Archery Arctic Winter Games Team Compound Mix Gold
    Augustin Greetham Arctic Sports

    Arctic Winter Games

    2024 Indigenous Summer Games

    Kneel Jump 2007 or later M

    Overall Junior Male

    Gold

    Four Gold, four silver, four bronze 

    Amelie Guilbeault Arctic Sports Arctic Winter Games Sledge Jump 2007 or later F Gold
    Bree Labelle

    Arctic Sports

    Gymnastics 

    Arctic Winter Games

    Xcel GymBC Championships

    Triple Jump 2007 or later F

    Category Xcel Platinum – Bars

     

    Gold

    Bronze 

    Isabelle Paquette Arctic Sports Arctic Winter Games

    Kneel Jump Open F 

    Triple Jump Open F

    Gold

    Gold

    Team Yukon Basketball Basketball Arctic Winter Games   Gold
    Lydia Brown Biathlon Arctic Winter Games

    2006-08 F: 

    7.5 km Individual 

    7.5 km Mass Start 

    4×4.5 km Mixed Relay

    Gold                       

    Gold

    Gold

                                     

    Niamh Hupe Biathlon Arctic Winter Games

    2009 or Later F: 

    5 km Individual

    5 km Mass Start 

    Gold

    Gold

    Alexander LeBarge Biathlon  Arctic Winter Games

    2006-08 M: 

    7.5 km Mass Start 

    4×4.5 km Mixed Relay

    Gold

    Gold

    Matthew London Biathlon Arctic Winter Games

    2006-08 M: 

    6 km Sprint 

    4×4.5 km Mixed Relay

    Gold

    Gold

    Stella Mueller Biathlon Arctic Winter Games 2006-08 4×4.5 km Mixed Relay Gold
    Logan Tirschmann Biathlon Arctic Winter Games 2009 or Later M 5 km Mass Start Gold 
    Mason Parry Biathlon – snowshoe Arctic Winter Games

    2006-08 M: 

    5 km Individual 

    3 km Sprint 

    4 km Mass Start

    Gold 

    Gold

    Gold

    Jasper Charlie Dene Games

    Arctic Winter Games

    2024 Indigenous Summer Games

    Stick Pull 2006 or Later M

    Gold

    Three silver, two bronze

    Team Yukon Dene Games Arctic Winter Games Hand Games Open F Gold 
    Myra Kendi Dene Games

    Arctic Winter Games

    2024 Indigenous Summer Games

    Snow Snake Open F

    Gold

    Three gold  

    Team Yukon 2006 or Later M Futsal Arctic Winter Games   Gold 
    Lucy Miller Gymnastics

    Arctic Winter Games

    Xcel GymBC Championships

    Floor 2006 or Later F

    Beam

    Gold

    Silver

    Eva Benkert Snowboarding Arctic Winter Games

    2010 or Later F: 

    Banked Slalom

    Overall

    Gold

    Gold

    Seamus MacDonald Snowboarding Arctic Winter Games

    2010 or Later M: 

    Slopestyle 

    Banked Slalom 

    Overall

    Gold

    Gold 

    Gold

    Danee Marsh Snowboarding Arctic Winter Games Slopestyle 2010 or Later F Gold
    Leo Spiers Leung Snowboarding Arctic Winter Games Rail Jam 2010 or Later M Gold 
    Aven Sutton Snowboarding Arctic Winter Games

    2008 or Later F: 

    Slopestyle 

    Rail Jam 

    Banked Slalom

    Overall

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Gold

    Taiga Buurman Snowshoeing Arctic Winter Games Short Distance Combined 2005 or Later M  Gold
    Micah McConnell Snowshoeing Arctic Winter Games

    2009 or Later M: 

    2.5 km Cross Country 

    5 km Cross Country 

    Short Distance Combined 

    Gold

    Gold

    Gold

    Liam Gishler Wrestling Arctic Winter Games Inuit Wrestling up to 60kg M Gold
    Aqilah Salim  Wrestling Arctic Winter Games Individual up to 50kg F Gold
    Leah McLean

    Wrestling

    Judo

    Arctic Winter Games

    Sask Open

    Individual up to 65kg F

    Inuit Wrestling up to 65kg F

    U18 -63kg

    Gold

    Gold

    Silver

    Harlynn Germaine  Arctic Sports & Archery Indigenous Summer Games

    Overall Junior Female

    Swing Kick

    One Hand Reach

    Airplane

    One Foot High Kick

    Knuckle Hop

    Bow and Arrow

    Gold

    Gold

    Gold

    Bronze

    Bronze

    Bronze

    NuNu Sageaktook Arctic Sports Indigenous Summer Games

    Junior Female:

    Swing Kick

    One Hand Reach

    Knuckle Hop

    Airplane 

    Kneel Jump

    Silver

    Silver

    Silver

    Silver

    Silver

    Isabelle Prochazka Dene Games Indigenous Summer Games

    Junior Female:

    Finger Pull

    Axe Throwing

    Fish Cutting

    Gold

    Silver

    Bronze

    Harmony Kendi Dene Games Indigenous Summer Games

    Junior Female:

    Fish Cutting

    Gold

    Eric Porter Dene Games Indigenous Summer Games

    Open Male:

    Leg Wrestling

    Stick Pull

    Silver 

    Bronze 

    Jason Sealy Arctic Sports Indigenous Summer Games

    Open Male:

    Triple Jump

    Silver

    Ross King Archery  Indigenous Summer Games Open Male: Bow and Arrow Gold 
    Laneah Colwell & Sabine Keesey Beach Volleyball Volleyball Canada Beach Nationals 16U Girls Tier 3 Silver
    Kassia Kelly & Mischa Ng-Schmidt Beach Volleyball Volleyball Canada Beach Nationals 14U Girls Tier 4 Silver
    Asher Johnson Climbing Climb Canada Western Canadian Regionals Overall Youth B Boys (Bouldering) Silver
    Jenna Henderson Gymnastics BC Provincial Artistic Gymnastics Championships CCP8 – Bars Bronze
    Julianna Kennedy Gymnastics BC Provincial Artistic Gymnastics Championships CCP6 – Bars Bronze
    Layla Hombert Gymnastics BC Provincial Artistic Gymnastics Championships CCP8 – Vault Bronze
    Lily Witten Gymnastics BC Provincial Artistic Gymnastics Championships CCP8 – Bars Bronze 
    Taylor Kennedy Gymnastics

    BC Provincial Artistic Gymnastics Championships 

    Western Canadian Artistic Gymnastics Championships

    CCP8 – Bars 

                          

    CCP8 – Bars

    Gold 

    Gold 

    Amelie Blackie Gymnastics Xcel GymBC Championships 

    Xcel Gold:

    All Around

    Silver

    Leoni Crete-Bergeron  Gymnastics Xcel GymBC Championships

    Xcel Gold: 

    All Around 

    Beam 

    Vault 

    Silver 

    Bronze 

    Bronze 

    Linnea Roberts Soccer BC Youth Provincial Championship  U16 Girls Soccer B-Cup Gold 
    Subzero 16U Girls Volleyball Volleyball Canada Nationals 16U Girls Tier 29 Silver 
    Subzero Surge 15U Girls Volleyball 

    Volleyball Canada Nationals

    BC Provincials

    15U Girls Tier 21

    15U Girls Tier 4

    Gold

    Silver                                 

    Sport Yukon Major Awards

    Award Winner Sport
    Administrator of the Year Lianne Fordham Basketball
    Coach of the Year Penny Prysnuk Judo
    National/Territorial Female Athlete of the Year 

    Cheyenne Tirschmann

    Minty Bradford

    Biathlon

    Cross Country Skiing

    National/Territorial Male Athlete of the Year Stian Langbakk Snowboarding
    International Female Athlete of the Year Sonjaa Schmidt Cross Country Skiing
    International Male Athlete of the Year Derek Deuling Cross Country Skiing
    Team of the Year  Team Yukon Arctic Winter Games

    Special Olympics Yukon 

    Award Winner(s)
    Athlete(s) of the Year Bobbi-Rae Patchett & Darby McIntyre
    Most Improved Athlete(s) of the Year Martina O’Brien & Owen Munroe
    Rising Star Athlete of the Year Sage Bowlby 
    Rising Star Sport Volunteer of the Year Jennifer Spencer
    Heather Miller Sport Volunteer of the Year Leeland Hawkings

    Yukon Aboriginal Sport Circle 

    Award Winner
    Indigenous Male Athlete of the Year Hudson Sias 
    Indigenous Female Athlete of the Year Emily King
    Indigenous Coach of the Year Penny Prysnuk
    Indigenous Sport and Recreation Community Steward of the Year George Skookum 
    Archery Coach of the Year Warren Kapaniuk 
    Arctic Sports Coach of the Year Sarah Walz
    Dene Games Coach of the Year Mats’äsäna Ma Primozic

    MIL OSI Canada News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Jennie Lee lecture – Arts for Everyone

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has today (Thursday 20 February 2025) made an inaugural lecture marking the 60th anniversary of the first ever arts white paper.

    In 2019, as Britain tore itself apart over Brexit, against a backdrop of growing nationalism, anger and despair I sat down with the film director Danny Boyle to talk about the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony. 

    That moment was perhaps the only time in my lifetime that most of the nation united around an honest assessment of our history in all its light and dark, a celebration of the messy, complex, diverse nation we’ve become and a hopeful vision of the future. 

    Where did that country go? I asked him. He replied: it’s still there, it’s just waiting for someone to give voice to it.

    …

    13 years later and we have waited long enough. In that time our country has found multiple ways to divide ourselves from one another. 

    We are a fractured nation where too many people are forced to grind for a living rather than strive for a better life. 

    Recent governments have shown violent indifference to the social fabric – the local, regional and national institutions that connect us to one another, from the Oldham Coliseum to Northern Rock, whose foundation sustained the economic and cultural life of the people of the North East for generations. 

    But this is not just an economic and social crisis, it is cultural too.

    We have lost the ability to understand one another. 

    A crisis of trust and faith in government and each other has destroyed the consensus about what is truthfully and scientifically valid. 

    Where is the common ground to be found on which a cohesive future can be forged? How can individuals make themselves heard and find self expression? Where is the connection to a sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves? 

    I thought about that conversation with Danny Boyle last summer when we glimpsed one version of our future. As violent thugs set our streets ablaze, a silent majority repelled by the racism and violence still felt a deep sense of unrest. In a country where too many people have been written off and written out of our national story. Where imagination, creation and contribution is not seen or heard and has no outlet, only anger, anxiety and disorder on our streets.

    There is that future. 

    Or there is us.

    That is why this country must always resist the temptation to see the arts as a luxury. The visual arts, music, film, theatre, opera, spoken word, poetry, literature and dance – are the building blocks of our cultural life, indispensable to the life of a nation, always, but especially now. 

    So much has been taken from us in this dark divisive decade but above all our sense of self-confidence as a nation. 

    But we are good at the arts. We export music, film and literature all over the world. We attract investment to every part of the UK from every part of the globe. We are the interpreters and the storytellers, with so many stories to tell that must be heard. 

    And despite everything that has been thrown at us, wherever I go in Britain I feel as much ambition for family, community and country as ever before. In the end, for all the fracture, the truth remains that our best hope… is each other.

    This is the country that George Orwell said “lies beneath the surface”. 

    And it must be heard. It is our intention that when we turn to face the nation again in four years time it will be one that is more self-confident and hopeful, not just comfortable in our diversity but a country that knows it is enriched by it, where everybody’s contribution is seen and valued and every single person can see themselves reflected in our national story. 

    You might wonder, when so much is broken, when nothing is certain, so much is at stake, why I am asking more of you now.

    John F Kennedy once said we choose to go to the moon in this decade not because it is easy but because it is hard.

    That is I think what animated the leaders of the post war period who, in the hardest of circumstances knew they had to forge a new nation from the upheaval of war. 

    And they reached for the stars.

    The Festival of Britain – which was literally built out of the devastation of war – on a bombed site on the South Bank, took its message to every town, city and village in the land and prioritised exhibitions that explored the possibilities of space and technology and allowed a devastated nation to gaze at the possibilities of the future. 

    So many of our treasured cultural institutions that still endure to this day emerged from the devastation of that war.

    The first Edinburgh Festival took place just a year after the war when – deliberately – a Jewish conductor led the Vienna Philharmonic, a visible symbol of the power of arts to heal and unite. 

    From the BBC to the British Film Institute, the arts have always helped us to understand the present and shape the future. 

    People balked when John Maynard Keynes demanded that a portion of the funding for the reconstruction of blitzed towns and cities must be spent on theatres and galleries. But he persisted, arguing there could be “no better memorial of a war to save the freedom of spirit of an individual”.

    Yes it took visionary political leaders. 

    But it also demanded artists and supporters of the arts who refused to be deterred by the economic woes of the country and funding in scarce supply, and without hesitation cast aside those many voices who believed the arts to be an indulgence.

    This was an extraordinary generation of artists and visionaries who understood their role was not to preserve the arts but to help interpret, shape and light the path to the future.

    Together they powered a truly national renaissance which paved the way for the woman we honour today – Jennie Lee – whose seminal arts white paper, the first Britain had ever had, was published 60 years ago this year. 

    It stated unequivocally the Wilson government’s belief in the power of the arts to transform society and to transform lives.

    Perhaps because of her belief in the arts in and of itself, which led to her fierce insistence that arts must be for everyone, everywhere – and her willingness to both champion and challenge the arts – she was – as her biographer Patricia Hollis puts it  – the first, the best known and the most loved of all Britain’s Ministers for the Arts.

    When she was appointed so many people sneered at her insistence on arts for everyone everywhere..

    And yet she held firm.

    That is why we are not only determined – but impassioned – to celebrate her legacy and consider how her insistence that culture was at the centre of a flourishing nation can help us today. 

    This is the first in what will be an annual lecture that gives a much needed platform to those voices who are willing to think and do differently and rise to this moment, to forge the future, written – as Benjamin Zephaniah said – in verses of fire.

    Because governments cannot do this alone. It takes a nation.

    And in that spirit, her spirit. I want to talk to you about why we need you now. What you can expect from us. And what we need from you. 

    …

    George Bernard Shaw once wrote:

     “Imagination is the beginning of creation. 

    “you imagine what you desire,

    “you will what you imagine – 

    “and at last you create what you will.”

    That belief that arts matter in and of themselves, central to the chance to live richer, larger lives, has animated every Labour Government in history and animates us still. 

    As the Prime Minister said in September last year: “Everyone deserves the chance to be touched by art. Everyone deserves access to moments that light up their lives.

    “And every child deserves the chance to study the creative subjects that widen their horizons, provide skills employers do value, and prepares them for the future, the jobs and the world that they will inherit.”

    This was I think Jennie Lee’s central driving passion, that “all of our children should be given the kind of education that was the monopoly of the privileged few” – to the arts, sport, music and culture which help us grow as people and grow as a nation. 

    But who now in Britain can claim that this is the case? Whether it is the running down of arts subjects, the narrowing of the curriculum and the labelling of arts subjects as mickey mouse –  enrichment funding in schools eroded at the stroke of the pen or the closure of much-needed community spaces as council funding has been slashed. 

    Culture and creativity has been erased, from our classrooms and our communities. 

    Is it any wonder that the number of students taking arts GSCEs has dropped by almost half since 2010? 

    This is madness. At a time when the creative industries offer such potential for growth, good jobs and self expression in every part of our country  And a lack of skills acts as the single biggest brake on them…bar none, we have had politicians who use them as a tool in their ongoing, exhausting culture wars. 

    Our Cabinet, the first entirely state educated Cabinet in British history, have never accepted the chance to live richer, larger lives belongs only to some of us and I promise you that we never ever will. 

    That is why we wasted no time in launching a review of the curriculum, as part of our Plan for Change. 

    To put arts, music and creativity back at the heart of the education system.

    Where they belong. 

    And today I am delighted to announce the Arts Everywhere fund as a fitting legacy for Jennie Lee’s vision – over £270 million investment that will begin to fix the foundations of our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector in communities across the country.

     We believe in them. And we will back them.

    Because as Abraham Lincoln once said, the dogmas of a quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. 

    Jennie Lee lived by this mantra. So will we. 

    We are determined to escape the deadening debate about access or excellence which has haunted the arts ever since the formation of the early Arts Council. 

    The arts is an ecosystem, which thrives when we support the excellence that exists and use it to level up. 

    Like the RSC’s s “First Encounters” programme. Or the incredible Shakespeare North Playhouse in Knowsley where young people are first meeting with spoken word.

    When I watched young people from Knowsley growing in confidence, and dexterity, reimagining Shakespeare for this age and so, so at home in this amazing space it reminded me of my childhood.

    Because in so many ways I grew up in the theatre. My dad was on the board of the National, and as a child my sister and I would travel to London on the weekends we had with our dad to see some of the greatest actors and directors on earth – Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Tom Baker, Trevor Nunn and Sam Mendes. We saw Chekhov, Arthur Miller and Brecht reimagined by the National, the Donmar and the Royal Court.

    It was never, in our house, a zero-sum game. The thriving London scene was what inspired my parents and others to set up what was then the Corner House in Manchester, which is now known as HOME. 

    It inspired my sister to go on to work at the Royal Exchange in Manchester where she and I spent some of the happiest years of our lives watching tragedy and farce, comedy and social protest. 

    Because of this I love all of it – the sound, smell and feel of a theatre. I love how it makes me think differently about the world. And most of all I love the gift that our parents gave us, that we always believed these are places and spaces for us.

    I want every child in the country to have that feeling. Because Britain’s excellence in film, literature, theatre, TV, art, collections and exhibitions is a gift, it is part of our civic inheritance, that belongs to us all and as its custodians it is up to us to hand it down through the generations. 

    Not to remain static, but to create a living breathing bridge between the present, the past and the future.

    …

    My dad, an English literature professor, once told me that the most common mistakes students make – including me – he meant me actually – was to have your eye on the question, not on the text. 

    So, with some considerable backchat in hand, I had a second go at an essay on Hamlet – why did Hamlet delay? – and came to the firm conclusion that he didn’t. That this is the wrong question. I say this not to start a debate on Hamlet, especially in this crowd, but to ask us to consider this:

    If the question is – how do we preserve and protect our arts institutions? Then access against excellence could perhaps make sense. I understand the argument, that to disperse excellence is somehow to diffuse it. 

    But If the question is – how to give a fractured nation back its self confidence? Then this choice becomes a nonsense. So it is time to turn the exam question on its head and reject this false choice. 

    Every person in this country matters. But while talent is everywhere, opportunity is not. This cannot continue. That is why our vision is not access or excellence but access to excellence. We will accept nothing less. This country needs nothing less. And thanks to organisations like the RSC we know it can be achieved.

    …

    I was reflecting while I wrote this speech how at every moment of great upheaval it has been the arts that have helped us to understand the world, and shape the future. 

    From fashion, which as Eric Hobsbawm once remarked, was so much better at anticipating the shape of things to come than historians or politicians, to the angry young men and women in the 1950s and 60s – that gave us plays like Look Back in Anger – to the quiet northern working class rebellion of films like Saturday Night Sunday Morning, This Sporting Life and Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner. 

    Without the idea that excellence belongs to us all – this could never have happened. What was once considered working class, ethnic minority or regional – worse, in Jennie Lee’s time, it was called “the provinces” which she banned – thank God. These have become a central part of our national story.

    ….

    I think the arts is a political space. But the idea that politicians should impose a version of culture on the nation is utterly chilling.

    When we took office I said that the era of culture wars were over. It was taken to mean, in some circles, that I could order somehow magically from Whitehall that they would end. 

    But I meant something else. I meant an end to the “mind forged manacles” that William Blake raged against and the “mind without fear” that Rabindranath Tagore dreamt of.

    [political content removed]

    Would this include the rich cultural heritage from the American South that the Beatles drew inspiration from, in a city that has been shaped by its role in welcoming visitors and immigrants from across the world? Would it accommodate Northern Soul, which my town in Wigan led the world in?  

    We believe the proper role of government is not to impose culture, but to enable artists to hold a mirror up to society and to us. To help us understand the world we’re in and shape and define the nation. 

    Who know that is the value that you alone can bring. 

    I recently watched an astonishing performance of The Merchant of Venice, set in the East End of London in the 1930s. In it, Shylock has been transformed from villain to  victim at the hands of the Merchant, who has echoes of Oswald Mosely. I don’t want to spoil it – not least because my mum is watching it at the Lowry next week and would not forgive me- but it ends with a powerful depiction of the battle of Cable Street. 

    Nobody could see that production and fail to understand the parallels with the modern day. No political speech I have heard in recent times has had the power, that power to challenge, interpret and provoke that sort of response. To remind us of the obligations we owe to one another.

    Other art forms can have – and have had – a similar impact. Just look at the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office. It told a story with far more emotional punch than any number of political speeches or newspaper columns. 

    You could say the same of the harrowing paintings by the Scottish artist Peter Howson. His depiction of rape when he was the official war artist during the Bosnian War seared itself into people’s understanding of that conflict. It reminds me of the first time I saw a Caravaggio painting. The insistence that it becomes part of your narrative is one you never ever forget.

    That is why Jennie Lee believed her role was a permissive one. She repeated this mantra many times telling reporters that she wanted simply to make living room for artists to work in. The greatest art, she said, comes from the torment of the human spirit – adding – and you can’t legislate for that. 

    I think if she were alive today she would look at the farce that is the moral puritanism which is killing off our arts and culture – for the regions and the artistic talent all over the country where the reach of funding and donors is not long enough – the protests against any or every sponsor of the arts, I believe, would have made her both angered and ashamed.  

    In every social protest  – and I have taken part in plenty – you have to ask, who is your target? The idea that boycotting the sponsor of the Hay Festival harms the sponsor, not the festival is for the birds. 

    And I have spent enough time at Hay, Glastonbury and elsewhere to know that these are the spaces – the only spaces – where precisely the moral voice and protest comes from. Boycotting sponsors, and killing these events off,  is the equivalent of gagging society. This self defeating virtue signalling is a feature of our times and we will stand against it with everything that we’ve got.

    Because I think we are the only [political context removed] force, right now, that believes that it is not for the government to dictate what should be heard.

    But there is one area where we will never be neutral and that is on who should be heard.

    Too much of our rich inheritance, heritage and culture is not seen. And when it is not, not only is the whole nation poorer but the country suffers. 

    It is our firm belief that at the heart of Britain’s current malaise is the fact that too many people have been written off and written out of our national story. And, to borrow a line from my favourite George Eliot novel, Middlemarch, it means we cannot hear that ‘roar that lies on the other side of silence’.  What we need – to completely misquote George Elliot – is a keen vision and feeling of all ordinary human life.’ We’ve got to be able to hear it.

    And this is personal for me.

    I still remember how groundbreaking it was to watch Bend it Like Beckham – the first time I had seen a family like ours depicted on screen not for being Asian (or in my case mixed race) but because of a young girl’s love of football. 

    And I was reminded of this year’s later when Maxine Peake starred in Queens of the Coal Age, her play about the women of the miners’ strike, which she put on at the Royal Exchange in Manchester. 

    The trains were not running – as usual – but on one of my council estates the women who had lived and breathed this chapter of our history clubbed together, hired a coach and went off to see it. It was magical to see the reaction when they saw a story that had been so many times about their lives, finally with them in it.

    We are determined that this entire nation must see themselves at the centre of their own and our national story. That’s a challenge for our broadcasters and our film-makers. 

    Show us the full panoply of the world we live in, including the many communities far distant from the commissioning room which is still far too often based in London. 

    But it’s also a challenge for every branch of the arts, including the theatre, dance, music, painting and sculpture. Let’s show working-class communities too in the work that we do – and not just featuring in murder and gangland series. 

    Part of how we discover that new national story is by breathing fresh life into local heritage and reviving culture in places where it is disappearing.

    Which is why we’re freeing up almost £5 million worth of funding for community organisations – groups who know their own area and what it needs far better than Whitehall. Groups determined to bring derelict and neglected old buildings back into good use. These are buildings that stand at the centre of our communities. They are visible symbols of pride, purpose and their contribution and their neglect provokes a strong emotional response to toxicity, decline and decay. We’re determined to put those communities back in charge of their own destiny again. 

    And another important part of the construction is the review of the arts council, led by Baroness Margaret Hodge, who is with us today. When Jennie Lee set up regional arts associations the arts council welcomed their creation as good for the promotion of regional cultures and in the hope they would “create a rod for the arts council’s back”. 

    They responded to local clamour, not culture imposed from London. Working with communities so they could tell their own story. That is my vision. And it’s the vision behind the Arts Everywhere Fund that we announced this morning.

    The Arts Council Review will be critical to fulfilling that vision and today we’re setting out two important parts of that work – publishing both the Terms of Reference and the members of the Advisory Group who will be working with Baroness Hodge, many of whom have made the effort to join us here today.

    We have found the Jennie Lee’s of our age, who will deliver a review that is shaped around communities and local areas, and will make sure that arts are for everyone, wherever they live and whatever their background. With excellence and access.

    But we need more from you. We need you to step up.

    Across the sporting world from Boxing to Rugby League clubs, they’re throwing their doors open to communities, especially young people, to help grip the challenges facing a nation. Opening up opportunities. Building new audiences. Creating the champions of the future. Lots done, but much more still to do.

    Every child and adult should also have the opportunity to access live theatre, dance and music – to believe that these spaces belong to them and are for them. We need you to throw open your doors. So many of you already deliver this against the odds. But the community spaces needed – whether community centres, theatres, libraries are too often closed to those who need them most. 

    Too often we fall short of reflecting the full and varied history of the communities which support us. That’s why we have targeted the funding today to bring hope flickering back to life in community-led culture and arts – supported by us, your government, but driven by you and your communities.

    It’s one of the reasons we are tackling the secondary ticket market, which has priced too many fans out of live music gigs. It’s also why we are pushing for a voluntary levy on arena tickets to fund a sustainable grassroots music sector, including smaller music venues. 

    But I also want new audiences to pour in through the doors – and I want theatres across the country to flourish as much as theatres in the West End. 

    I also want everyone to be able to see some of our outstanding art, from Lowry and Constable to Anthony Gormley and Tracey Emin. 

    Too much of the nation’s art is sitting in basements not out in the country where it belongs. I want all of our national and civic galleries to find new ways of getting that art out into communities.

    There are other challenges. There is too much fighting others to retain a grip on small pots of funding and too little asking “what do we owe to one another” and what can I do. Jennie Lee encouraged writers and actors into schools and poets into pubs. 

    She set up subsidies so people, like the women from my council estate in Wigan, could travel to see great art and theatre. She persuaded Henry Moore to go and speak to children in a school in Castleford, in Yorkshire who were astonished when he turned up not with a lecture, but with lumps of clay. 

    There are people who are doing this now. The brilliant fashion designer Paul Smith told me about a recent visit to his old primary school in Nottingham where he went armed with the material to design a new school tie with the kids. These are the most fashionable kids on the block.

    I know it’s been a tough decade. Funding for the arts has been slashed. Buildings are crumbling. And the pandemic hit the arts and heritage world hard. 

    And I really believe that the Government has a role to play in helping free you up to do what you do best – enriching people’s lives and bringing communities together – so with targeted support like the new £85m Creative Foundations Fund that we’re launching today with the Arts Council we hope that we’ll be able to help you with what you do best.

    SOLT’s own research showed that, without support, 4 in 10 theatres they surveyed were at risk of closing or being too unsafe to use in five years’ time. So today we are answering that call. This fund is going to help theatres, galleries, and arts centres restore buildings in dire need of repairs. 

    And on top of that support, we’re also getting behind our critical local, civic museums – places which are often cultural anchors in their village, town or city. They’re facing acute financial pressures and they need our backing. So our new Museum Renewal Fund will invest £20 million in these local assets – preserving them and ensuring they remain part of local identities, to keep benefitting local people of all ages. In my town of Wigan we have the fantastic Museum of Wigan Life and it tells the story of the contribution that the ordinary, extraordinary people in Wigan made to our country, powering us through the last century through dangerous, difficult, dirty work in the coal mines.  That story, that understanding of the contribution that Wigan made, I consider to be a part of the birthright and inheritance of my little boy growing up in that town today and we want every child growing up in a community to understand the history and heritage and contribution that their parents and grandparents made to this country and a belief that that future stretches ahead of them as well. Not to reopen the coal mines, but to make a contribution to this country and to see themselves reflected in our story.  

    But for us to succeed we need more from you. This is not a moment for despair. This is our moment to ensure the arts remain central to the life of this nation for decades to come and in turn that this nation flourishes. 

    If we get this right we can unlock funding that will allow the arts to flourish in every part of Britain, especially those that have been neglected for far too long, by creating good jobs and growth, and giving children everywhere the chance to get them. 

    Our vision is not just to grow the economy, but to make sure it benefits people in our communities. So often where i’ve seen investments in the last decade and good jobs created, I go down the road to a local school and I see children who can see those jobs from the school playground, but could no more dream of getting to the moon than they could of getting those jobs. And we are determined that that’s going to change. 

    This is what we’ve been doing with our creative education programmes (like the Museums and Schools Programme, the Heritage Schools Programme, Art & Design National Saturday Clubs and the BFI Film Academy.) These are programmes we are proud to support and ones I’m personally proud that my Department will be funding these programmes next year.

    Be in no doubt, we are determined to back the creative industries in a way no other government has done. I’m delighted that we have committed to the audiovisual, video games, theatre, orchestra and museums and galleries tax reliefs, as well as introducing the new independent film and VFX tax reliefs as well.

    You won’t hear any speeches from us denigrating the creative industries or lectures about ballerinas being forced to retrain.

    Yes, these are proper jobs. And yes, artists should be properly remunerated for their work. 

    We know these industries are vital to our economic growth. They employ 1 in 14 people in the UK and are worth more than £125 billion a year to our economy.  We want them to grow. That is why they are a central plank of our industrial strategy.

    But I want to be equally clear that these industries only thrive if they are part of a great artistic ecosystem. Matilda, War Horse and Les Miserables are commercial successes, but they sprang from the public investment in theatre. 

    James Graham has written outstanding screenplays for television including Sherwood, but his first major play was the outstanding This House at the National and his other National Theatre play Dear England is now set to be a TV series. 

    You don’t get a successful commercial film sector without a successful subsidised theatre sector. Or a successful video games sector without artists, designers, creative techies, musicians and voiceover artists.  

    So it’s the whole ecosystem that we have to strengthen and enhance. It’s all connected.

    The woman in whose name we’ve launched this lecture series would have relished that challenge. She used to say she had the best job in government

     “All the others deal with people’s sorrows… but I have been called the Minister of the Future.”

    That is why I relish this challenge and why working with those of you who will rise to meet this moment will be the privilege of my life.

    …

    I wanted to leave with you with a moment that has stayed with me.

    A few weeks ago I was with Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has become a great friend. We were in his old constituency of Leigh, a town that borders Wigan. And we were talking about the flashes, which in our towns used to be open cast coalmines. 

    They were regenerated by the last Labour government and they’ve now become these incredible spaces, with wildlife and green spaces with incredible lakes that are well used by local children. 

    We had a lot to talk about and a lot to do. But as we looked out at the transformed landscape wondering how in one generation we had gone from scars on the landscape to this, he said, the lesson I’ve taken from this is that nature recovers more quickly than people. 

    While this government, through our Plan for Change, has made it our mission to support a growing economy, so we can have a safe, healthy nation where people have opportunities not currently on offer – the recovery of our nation cannot be all bread and no roses. Our shared future depends critically on every one of us in this room rising to this moment. 

    To give voice to the nation we are, and can be. 

    To let hope and history rhyme.

    So let no one say it falls to anyone else. It falls to us.

    Updates to this page

    Published 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Graham, Colleagues Urge ATF To Strengthen Second Amendment Protections And Rescind Unconstitutional Biden Rules

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham

    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) joined U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and 28 of their Senate Republican colleagues today to send a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director Marvin Richardson urging him to align the agency with President Trump’s Second Amendment priorities as laid out in his recent Executive Order.

    Graham and his colleagues called on Director Richardson to identify and rescind former President Biden’s unlawful firearms regulations, including the “Engaged in the Business” rule, pistol brace rule, so-called “ghost gun” rule, and “zero tolerance” policy under which ATF has revoked the licenses of federal firearm licensees (FFLs) over minor bookkeeping violations.

    The Senators wrote, “On Friday, February 7, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took decisive action to reaffirm law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights in issuing his Executive Order, Protecting Second Amendment Rights.  We urge you to immediately align ATF’s rules and policies with the President’s strong support for the Second Amendment.”

    “Under former President Joe Biden, ATF adopted numerous policies and rules that infringed upon Americans’ Second Amendment protections. President Trump’s Executive Order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to review and develop a plan of action regarding President Biden’s unlawful firearms regulations. We ask that you work with the Attorney General to quickly identify and rescind these policies.”

    Along with Graham and Cornyn, the letter was signed by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) and U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), Jim Justice (R-W Virginia), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Steve Daines (R-Montana), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee) Tim Sheehy (R-Montana), Pete Ricketts (R-Nebraska), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Todd Young (R-Indiana), Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), Jim Banks (R-Indiana) and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas).

    The full text of the letter is available here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: German election: a triple crisis looms large at the heart of the economy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ralph Luetticke, Professor of Economics, School of Business and Economics, University of Tübingen

    Oleg Senkov/Shutterstock

    Ahead of the election on February 23, many German voters are deeply concerned about the economy – and for good reason. The German economy is in a recession and has been shrinking for two consecutive years. In fact, it is now about the same size as it was in 2019, even as some of its peers among the world’s advanced economies have experienced solid growth (on the left of the chart below).

    This matters for voters, who have experienced stagnating real incomes and remain pessimistic – expecting real incomes to decline further.

    GDP and productivity growth of Germany, UK and US:

    There could be several reasons for Germany’s economic malaise. First, fiscal policy in Germany is tighter than in other countries, meaning higher taxes and lower public spending. Due to the “debt brake” enshrined in its constitution, Germany is severely restricted in running budget deficits, except when the government declares an emergency, as it did due to COVID.

    The last coalition government collapsed over a dispute about whether to declare another emergency over the war in Ukraine in order to increase borrowing capacity. This did not happen, and as a result Germany’s fiscal deficit has remained relatively moderate. The argument goes that a larger deficit might have boosted economic growth.

    Second, for decades, Germany has relied on foreign demand to sustain economic growth at home. During the first two decades of the 21st century, it benefited greatly from China’s integration into the world economy.

    To build up its productive capacity, China relied heavily on machinery produced in Germany and it purchased a significant number of German cars. However, this is no longer the case. As China has moved to the technology frontier, it no longer depends as much on German cars or machinery.

    However, both factors only go so far in accounting for the stagnating German economy. For if demand – domestic or foreign – is too weak to sustain growth, this should be reflected in falling prices.

    Yet prices have been rising strongly. Inflation in Germany has been running high over the last couple of years.

    And it has not been systematically lower than in, say, the US or the rest of the euro area. Over the next 12 months, households expect inflation to be above 3% – well above the European Central Bank’s 2% target.

    Another relevant indicator also suggests that lack of demand is unlikely to be the main reason for Germany’s stagnation. Unemployment is low in Germany, lower than in most European countries and hardly higher than in 2019.

    Instead, adverse supply conditions are key, as reflected in households’ expectations of falling incomes and higher inflation.

    Overall, supply is simply the combination of labour and capital inputs (for example, the size of the workforce and the machinery or premises available to them) along with productivity or technology, which tells us how much output we get from the labour and capital inputs. Germany is facing a triple crisis in this regard – expensive energy, weak labour supply and low productivity growth.

    First, there are energy prices, which have been pushed up everywhere by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, the effect has been particularly strong in Germany due to its direct dependency on Russian gas.

    The outgoing government, in which the Greens have been a key player, is widely credited with trying to accelerate Germany’s green transition. This raised the costs of the transition above those caused by the European Emissions Trading System, whereby polluters pay for their emissions.

    While it is difficult to determine the exact contributions of the war and the green transition to the rise in energy prices, both clearly act as a drag on growth, particularly on the supply side (that is to say, production potential).

    The productivity problem

    But Germany faces more fundamental supply-side challenges. The second issue becomes apparent when comparing GDP per hour worked (a measure of a country’s productivity, as seen on the right of the chart above).

    Here, the trends in Germany and the UK are quite similar, implying that Germany’s lower economic growth relative to the UK is primarily due to people working fewer hours. This, in turn, may reflect demographic changes, migration that does not contribute to the labour force or shifting preferences in the wake of COVID.

    The third issue is productivity growth. Consider the increase in GDP per hour worked in the US, which has risen by more than 10% as shown in the chart above, dwarfing the developments in both Germany and the UK. Common causes of weak productivity growth include ageing infrastructure, low private sector investment, a lack of start-ups and fewer new companies growing into multinational leaders.

    A turnaround requires far-reaching improvements in supply conditions. In terms of energy, Germany should avoid measures such as introducing more regulation on the heating or insulation of new and existing homes, and instead rely on the EU-wide emissions trading scheme to curb emissions.

    In the labour market, increased participation or skilled migration is needed, supported by policies that encourage people to retire later and entice more women into the workforce.

    Increasing defence spending could be a way to boost German productivity.
    Ryan Nash Photography/Shutterstock

    Productivity growth remains the most challenging issue. A good start would be increased funding for universities and reduced regulation, particularly for AI technology.

    Deepening the EU’s single market, for example by removing restrictions on cross-border energy trade to allow firms to access cheaper electricity, would enhance competition and drive productivity growth. This way, companies could expand and create well-paying jobs.

    Finally, an additional boost may come from higher defence spending, not only to address the much-needed improvement of Germany’s external security but also because it has been shown to increase productivity.

    While immigration may be a major talking point for the German electorate in the coming vote, the economy – as ever – will be an important factor in measuring the mood of the country.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. German election: a triple crisis looms large at the heart of the economy – https://theconversation.com/german-election-a-triple-crisis-looms-large-at-the-heart-of-the-economy-250320

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    February 21, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: C&F Financial Corporation Announces Increase in Quarterly Dividend

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TOANO, Va., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The board of directors of C&F Financial Corporation (NASDAQ:CFFI) (the Corporation) has declared a regular cash dividend of 46 cents per share, which is payable April 1, 2025 to shareholders of record on March 14, 2025. This dividend represents a 5 percent increase over the prior quarter’s dividend amount of 44 cents per share.

    The Board of Directors of the Corporation continually reviews the amount of cash dividends per share and the resulting dividend payout ratio in light of changes in economic conditions, current and future capital requirements, and expected future earnings.  

    About C&F

    C&F Bank operates 31 banking offices and four commercial loan offices located throughout eastern and central Virginia and offers full wealth management services through its subsidiary C&F Wealth Management, Inc. C&F Mortgage Corporation and its subsidiary C&F Select LLC provide mortgage loan origination services through offices located in Virginia and the surrounding states. C&F Finance Company is a regional finance company purchasing automobile, marine and recreational vehicle loans primarily in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southern United States from its headquarters in Henrico, Virginia.

    Additional information regarding the Corporation’s products and services, as well as access to its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are available on the Corporation’s website at http://www.cffc.com.

    Contact:     Jason Long
    Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
    (804) 843-2360
         

    The MIL Network –

    February 21, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 310 311 312 313 314 … 457
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress