Category: Housing Sector

MIL-OSI: Onex Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

All amounts in U.S. dollars unless otherwise stated

TORONTO, Feb. 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Onex Corporation (TSX: ONEX) today announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2024.

“Our focus, every day, is growing long-term shareholder value,” said Bobby Le Blanc, CEO and President. “In private equity, we are investing in strategies and verticals that have the strongest potential for future risk-adjusted returns. Overall, the PE teams raised over $1.5 billion in 2024. Our Structured Credit platform had another active quarter and an outstanding year, having raised or extended more than $13 billion of fee-generating assets during 2024 while growing fee related earnings. Shareholders continue to benefit from our strong balance sheet and liquidity position, and most recently through our substantial issuer bid.”

Financial Results ($ millions except per share amounts)	Quarter Ended Dec. 31						Year Ended Dec. 31
	2024			2023			2024			2023
Net earnings (loss)	$	(2	)	$	373		$	303		$	529
Net earnings (loss) per diluted share	$	(0.02	)	$	4.81		$	4.00		$	6.65

Investing segment net earnings	$	29		$	326		$	344		$	815
Asset management segment net earnings		18			46			21			2
Total segment net earnings ⁽¹⁾	$	47		$	372		$	365		$	817
Total segment net earnings per fully diluted share⁽²⁾	$	0.62		$	4.80		$	4.74		$	10.23
Asset management fee-related earnings⁽³⁾	$	6		$	3		$	6		$	12
Total fee-related earnings (loss)⁽⁴⁾	$	(1	)	$	(2	)	$	(21	)	$	(14	)
Distributable earnings⁽⁵⁾	$	231		$	139		$	617		$	797

Highlights

Onex had approximately $8.3 billion of investing capital, or $113.70 (C$163.54) per fully diluted share⁽⁶⁾ at December 31, 2024. Onex’ investing capital per fully diluted share returned 6% for the year ended December 31, 2024 or 15% in Canadian dollars. Over the last five years, investing capital per fully diluted share has had a compound annual return of 13%.
Onex’ private equity investments had net gains of $11 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 (Q4 2023: net gains of $250 million). Investments in Credit strategies generated net gains of $16 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 (Q4 2023: net gains of $66 million).
Onex raised approximately $2.8 billion in fee-generating capital across its Private Equity and Credit platforms in the fourth quarter and $8.8 billion in fiscal 2024.
The Onex Partners Opportunities Fund has raised aggregate commitments of approximately $1.2 billion, including affiliated vehicles and Onex’ commitment of $400 million. The Fund completed its second acquisition in December.
ONCAP V has reached aggregate commitments of approximately $1.1 billion, including Onex’ commitment of $250 million, with a final close expected at the end of Q1 2025. In December, ONCAP II and ONCAP III completed the sale of PURE Canadian Gaming.
Collectively, our private equity teams returned approximately $3.0 billion of capital to Limited Partners in 2024, including approximately $1.0 billion to Onex.
Onex Credit raised or extended a total of $13.0 billion of fee-generating assets across its CLO platform in 2024. Fee-generating assets under management (FGAUM) within the Structured Credit platform increased 34% in 2024. Activity in Q4 includes closing of five new CLOs for approximately $2.6 billion in new fee-generating assets. The Credit platform contributed $27 million of fee-related earnings (FRE) in 2024, with year-end run-rate FRE of $40 million.
Onex repurchased 2,277,722 Subordinate Voting Shares (SVS) in the fourth quarter for a total cost of $185 million (C$266 million) or an average cost per share of $81.18 (C$116.82). Onex repurchased 5,693,741 SVS in 2024, capturing approximately $215 million of value for remaining shareholders.
Onex had $35.2 billion of FGAUM at December 31, 2024, a 17%⁽⁷⁾ increase over the last 12 months. Run-rate management fees⁽⁸⁾ increased to $195 million at December 31, 2024.
Unrealized carried interest from funds managed by Onex was $286 million at December 31, 2024.
Onex’ cash and near-cash⁽⁹⁾ balance was $1.6 billion or 19% of Onex’ investing capital as of December 31, 2024 (December 31, 2023 – $1.5 billion or 17%).

Dividend Declaration

The Board of Directors has declared a first quarter dividend of C$0.10 per Subordinate Voting Share payable on April 30, 2025, to shareholders of record on April 10, 2025.

Webcast

Onex management will host a webcast to review Onex’ fourth quarter 2024 results on Friday, February 21, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. ET. The webcast will be available in listen-only mode from the Presentations and Events section of Onex’ website, https://www.onex.com/events-and-presentations. A 90-day on-line replay will be available shortly following the completion of the event.

Additional Information

Enclosed are supplementary financial schedules related to Onex’ consolidated net earnings, investing capital, fee-related earnings (loss), distributable earnings, and cash and near-cash changes for the three and 12 months ended December 31, 2024. The financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS Accounting Standards, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the results, are posted on Onex’ website, www.onex.com, and are also available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca. A supplemental information package with additional information is available on Onex’ website, www.onex.com.

About Onex

Onex invests and manages capital on behalf of its shareholders and clients across the globe. Formed in 1984, we have a long track record of creating value for our clients and shareholders. Our investors include a broad range of global clients, including public and private pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, banks, insurance companies, family offices and high-net-worth individuals. In total, Onex has approximately $51.1 billion in assets under management, of which $8.3 billion is Onex’ own investing capital. With offices in Toronto, New York, New Jersey and London, Onex and its experienced management teams are collectively the largest investors across Onex’ platforms.

Onex is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol ONEX. For more information on Onex, visit its website at www.onex.com. Onex’ security filings can also be accessed at www.sedarplus.ca.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release may contain, without limitation, statements concerning possible or assumed future operations, performance or results preceded by, followed by or that include words such as “believes”, “expects”, “potential”, “anticipates”, “estimates”, “intends”, “plans” and words of similar connotation, which would constitute forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees. The reader should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and information because they involve significant and diverse risks and uncertainties that may cause actual operations, performance or results to be materially different from those indicated in these forward-looking statements. Except as may be required by Canadian securities law, Onex is under no obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained herein should material facts change due to new information, future events or other factors. These cautionary statements expressly qualify all forward-looking statements in this press release.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

This press release contains non-GAAP financial measures which have been calculated using methodologies that are not in accordance with IFRS Accounting Standards. The presentation of financial measures in this manner does not have a standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS Accounting Standards and is therefore unlikely to be comparable to similar financial measures presented by other companies. Onex management believes these financial measures provide useful information to investors. Reconciliations of the non-GAAP financial measures to information contained in the consolidated financial statements have been presented where practical.

For Further Information:

Jill Homenuk
Managing Director – Shareholder
Relations and Communications
Tel: +1 416.362.7711

Zev Korman
Vice President, Shareholder
Relations and Communications
Tel: +1 416.362.7711

Supplementary Financial Schedules

		Quarter ended December 31
		2024⁽ⁱ⁾							2023⁽ⁱ⁾
($ millions except per share amounts)		Investing		Asset Management			Total		Total
Segment income	$	29	$	70		$	99		$	435
Segment expenses		–		(52	)		(52	)		(63	)
Segment net earnings	$	29	$	18		$	47		$	372

Stock-based compensation expense							(33	)		(33	)
Amortization of property, equipment and intangible assets, excluding right-of-use assets							(3	)		(4	)
Restructuring expenses, net							(10	)		(6	)
Unrealized carried interest included in segment net earnings – Credit							(5	)		(6	)
Realized performance fees previously recognized in segment net earnings							2			5
Contingent consideration recovery							–			42
Impairment reversal of property and equipment							–			2
Integration expenses							–			(1	)
Other							1			2
Earnings (loss) before income taxes							(1	)		373
Provision for income taxes							(1	)		–
Net earnings (loss)						$	(2	)	$	373

Segment net earnings per fully diluted share	$	0.38	$	0.24		$	0.62		$	4.80
Net earnings (loss) per share
Basic						$	(0.02	)	$	4.82
Diluted						$	(0.02	)	$	4.81

^{(i) Refer to pages 27 and 28 of Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A for further details concerning the composition of segmented results.}

		Year ended December 31
		2024⁽ⁱ⁾							2023⁽ⁱ⁾
($ millions except per share amounts)		Investing		Asset Management			Total		Total
Segment income	$	344	$	252		$	596		$	1,098
Segment expenses		–		(231	)		(231	)		(281	)
Segment net earnings	$	344	$	21		$	365		$	817

Stock-based compensation expense							(36	)		(75	)
Amortization of property, equipment and intangible assets, excluding right-of-use assets							(15	)		(24	)
Restructuring expenses, net							(21	)		(46	)
Carried interest from Falcon Funds previously recognized in segment net earnings							25			–
Unrealized carried interest included in segment net earnings – Credit							(10	)		(17	)
Unrealized performance fees included in segment net earnings							(3	)		–
Impairment of goodwill, intangible assets and property and equipment							–			(162	)
Contingent consideration recovery							–			42
Integration expenses							–			(4	)
Other							–			1
Earnings before income taxes							305			532
Provision for income taxes							(2	)		(3	)
Net earnings						$	303		$	529

Segment net earnings per fully diluted share	$	4.45	$	0.29		$	4.74		$	10.23
Net earnings per share
Basic						$	4.01		$	6.66
Diluted						$	4.00		$	6.65

^{(i) Refer to pages 27 and 29 of Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A for further details concerning the composition of segmented results.}

Investing Capital⁽ⁱ⁾

($ millions except per share amounts)	December 31, 2024		December 31, 2023
Private Equity
Onex Partners Funds	$	4,072	$	4,445
ONCAP Funds		795		929
Other Private Equity		587		407
Carried Interest		264		252
		5,718		6,033
Private Credit
Investments		924		904
Carried Interest		22		29
		946		933

Real Estate		–		18
Cash and Near-Cash		1,578		1,466
Other Net Assets (Liabilities)		31		(17	)
Investing Capital	$	8,273	$	8,433
Investing Capital per fully diluted share (U.S. dollars)⁽ⁱⁱ⁾	$	113.70	$	107.82
Investing Capital per fully diluted share (Canadian dollars)⁽ⁱⁱ⁾	$	163.54	$	142.61

^{(i) Refer to the glossary in Onex’ Q4 2024 Annual MD&A for further details concerning the composition of investing capital.}

^{(ii) Fully diluted shares for investing capital per share were 72.8 million at December 31, 2024.}

Fee-Related Earnings (Loss) and Distributable Earnings

($ millions)	Quarter Ended December 31, 2024			Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Private Equity Management and advisory fees	$	25		$	26
Total fee-related revenues from Private Equity	$	25		$	26
Compensation expense		(17	)		(24	)
Support and other net expenses		(8	)		(10	)
Net contribution	$	–		$	(8	)

Structured Credit
Management and advisory fees	$	21		$	16
Total fee-related revenues from Structured Credit	$	21		$	16
Compensation expense		(6	)		(5	)
Support and other net expenses		(3	)		(1	)
Net contribution	$	12		$	10

Other Credit Management and advisory fees Performance fees	$	4 1		$	15 4
Total fee-related revenues from Other Credit	$	5		$	19
Compensation expense		(6	)		(9	)
Support and other net expenses		(5	)		(9	)
Net contribution	$	(6	)	$	1

Asset management fee-related earnings	$	6		$	3

Public Company and Onex Capital Investing
Compensation expense	$	(3	)	$	(1	)
Other net expenses		(4	)		(4	)
Total expenses	$	(7	)	$	(5	)

Total fee-related earnings (loss)	$	(1	)	$	(2	)

Realized carried interest⁽ⁱ⁾	$	2		$	7
Net realized gain on corporate investments		230			134
Distributable earnings	$	231		$	139

^{(i) Includes realized carried interest from the Falcon Funds, when applicable.}

($ millions)	Year Ended December 31, 2024			Year Ended December 31, 2023
Private Equity Management and advisory fees	$	93		$	112
Total fee-related revenues from Private Equity	$	93		$	112
Compensation expense		(76	)		(85	)
Support and other net expenses		(38	)		(39	)
Net contribution	$	(21	)	$	(12	)

Structured Credit Management and advisory fees Performance fees	$	76 4		$	61 –
Total fee-related revenues from Structured Credit	$	80		$	61
Compensation expense		(24	)		(22	)
Support and other net expenses		(12	)		(9	)
Net contribution	$	44		$	30

Other Credit Management and advisory fees Performance fees	$	31 4		$	79 13
Other income		2			2
Total fee-related revenues from Other Credit	$	37		$	94
Compensation expense		(23	)		(48	)
Support and other net expenses		(31	)		(52	)
Net contribution	$	(17	)	$	(6	)

Asset management fee-related earnings	$	6		$	12

Public Company and Onex Capital Investing
Compensation expense	$	(13	)	$	(11	)
Other net expenses		(14	)		(15	)
Total expenses	$	(27	)	$	(26	)

Total fee-related earnings (loss)	$	(21	)	$	(14	)

Realized carried interest⁽ⁱ⁾	$	19		$	16
Net realized gain on corporate investments		619			795
Distributable earnings	$	617		$	797

^{(i) Includes realized carried interest from the Falcon Funds, when applicable.}

Fee-related earnings (loss) and distributable earnings are non-GAAP financial measures. The tables below provide reconciliations of Onex’ net earnings (loss) to fee-related earnings (loss) and distributable earnings during the quarters and years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023.

($ millions)	Quarter Ended December 31, 2024			Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Net earnings (loss)	$	(2	)	$	373
Provision for income taxes		1			–
Earnings (loss) before income taxes		(1	)		373
Stock-based compensation expense		33			33
Amortization of property, equipment and intangible assets, excluding right-of-use assets		3			4
Restructuring expenses, net		10			6
Unrealized carried interest included in segment net earnings – Credit		5			6
Realized performance fees previously recognized in segment net earnings		(2	)		(5	)
Contingent consideration recovery		–			(42	)
Impairment reversal of property and equipment		–			(2	)
Integration expenses		–			1
Other		(1	)		(2	)
Total segment net earnings		47			372
Investing segment net earnings		(29	)		(326	)
Net gain from carried interest⁽ⁱ⁾		(19	)		(48	)
Total fee-related earnings (loss)		(1	)		(2	)
Realized carried interest⁽ⁱ⁾		2			7
Realized gain on corporate investments		230			134
Total distributable earnings	$	231		$	139

^{(i) Includes carried interest Onex is entitled to from the Falcon Funds.}

($ millions)	Year Ended December 31, 2024			Year Ended December 31, 2023
Net earnings	$	303		$	529
Provision for income taxes		2			3
Earnings before income taxes		305			532
Stock-based compensation expense		36			75
Amortization of property, equipment and intangible assets, excluding right-of-use assets		15			24
Restructuring expenses, net		21			46
Carried interest from Falcon funds previously recognized in segment net earnings		(25	)		–
Unrealized carried interest included in segment net earnings – Credit		10			17
Unrealized performance fees included in segment net earnings		3			–
Impairment of goodwill, intangible assets and property and equipment		–			162
Contingent consideration recovery		–			(42	)
Integration expenses		–			4
Other		–			(1	)
Total segment net earnings		365			817
Investing segment net earnings		(344	)		(815	)
Net gain from carried interest⁽ⁱ⁾		(42	)		(16	)
Total fee-related earnings (loss)		(21	)		(14	)
Realized carried interest⁽ⁱ⁾		19			16
Realized gain on corporate investments		619			795
Total distributable earnings	$	617		$	797

^{(i) Includes carried interest Onex is entitled to from the Falcon Funds.}

Cash and Near-Cash

The table below provides a breakdown of cash and near-cash at Onex as at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023.

($ millions)	December 31, 2024		December 31, 2023
Cash and cash equivalents – Investing segment⁽ⁱ⁾	$	840	$	142
Management fees and recoverable fund expenses receivable⁽ⁱⁱ⁾		464		615
Cash and cash equivalents within Investment Holding Companies⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾		156		398
Treasury investments		83		–
Subscription financing and short-term loan receivable^(iv)		35		114
Treasury investments within Investment Holding Companies		–		197
Cash and near-cash	$	1,578	$	1,466

^{(i) Excludes cash and cash equivalents allocated to the asset management segment related to accrued incentive compensation ($89 million (December 31, 2023 – $108 million)). The December 31, 2023 balance also excludes $15 million of cash and cash equivalents allocated to the asset management segment concerning the contingent consideration related to the 2020 acquisition of Onex Falcon.}

^{(ii) Includes management fees and recoverable fund expenses receivable from certain funds which Onex has elected to defer cash receipt from.}

^{(iii) Cash and cash equivalents is reduced by Onex’ share of uncalled expenses payable by the Investment Holding Companies of $36 million (December 31, 2023 – $35 million) and $2 million payable by the Investment Holding Companies for Onex’ management incentive programs related to a private equity realization (December 31, 2023 – less than $1 million). The December 31, 2023 balance also includes $22 million of restricted cash and cash equivalents for which the Company can readily remove the external restriction or for which the restriction will be removed in the near term.}

^{(iv) Includes $35 million of subscription financing receivable, including interest receivable, attributable to third-party investors in Onex Partners V and ONCAP V Funds (December 31, 2023 – $77 million attributable to third-party investors in certain Credit Funds, Onex Partners V and ONCAP V Funds). The December 31, 2023 balance also includes $37 million related to a short-term loan receivable from an Onex Partners operating company, which was repaid during 2024.}

The table below provides a reconciliation of the change in cash and near-cash from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2024.

($ millions)
Cash and near-cash at December 31, 2023	$	1,466
Private equity realizations and distributions		1,009
Private equity investments		(409	)
Net private credit strategies investment activity		56
Repurchase of share capital of Onex Corporation		(417	)
Net stock-based compensation paid		(60	)
Cash dividends paid		(23	)
Reversal of Onex Falcon contingent consideration		15
Net other, including cash flows from asset management activities, operating costs and changes in working capital		(59	)
Cash and near-cash at December 31, 2024	$	1,578

_{⁽¹⁾ Refer to pages 27, 28 and 29 of Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A for further details concerning the composition of segment net earnings. A reconciliation of total segment net earnings to net earnings (loss) is provided in the supplementary financial schedules in this press release.}
_{⁽²⁾ Refer to the glossary in Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A for details concerning the composition of fully diluted shares.}
_{⁽³⁾ Asset management fee-related earnings excludes Onex’ public company expenses and other expenses associated with managing Onex’ investing capital and is a component of total fee-related earnings (loss).}
_{⁽⁴⁾ Total fee-related earnings (loss) is a non-GAAP financial measure that does not have a standardized meaning prescribed under International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS Accounting Standards”). Therefore, it may not be comparable to similar financial measures disclosed by other companies. The most directly comparable financial measure under IFRS Accounting Standards to fee-related earnings (loss) is Onex’ net earnings (loss). Refer to the 2024 Results & Activity section of Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A and the supplementary financial schedules in this press release for further details concerning fee-related earnings (loss).}
_{⁽⁵⁾ Distributable earnings is a non-GAAP financial measure that does not have a standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS Accounting Standards. Therefore, it may not be comparable to similar financial measures disclosed by other companies. The most directly comparable financial measure under IFRS Accounting Standards to distributable earnings is Onex’ net earnings (loss). Refer to the 2024 Results & Activity section of Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A and the supplementary financial schedules in this press release for further details concerning distributable earnings.}
_{⁽⁶⁾ Refer to the glossary in Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A for details concerning the composition of investing capital per fully diluted share. The percentage changes in investing capital per share exclude the impact of capital deployed in Onex’ asset management segment, where applicable, and dividends paid by Onex.}
_{⁽⁷⁾ Adjusted to exclude the impact from the transfer of Onex Falcon.}
_{⁽⁸⁾ Refer to the glossary in Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A for details concerning the composition of run-rate management fees.}
_{⁽⁹⁾ Cash and near-cash is a non-GAAP financial measure calculated using methodologies that are not in accordance with IFRS Accounting Standards. The presentation of this measure does not have a standardized meaning prescribed under IFRS Accounting Standards and therefore might not be comparable to similar financial measures presented by other companies. The most directly comparable financial measure under IFRS Accounting Standards to cash and near-cash is Onex’ consolidated cash and cash equivalents balance, which was $929 million at December 31, 2024 (December 31, 2023 – $265 million). Refer to the Cash and Near-Cash section of Onex’ 2024 Annual MD&A and the supplementary financial schedules in this press release for further details concerning Onex’ cash and near-cash.}

The MIL Network –

February 22, 2025

MIL-OSI New Zealand: Speech to Committee for Auckland

Source: New Zealand Government

Good afternoon. Can I acknowledge Ngāti Whātua for their warm welcome, Simpson Grierson for hosting us here today, and of course the Committee for Auckland for putting on today’s event.
I suspect some of you are sitting there wondering what a boy from the Hutt would know about Auckland, our largest city.
Well, let me reassure you that I know and love this city. I lived here for two years, many of my friends live here, and I am here almost every week.
Auckland is critical to New Zealand’s future and today I want to talk about how we create that future, with central government working alongside the Auckland Council and Auckland communities.
Growth
Let me start with the economic picture.
We are in challenging economic times. The government came to office with New Zealand in the midst of a prolonged cost of living crisis, with high inflation, high interest rates, and after years of profligate debt-fuelled government spending.
Turning that around is not going to be easy and it is not going to happen immediately.
We have made good progress. Budget 2024 started the repair job. Business and consumer confidence is returning. The OCR was cut by another 50 basis points on Wednesday, meaning mortgage rate relief for households. The latest Federated Farmers Farm Confidence Survey shows confidence surging by 68 points since July 2024 – the largest one-off improvement in sentiment since the question was introduced.
But there is a lot to do, and we need to be honest with ourselves. We have been slipping for years.
Our challenge as a country isn’t just about the last few years, or even the last decade.
We have low productivity growth, low capital intensity in our firms, low levels of competition in many sectors, challenges in attracting and retaining skills and talent, low uptake of innovation, unaffordable housing and a growing tail of New Zealanders leaving school without basic skills.
But stagnation and mediocrity is not our destiny.
Not if we make the right choices and not if we have courage.
Going for economic growth means saying “yes” to things when we’ve said “no” in the past.
It means taking on some tough political debates that we’ve previously shied away from. I’m going to talk about one today.
It means bold decisions which may look difficult at the time but which in hindsight will be regarded incontrovertibly as the right thing to do.
Managed decline is only inevitable if we let it be.
Auckland Growth
So today I want to talk to you about Auckland and how important it is to our plans.
Auckland is New Zealand’s capital city of growth. It is home to one third of New Zealand’s population and contributes nearly 40% to our national GDP. It has higher labour productivity than the rest of New Zealand, and is home to some of New Zealand’s most exciting growth-industries, with 116 of our country’s top 200 tech firms calling Auckland home.
We are not going to be successful in growing our economy if we don’t think carefully about how we enable Auckland, as our largest and most important city, to thrive.
I have the enormous privilege of being the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure, RMA Reform and now Transport.
I am determined to help build an Auckland that is a world-class, international city.
I make no apologies for being an urbanist. Well-functioning urban environments with abundant housing, transport that gets people where they need to go quickly and efficiently, and functional infrastructure, will do more to create a brighter future for Kiwis than just about anything else government can do.
Next year is shaping up as an exciting one. The first trains will run on the City Rail Link and the NZ International Convention Centre will finally open its doors.
The government is investing heavily into transport in Auckland, through new Roads of National Significance, new busways, and commuter rail.
These investments build on the significant progress made in recent years, particularly by National-led governments – think of Waterview, the Victoria Park Tunnel, and the starting of the City Rail Link.
A couple of weeks ago it was my pleasure to mark the start of the extension of the Auckland commuter network to Pukekohe, with the completion of the electrification of the line from Papakura to Pukekohe.
Later this year the Third Main line rail project will conclude, helping ease congestion and enabling faster train journeys.
The growth of the Auckland commuter rail network since the early 2000s has been remarkable and the government is keen to encourage that growth.
Because the reality is that congestion is choking Auckland.
The average Auckland commuter spends over 5 days in traffic each year. In fact, in 2024 the Auckland metro area had the highest congestion levels in Oceania. This means Auckland is less productive, less accessible, and less liveable that it should be.
Congestion stifles economic growth in Auckland, with studies showing that it costs between $900 million to $1.3 billion per year.
Congestion is essentially a tax on time, productivity, and growth. And like most taxes, I’m keen to reduce it.
The government will be progressing legislation this year to allow the introduction of Time of Use pricing on our roads.
We will send that Bill off to a select committee before the end of March and the public will be able to have their say on it.
There has been study after study into time of use pricing in New Zealand. It’s time to get on with it.
The framework we have agreed to will enable local councils to propose time of use schemes on their networks.
All schemes will be focused on increasing productivity and improving the efficiency of traffic flow in cities. Local councils will propose schemes in their region, with NZTA leading the design of the schemes in partnership with councils to provide strong oversight and to ensure motorists benefit from these schemes.
All schemes will require approval from the Government.
Any money collected through time of use charging will be required to be invested back into transport infrastructure that benefits Kiwis and businesses living and working in the region where the money was raised. Councils will not be able to spend this money on other priorities.
The Government will prioritise working with Auckland Council on designing a Time of Use pricing scheme that increases productivity and reduces congestion.
Modelling has shown that successful congestion charging could reduce congestion by up to 8 to 12 percent at peak times, improving travel times and efficiency significantly.
Auckland Housing
That brings me to housing.
One of the things I’ve been trying to emphasise since I became a Minister is that housing has a critical role to play in addressing our economic woes.
There is now a mountain of economic evidence that cities are unparalleled engines of productivity, and the evidence shows bigger is better.
New Zealand can raise our productivity simply by allowing our towns and cities to grow up and out. We need bigger cities and, to facilitate that, we need more houses. As our biggest city, Auckland has to be a leader in this mission.
As Housing Minister I am focused on getting the fundamentals of the housing market sorted.
The Government’s Going for Housing Growth agenda involves freeing up land for development and removing unnecessary planning barriers, improving infrastructure funding and financing, and providing incentives for communities and councils to support growth.
Report after report and inquiry after inquiry has found that our planning system, particularly restrictions on the supply of urban land, are at the heart of our housing affordability challenge.
We are not a small country by land mass, but our planning system has made it difficult for our cities to grow. As a result, we have excessively high land prices driven by market expectations of an ongoing shortage of developable urban land to meet demand.
Last year Cabinet agreed to a number of specific actions it would take to free up land for development, which we’ve called Pillar One of our Going for Housing Growth Plan.
These include new housing growth targets for the country’s largest councils, new rules to make it easier for cities to expand outwards at the urban fringe, such as the abolishment of the rural-urban boundary in Auckland, a strengthening of the intensification provisions in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development including requiring more mixed-use zoning, the abolishment of minimum floor areas and balcony requirements, and making the MDRS optional for councils.
These changes build on the existing Auckland Unitary Plan, which evidence shows has made a real difference in Auckland.
It also builds on the National Policy Statement on Urban Development brought in by the last government, which we support.
I am focusing on the fundamentals because ultimately that is what drives price.
Very soon I will announce Cabinet decisions around better infrastructure funding and financing tools, so growth can be properly funded.
And I’ll also soon announce decisions on how we will replace the Resource Management Act, the giant millstone on the neck of the New Zealand economy.
City Rail Link
Speaking of infrastructure, let’s talk about the City Rail Link.
Without a doubt, the most transformative and ambitious project in recent memory in Auckland is the City Rail Link.
Under the feet of Auckland for the better part of a decade has been the most ambitious, and one of the most expensive, projects in the city’s history. Thousands of workers building 3.5 kms of tunnel to bring Auckland’s transportation system into the 21st century.
When I was made Transport Minister by the Prime Minister earlier this year, I said to my team that I wanted my first visit to be to see City Rail Link. To me, this project epitomises the opportunities in New Zealand’s transport future.
Once open next year, CRL will double Auckland’s rail capacity and reduce congestion across the city, enabling Aucklanders to get to where they want to go faster.
This will be huge for the city. The privilege of not having to worry about missing a train because another one is only minutes away is something, up until now, Aucklanders have only been able to experience in cities like London or Tokyo. But now it’s almost Auckland’s turn.
I’ve been down to the new stations. Aucklanders are going to be blown away. My prediction is that people will say what they always do once a big new project eventually finishes: why didn’t we do this decades ago?
It is critical for the city’s future that we take advantage of CRL and ensure that the maximum benefits are felt by Aucklanders. That’s why today I am pleased to announce a number of steps the Government is taking to fully harness the true benefits of City Rail Link.
Level Crossings
The first step is removing level crossings.
CRL will only achieve its true potential capacity by the removal of level crossings – locations where roads and rail tracks intersect.
Frankly, every motorist under the sun hates them, me included. They require the direct trading-off between road-user efficiency and rail-user efficiency.
Separating our train and roading systems by grade-separating level crossings greatly reduces traffic delays for motorists, while at the same time enables more frequent and reliable trains. It means that, in future, we can run many more trains on the Auckland network, without having to worry about disrupting the road network.
Crucially, it will also make our railways safer. In the decade between 2013 and 2023, Auckland saw almost 70 crashes – some of these serious, as well as more than 250 pedestrian near-misses and 100 vehicle near misses at level crossings across the city. That’s almost one incident a week.
Investment in Auckland’s level crossings delivers a faster, safer, and more reliable transport system. It’s a win, win, win.
Sorting level crossings in Auckland will take many years and cost a lot – but it is imperative we crack on with the job of doing the most important ones first.
I am announcing today that, subject to final approval by the NZTA board, the Government will be allocating funding for its share of the cost of accelerating the grade-separation of 7 level crossings in Takāanini and Glen Innes.
The work will involve building three new grade-separated road bridges at Manuia Road, Taka Street, and Walters Road; constructing new station access bridges at Glen Innes, Te Mahia and Takāanini Stations, and closing two unsafe crossings at Spartan Road and Manuroa Road.
Auckland Council has previously indicated that it is willing to fund its share of the cost, so this announcement will provide Aucklanders with confidence that the work will go ahead.
Removing these level crossings now also enables us to take advantage of already planned network closures and will hopefully avoid the need for disruptions to the rail network in the future to make these much-needed changes.
We are committed to the most efficient transport system in Auckland for everyone – no matter how you get around. For us, it’s never only about trains, or only about cars, or only about buses, or only about bikes. It must be all of the above – which is exactly why we are prioritising the removal of these level crossings
Transit oriented development
As I’ve said, there are a number of actions being taken across the Auckland Rail network with a focus on transforming connectivity throughout the city. City Rail Link is just one part of it.
This ambitious programme of work will open up job opportunities, new investment opportunities, and new places to live and work.
It should also, in theory, result in a significant increase in development density in and around Auckland’s railway stations, especially those benefiting from City Rail Link.
We have to ask ourselves: are we doing all we can to fully take advantage of this multi-billion-dollar transport investment?
I believe that in order to properly unlock economic growth in Auckland, we must embrace the concept of transit-oriented development adopted by the world’s best and most liveable cities.
This approach promotes compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly cities, with development clustered around, and integrated with, mass transit. The idea is to have as many jobs, houses, services and amenities as possible around public transport stations.
This is not an untested theory: transit-oriented development has been adopted across the world in cities like Stockholm, Copenhagen, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Singapore.
Cities that embrace this approach consistently outperform those that don’t across multiple metrics: they experience increases in productivity, lower unemployment, higher population growth, increased availability of homes, and more stable rents.
A floor filled with smart people working next to each other, in a building filled with floors of smart people working next to each other, unsurprisingly, enables greater economic opportunities for productive growth. Proximity encourages collaboration and innovation.
Transit-oriented development creates exactly these kinds of possible agglomeration effects – for example, it has been shown that doubling job density increases productivity by 5 – 10%.
The evidence speaks for itself.
Let’s look at Stockholm, where development has generally followed the city’s main public transport corridors. There, the gross value added per capita grew 41% between 1993 and 2010. In fact, both Stockholm and Copenhagen rank as among the world’s top cities in terms of per capita GDP.
Across the ditch in Sydney, they have just opened their brand-new Sydney Metro development, which has been widely recognised for its successful integration of high-density housing and mixed-use developments. This project is expected to contribute around AUD $5 billion annually to the New South Wales economy.
To answer the question: are we doing all we can to fully take advantage of City Rail Link? The answer is clearly no.
So, today I am announcing that the Government will be kicking off a work programme to properly take advantage of the opportunities that transit-oriented development could have on Auckland, and what actions we can take in the short-term to better enable development clusters around City Rail Link stations.
Right now, Auckland Council is only required to zone 6 stories around rapid transit stops. We are going to need to go much, much higher than that around the CRL stations if we truly want to feel the benefits of transit-oriented development.
My aspiration is that in 10-20 years’ time, we have 10-20 storey apartment blocks dotting the rail line as far west as Swanson and Ranui. But for right now, we need to look at how to increase development opportunities around the inner core of stations.
Take Kingsland, for example.
Once CRL open Kingslanders will have a 20 minute travel time saving to Aotea station from the project. But Kingsland’s population actually declined by 4.7% between 2019 and 2023; and while Auckland averaged 15,375 annual new builds over the last 5 years, Kingsland built just 22.
Compare that to Paramatta in Sydney. It too benefits by circa 20 minute time savings from the Sydney Metro project and has upzoned from a few stories to more than 60 in some cases.
Kingsland is still predominantly made up of single story dwelling zones.
How about if our aim is to make the special character of suburbs be that they are thriving, liveable, affordable communities with access to regular and reliable public transport?
For many families, the dream of home ownership looks a little different today. Many young families are now choosing to swap the station wagon for the train station, and the corner dairy for the cafe.
There will always be a place in New Zealand for the quarter-acre section and the large family home. But we have to be honest with ourselves: that place isn’t within a stones-throw of a transformational piece of transport infrastructure with the ability to shuttle tens of thousands of passengers each day.
We must allow Kiwis to make the choice that’s best for them. Permitting more development close to train stations and rapid bus routes supports those who want to live nearer to their work and their friends, just like the significant investment the Government is making in new highways and roads support those who want to live in our world-class towns and suburbs.
Change is inevitable. My job as a Minister it to make sure that change is shaped by the lives Kiwis want to live and the homes they want to live in.
Viewshafts
One barrier to proper high-density in Auckland, including around City Rail Link stations, is undoubtedly the current settings of the 73 viewshafts that have restricted the height of the city since the early 1970s.
In 2016, the Independent Hearing Panel for the Auckland Unitary Plan recommended further work on the viewshafts, including refining them to improve their efficiency and reduce opportunity costs. In the almost-decade since, this work has not been progressed.
Some of these viewshafts don’t make a lot of sense. The Unitary Plan protects the view from the tolling booths on the North Shore, so that those people sitting in their cars getting ready to pay their toll for the Harbour Bridge have a nice view of Mt Eden. Of course there hasn’t been tolling booths on the North Shore since the mid-1980s.
Forty years later, we are still protecting a view that would be considered dangerous-driving to admire. A study done in 2018, looking at this one view shaft – the E10 – showed that its cost was roughly $1.4 billion in lost development opportunities. This is just the impact of one of the 73 viewshafts.
It is worth stressing that the cost is almost certainly much greater than $1.4 billion. It only includes costs to the city centre, and about half the land under E10 falls outside the city centre. So add that on.
It doesn’t look at the positive externalities of intensification, such as agglomeration and other wider economic benefits. So add that on too.
It doesn’t look at public land, just private. Add that on.
And it’s based on 2014 land values.
And this is just one viewshaft.
I hope you’ll agree with me that the cost is immense.
Aucklanders and local mana whenua have always had a special relationship with the Māunga and Volcanic cones that their city is nestled between. It is right that we acknowledge and protect this special relationship.
But even just minor tweaks to existing viewshafts could materially lift development opportunities. The 2018 study showed that rotating the E10 viewshaft just 4.5 degrees to the left maintains the view of Mt Eden for a similar amount of time, whilst saving the city 43% of the lost development opportunity cost.
Today I can tell you that Mayor Brown and I have had discussions on this issue, and he said he is open to a fresh look at Auckland’s viewshaft settings in its Unitary Plan. We agree that the time is right to start the conversation. This is particularly relevant where the viewshafts impact the CBD and major transit corridors.
We are committed to trying to find a way though – alongside mana whenua – to get the balance right between economic growth, and the special role these Māunga play in the unique identity of Auckland.
We are not proposing to remove these viewshafts. Rather, we are recognising that as the city changes, and there will be areas where the viewshafts should change with it.
The tollgate viewshaft example above proves that it is possible to eat our cake and have it too. We can both preserve views and enable more development. That is the kind of change that a dynamic city requires to be the best for all its people.
Conclusion
Auckland has a bright future.
You have the country’s premier convention centre opening early next year.
You have City Rail Link opening later next year.
You have what are essentially new cities being built to your west, and to your south.
New roads are opening.
Congestion pricing is on the way.
And more housing is being built.
Whenever I come here, I get a palpable sense of opportunity knocking.
This city isn’t waiting: it’s getting on with the mission of growth.
It is bursting at the seams with opportunities – now, it is the responsibility of all of us to help make it happen.
Thank you.

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

February 21, 2025
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: Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta Announces Preliminary Fourth Quarter and Annual 2024 Financial Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

ATLANTA, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (the Bank) today released preliminary unaudited financial highlights for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2024. All numbers reported below for 2024 are approximate until the Bank announces audited financial results in its Form 10-K, which is expected to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on or about March 7, 2025.

Fourth Quarter 2024 Operating Results

Net interest income for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $250 million, an increase of $9 million, compared to net interest income of $241 million for the same period in 2023. The increase in net interest income was primarily related to a decrease in interest rates between the comparative quarters which impacted expense from interest-bearing liabilities more than the income from interest-earning assets, partially offset by a decrease in average advance balances.
The average advance balances were $96.1 billion and $111.4 billion for the fourth quarter of 2024 and 2023, respectively.
Net income for the fourth quarter of 2024 was $176 million, an increase of $2 million, compared to net income of $174 million for the same period in 2023. The Bank had $16 million of voluntary housing contribution expense during the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $12 million during the same period in 2023.
The net yield on interest-earnings assets for the fourth quarter of 2024 was 67 basis points, an increase of nine basis points, compared to 58 basis points for the same period in 2023. Many of the Bank’s assets and liabilities are indexed to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). Average daily SOFR during the fourth quarter of 2024 was 4.68 percent compared to 5.32 percent for the same period in 2023.
The Bank’s fourth quarter of 2024 performance resulted in an annualized return on average equity (ROE) of 8.36 percent as compared to 7.83 percent for the same period in 2023. The increase in ROE was primarily due a decrease in the average total capital outstanding during the fourth quarter of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.

Annual 2024 Operating Results

Net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $966 million, an increase of $77 million, compared to net interest income of $889 million for the same period in 2023. The increase in net interest income was primarily related to an increase in interest rates during the year which impacted income from interest-earning assets more than the expense from interest-bearing liabilities, partially offset by a decrease in average advance balances.
The average advance balances were $98.8 billion and $125.4 billion for the year ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively.
Net income for the year ended December 31, 2024 was $697 million, an increase of $48 million, compared to net income of $649 million for the same period in 2023. The increase in net income was primarily due to a $77 million increase in net interest income. Additionally, during 2024 the Bank had $49 million of voluntary housing contributions expense, compared to $19 million during 2023.
The net yield on interest-earnings assets for the year ended December 31, 2024 was 64 basis points, an increase of 14 basis points, compared to 50 basis points for the same period in 2023. The year-to-date average daily SOFR as of December 31, 2024 was 5.15 percent compared to 5.01 percent for the same period in 2023.
The Bank’s 2024 performance resulted in an annualized return on average equity (ROE) of 8.31 percent as compared to 7.43 percent for the same period in 2023. The increase in ROE was primarily due to the increase in net income during the year.

Financial Condition Highlights

Total assets were $147.1 billion as of December 31, 2024, a decrease of $5.3 billion from December 31, 2023.
Advances outstanding were $85.8 billion as of December 31, 2024, a decrease of $10.8 billion from December 31, 2023.
Total capital was $7.9 billion as of December 31, 2024, a decrease of $183 million from December 31, 2023. Retained earnings increased to $2.8 billion as of December 31, 2024, compared to $2.5 billion as of December 31, 2023.
As of December 31, 2024, the Bank was in compliance with all applicable regulatory capital and liquidity requirements.

Reliable Source of Liquidity

For 2024, the Bank originated a total of $311.4 billion of advances, thereby providing significant liquidity to its members to support lending and other activities in their communities. The Bank is proud to continue to execute on its mission to be a reliable source of liquidity and funding for its members, while remaining adequately capitalized.

Commitment to Affordable Housing and Community Development

The Bank is required and commits 10 percent of its income before assessments to support the affordable housing and community development needs of communities served by its members as required by law, which amounted to $72 million for the 2023 statutory Affordable Housing Program (AHP) assessment available for funding in 2024. As of December 31, 2024, the Bank has accrued $77 million to its AHP pool of funds that will be available to the Bank’s members and their communities in 2025 for funding of eligible projects.
During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Bank made an additional $49 million of voluntary housing and community investment contributions. This consisted of $15 million of additional voluntary housing contributions to the Bank’s AHP Homeownership Set-aside Program, $8 million of additional voluntary housing contributions to the Bank’s AHP General Fund, $20 million of voluntary contributions to the Bank’s Workforce Housing Plus+ Program, and $6 million of voluntary contributions to the Bank’s Heirs’ Property Family Wealth Protection Fund.
In 2025, the Bank has voluntarily committed an additional five percent of its 2024 income before assessments, equal to $41 million, to further support the affordable housing and community development needs of its communities. This will result in a total commitment by the Bank to support affordable housing and community development needs of $118 million in 2025.
Since the inception of its AHP in 1990, the Bank has awarded more than $1.2 billion in AHP funds, assisting more than 177,000 households.



Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta Financial Highlights (Preliminary and unaudited) (Dollars in millions)

		As of December 31,
Statements of Condition		2024			2023
	Advances	$	85,829		$	96,608
	Investments		60,084			54,207
	Mortgage loans held for portfolio, net		89			103
	Total assets		147,091			152,370
	Total consolidated obligations, net		135,851			141,572
	Total capital stock		5,148			5,597
	Retained earnings		2,785			2,524
	Accumulated other comprehensive loss		—			(5	)
	Total capital		7,933			8,116
	Capital-to-assets ratio (GAAP)		5.39	%		5.33		%
	Capital-to-assets ratio (Regulatory)		5.39	%		5.33		%

		Three Months Ended December 31,							Years Ended December 31,
Operating Results and Performance Ratios		2024			2023				2024			2023
	Net interest income	$	250		$	241			$	966		$	889
	Standby letters of credit fees		4			4				17			10
	Other income (loss)		2			(1	)			6			(5	)
	Total noninterest expense ⁽¹⁾		61			51				215			173
	Affordable Housing Program assessment		19			19				77			72
	Net income		176			174				697			649
	Return on average assets		0.46	%		0.41		%		0.45	%		0.36		%
	Return on average equity		8.36	%		7.83		%		8.31	%		7.43		%

__________
⁽¹⁾	Total noninterest expense includes voluntary housing and community investment contributions of $16 million and $12 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, and $49 million and $19 million for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively.

Additional financial information concerning the Bank’s results of operations for the most recently completed year ended December 31, 2024, will be available in the Bank’s Form 10-K that the Bank expects to file with the SEC on or about March 7, 2025 and will be available at www.fhlbatl.com and on www.sec.gov.

About Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta

FHLBank Atlanta offers competitively-priced financing, community development grants, and other banking services to help member financial institutions make affordable home mortgages and provide economic development credit to neighborhoods and communities. The Bank is a cooperative whose members are commercial banks, credit unions, savings institutions, community development financial institutions, and insurance companies located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. FHLBank Atlanta is one of 11 district banks in the Federal Home Loan Bank System (FHLBank System). Since 1990, the FHLBanks have awarded approximately $9.1 billion in Affordable Housing Program funds, assisting more than 1.2 million households.

For more information, visit our website at www.fhlbatl.com.

To the extent that the statements made in this announcement may be deemed as “forward-looking statements”, they are made within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which include statements with respect to the Bank’s beliefs, plans, objectives, goals, expectations, anticipations, assumptions, estimates, intentions, and future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which may be beyond the Bank’s control, and which may cause the Bank’s actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from the future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, and the reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on them, since those may not be realized due to a variety of factors, including, without limitation: legislative, regulatory and accounting actions, changes, approvals or requirements; completion of the Bank’s financial closing procedures and final accounting adjustments for the most recently completed quarter; SOFR variations; future economic, liquidity and market conditions (including in the housing market and banking industry); changes in demand for advances, advance levels, consolidated obligations of the Bank and/or the FHLBank System and their market; changes in interest rates; changes in prepayment speeds, default rates, delinquencies, and losses on mortgage-backed securities; volatility of market prices, rates and indices that could affect the value of financial instruments; changes in credit ratings and/or the terms of derivative transactions; changes in product offerings; political, national, climate, and world events; disruptions in information systems; membership changes; mergers and acquisitions involving members; changes to the Bank’s voluntary housing program and other adverse developments or events, including extraordinary or disruptive events, affecting the market, involving other Federal Home Loan Banks, their members or the FHLBank System in general, including acts or war and terrorism. Additional factors that might cause the Bank’s results to differ from forward-looking statements are provided in detail in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available at www.sec.gov.

The forward-looking statements in this release speak only as of the date that they are made, and the Bank has no obligation and does not undertake to publicly update, revise, or correct any of these statements after the date of this announcement, or after the respective dates on which such statements otherwise are made, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as may be required by law. New factors may emerge, and it is not possible for us to predict the nature of each new factor, or assess its potential impact, on our business and financial condition. Given these uncertainties, we caution you not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

CONTACT: Sheryl Touchton
Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta
stouchton@fhlbatl.com
404.716.4296

The MIL Network –

February 21, 2025

MIL-OSI Economics: Economy Enters 2025 on Strong Footing as Markets Digest Policy Uncertainty

Source: Fannie Mae

WASHINGTON, DC – Incoming gross domestic product (GDP), labor market, and inflation data point to an economy that entered 2025 with strong momentum, according to the February 2025 commentary from the Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTCQB) Economic and Strategic Research (ESR) Group. While the ESR Group’s GDP outlook is unchanged at 2.2 percent Q4/Q4 in 2025, it revised upward its expectations for the Consumer Price Index, which is now forecast to end 2025 at 2.8 percent on a year-over-year basis (2.5 percent previously), primarily due to recently higher-than-expected inflation readings. Further, the ESR Group incorporated the recently implemented 10-percent additional tariff on imports from China into its February forecast; it expects the tariffs will have a small negative impact on growth and put slight upward pressure on inflation. However, the ESR Group notes that current risks to the outlook are higher than normal due to uncertainty around trade policy, including additional tariff proposals.

The ESR Group now expects mortgage rates to end 2025 and 2026 at 6.6 and 6.5 percent, respectively, upward revisions from its prior outlook. The ESR Group notes there are plausible scenarios for both upward and downward movement in mortgage rates due to trade policies, but its expectations for mortgage rate volatility this year remains intact as markets react to trade policy announcements, incoming economic data, and other fiscal policy changes. Additionally, the ESR Group made modest upward revisions to its existing home sales outlook for 2025 due to a stronger-than-expected December sales pace and resilient purchase applications data, but it notes that the level of existing sales is still expected to be 22 percent below the pace seen in 2019.

“Economic growth was strong to start the year as fourth quarter personal consumption data came in above our expectations,” said Kim Betancourt, Fannie Mae Vice President of Multifamily Economics and Strategic Research. “Going forward, we expect the economy to decelerate slightly as consumer spending slows to a level more consistent with its historical relationship to income. However, ongoing uncertainty around trade policy adds risk to our GDP and inflation outlooks, which may have implications for mortgage rates, although the direction – up or down – would depend on a number of factors. Higher mortgage rates would exacerbate the existing ‘lock-in effect’ and worsen affordability, which may then weigh on home sales and mortgage originations activity. Of course, if mortgage rates move lower, we’d likely see an improvement in affordability and a corresponding pickup in housing activity.”

Visit the Economic and Strategic Research site at fanniemae.com to read the full February 2025 Economic Outlook, including the Economic Developments Commentary, Economic Forecast, and Housing Forecast. To receive email updates with other housing market research from Fannie Mae’s Economic and Strategic Research Group, please click here.

Opinions, analyses, estimates, forecasts, beliefs, and other views of Fannie Mae’s Economic and Strategic Research (ESR) Group included in these materials should not be construed as indicating Fannie Mae’s business prospects or expected results, are based on assumptions, and are subject to change without notice. How this information affects Fannie Mae will depend on many factors. Although the ESR Group bases its opinions, analyses, estimates, forecasts, beliefs, and other views on information it considers reliable, it does not guarantee that the information provided in these materials is accurate, current, or suitable for any particular purpose. Changes in the assumptions or the information underlying these views could produce materially different results. The analyses, opinions, estimates, forecasts, beliefs, and other views published by the ESR Group represent the views of that group as of the date indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of Fannie Mae or its management.

About the ESR Group
Fannie Mae’s Economic and Strategic Research Group, led by Chief Economist Mark Palim, studies current data, analyzes historical and emerging trends, and conducts surveys of consumer and mortgage lender groups to provide forecasts and analyses on the economy, housing, and mortgage markets.

MIL OSI Economics –

February 21, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: A fiscal crisis is looming for many US cities

Source: The Conversation – USA – By John Rennie Short, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Houston residents at a flooded park after the passage of Hurricane Beryl, July 8, 2024. Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images

Five years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many U.S. cities are still adjusting to a new normal, with more people working remotely and less economic activity in city centers. Other factors, such as underfunded pension plans for municipal employees, are pushing many city budgets into the red.

Urban fiscal struggles are not new, but historically they have mainly affected U.S. cities that are small, poor or saddled with incompetent managers. Today, however, even large cities, including Chicago, Houston and San Francisco, are under serious financial stress.

This is a looming nationwide threat, driven by factors that include climate change, declining downtown activity, loss of federal funds and large pension and retirement commitments.

Spending cuts abound in many U.S. cities as inflation lingers and pandemic-era stimulus dries up.

Why cities struggle

Many U.S. cities have faced fiscal crises over the past century, for diverse reasons. Most commonly, stress occurs after an economic downturn or sharp fall in tax revenues.

Florida municipalities began to default in 1926 after the collapse of a land boom. Municipal defaults were common across the nation in the 1930s during the Great Depression: As unemployment rose, relief burdens swelled and tax collections dwindled.

In 1934 Congress amended the U.S. bankruptcy code to allow municipalities to file formally for bankruptcy. Subsequently, 27 states enacted laws that authorized cities to become debtors and seek bankruptcy protection.

Declaring bankruptcy was not a cure-all. It allowed cities to refinance debt or stretch out payment schedules, but it also could lead to higher taxes and fees for residents, and lower pay and benefits for city employees. And it could stigmatize a city for many years afterward.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many urban residents and businesses left cities for adjoining suburbs. Many cities, including New York, Cleveland and Philadelphia, found it difficult to repay debts as their tax bases shrank.

The New York Daily News, Oct. 30, 1975, after U.S. President Gerald Ford ruled out providing federal aid to save the city from bankruptcy. Several months later, Ford signed legislation authorizing federal loans.
Edward Stojakovic/Flickr, CC BY

In the wake of the 2008-2009 housing market collapse, cities including Detroit, San Bernardino, California, and Stockton, California, filed for bankruptcy. Other cities faced similar difficulties but were located in states that did not allow municipalities to declare bankruptcy.

Even large, affluent jurisdictions could go off the financial rails. For example, Orange County, California, went bankrupt in 2002 after its treasurer, Robert Citron, pursued a risky investment strategy of complex leveraging deals, losing some $1.65 billion in taxpayer funds.

Today, cities face a convergence of rising costs and decreasing revenues in many places. As I see it, the urban fiscal crisis is now a pervasive national challenge.

Climate-driven disasters

Climate change and its attendant increase in major disasters are putting financial pressure on municipalities across the country.

Events like wildfires and flooding have twofold effects on city finances. First, money has to be spent on rebuilding damaged infrastructure, such as roads, water lines and public buildings. Second, after the disaster, cities may either act on their own or be required under state or federal law to make expensive investments in preparation for the next storm or wildfire.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (center) discusses wildfire recovery in Pacific Palisades, Calif., Jan. 27, 2025. Cleaning up after the wildfires, which destroyed more than 16,000 structures, will include disposing of several million tons of toxic ash and debris.
Drew A. Kelley/MediaNews Group/Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images

In Houston, for example, court rulings after multiple years of severe flooding are forcing the city to spend $100 million on street repairs and drainage by mid-2025. This requirement will expand the deficit in Houston’s annual budget to $330 million.

In Massachusetts, towns on Cape Cod are spending millions of dollars to switch from septic systems to public sewer lines and upgrade wastewater treatment plants. Population growth has sharply increased water pollution on the Cape, and climate change is promoting blooms of toxic algae that feed on nutrients in wastewater.

Increasing uncertainty about the total costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change will inevitably lead rating agencies to downgrade municipal credit ratings. This raises cities’ costs to borrow money for climate-related projects like protecting shorelines and improving wastewater treatment.

Underfunded pensions

Cities also spend a lot of money on employees, and many large cities are struggling to fund pensions and health benefits for their workforces. As municipal retirees live longer and require more health care, the costs are mounting.

For example, Chicago currently faces a budget deficit of nearly $1 billion, which stems partly from underfunded retirement benefits for nearly 30,000 public employees. The city has $35 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and almost $2 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits. Chicago’s teachers are owed $14 billion in unfunded benefits.

Policy studies have shown for years that politicians tend to underfund retirement and pension benefits for public employees. This approach offloads the real cost of providing police, fire protection and education onto future taxpayers.

Struggling downtowns and less federal support

Cities aren’t just facing rising costs – they’re also losing revenues. In many U.S. cities, retail and commercial office economies are declining. Developers have overbuilt commercial properties, creating an excess supply. More unleased properties will mean lower tax revenues.

At the same time, pandemic-related federal aid that cushioned municipal finances from 2020 through 2024 is dwindling.

State and local governments received $150 billion through the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and an additional $130 billion through the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. Now, however, this federal largesse – which some cities used to fill mounting fiscal cracks – is at an end.

In my view, President Donald Trump’s administration is highly unlikely to bail out urban areas – especially more liberal cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Trump has portrayed large cities governed by Democrats in the darkest terms – for example, calling Baltimore a “rodent-infested mess” and Washington, D.C., a “dirty, crime-ridden death trap.” I expect that Trump’s animus against big cities, which was a staple of his 2024 campaign, could become a hallmark of his second term.

Detroit officials respond to disparaging remarks about the city by Donald Trump during a campaign speech in Detroit, Oct. 10, 2024.

Resistance to new taxes

Cities can generate revenue from taxes on sales, businesses, property and utilities. However, increasing municipal taxes – particularly property taxes – can be very difficult.

In 1978, California adopted Proposition 13 – a ballot measure that limited property tax increases to the rate of inflation or 2% per year, whichever is lower. This high-profile campaign created a widespread narrative that property taxes were out of control and made it very hard for local officials to support property tax increases.

Thanks to caps like Prop 13, a persistent public view that taxes are too high and political resistance, property taxes have tended to lag behind inflation in many parts of the country.

The crunch

Taking these factors together, I see a fiscal crunch coming for U.S. cities. Small cities with low budgets are particularly vulnerable. But so are larger, more affluent cities, such as San Francisco with its collapsing downtown office market, or Houston, New York and Miami, which face growing costs from climate change.

Workers in North Miami Beach, Fla., distribute sandbags to residents to help prevent flooding as Hurricane Milton approaches the state on Oct. 8, 2024.
AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee

One city manager who runs an affluent municipality in the Pacific Northwest told me that in these difficult circumstances, politicians need to be more frank and open with their constituents and explain convincingly and compellingly how and why taxpayer money is being spent.

Efforts to balance city budgets are opportunities to build consensus with the public about what municipalities can do, and at what cost. The coming months will show whether politicians and city residents are ready for these hard conversations.

John Rennie Short does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A fiscal crisis is looming for many US cities – https://theconversation.com/a-fiscal-crisis-is-looming-for-many-us-cities-249436

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

February 21, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: A fiscal crisis is looming for many US cities

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Rennie Short, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Houston residents at a flooded park after the passage of Hurricane Beryl, July 8, 2024. Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images

Five years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many U.S. cities are still adjusting to a new normal, with more people working remotely and less economic activity in city centers. Other factors, such as underfunded pension plans for municipal employees, are pushing many city budgets into the red.

Urban fiscal struggles are not new, but historically they have mainly affected U.S. cities that are small, poor or saddled with incompetent managers. Today, however, even large cities, including Chicago, Houston and San Francisco, are under serious financial stress.

This is a looming nationwide threat, driven by factors that include climate change, declining downtown activity, loss of federal funds and large pension and retirement commitments.

Spending cuts abound in many U.S. cities as inflation lingers and pandemic-era stimulus dries up.

Why cities struggle

Many U.S. cities have faced fiscal crises over the past century, for diverse reasons. Most commonly, stress occurs after an economic downturn or sharp fall in tax revenues.

Florida municipalities began to default in 1926 after the collapse of a land boom. Municipal defaults were common across the nation in the 1930s during the Great Depression: As unemployment rose, relief burdens swelled and tax collections dwindled.

In 1934 Congress amended the U.S. bankruptcy code to allow municipalities to file formally for bankruptcy. Subsequently, 27 states enacted laws that authorized cities to become debtors and seek bankruptcy protection.

Declaring bankruptcy was not a cure-all. It allowed cities to refinance debt or stretch out payment schedules, but it also could lead to higher taxes and fees for residents, and lower pay and benefits for city employees. And it could stigmatize a city for many years afterward.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many urban residents and businesses left cities for adjoining suburbs. Many cities, including New York, Cleveland and Philadelphia, found it difficult to repay debts as their tax bases shrank.

The New York Daily News, Oct. 30, 1975, after U.S. President Gerald Ford ruled out providing federal aid to save the city from bankruptcy. Several months later, Ford signed legislation authorizing federal loans.
Edward Stojakovic/Flickr, CC BY

In the wake of the 2008-2009 housing market collapse, cities including Detroit, San Bernardino, California, and Stockton, California, filed for bankruptcy. Other cities faced similar difficulties but were located in states that did not allow municipalities to declare bankruptcy.

Even large, affluent jurisdictions could go off the financial rails. For example, Orange County, California, went bankrupt in 2002 after its treasurer, Robert Citron, pursued a risky investment strategy of complex leveraging deals, losing some $1.65 billion in taxpayer funds.

Today, cities face a convergence of rising costs and decreasing revenues in many places. As I see it, the urban fiscal crisis is now a pervasive national challenge.

Climate-driven disasters

Climate change and its attendant increase in major disasters are putting financial pressure on municipalities across the country.

Events like wildfires and flooding have twofold effects on city finances. First, money has to be spent on rebuilding damaged infrastructure, such as roads, water lines and public buildings. Second, after the disaster, cities may either act on their own or be required under state or federal law to make expensive investments in preparation for the next storm or wildfire.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (center) discusses wildfire recovery in Pacific Palisades, Calif., Jan. 27, 2025. Cleaning up after the wildfires, which destroyed more than 16,000 structures, will include disposing of several million tons of toxic ash and debris.
Drew A. Kelley/MediaNews Group/Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images

In Houston, for example, court rulings after multiple years of severe flooding are forcing the city to spend $100 million on street repairs and drainage by mid-2025. This requirement will expand the deficit in Houston’s annual budget to $330 million.

In Massachusetts, towns on Cape Cod are spending millions of dollars to switch from septic systems to public sewer lines and upgrade wastewater treatment plants. Population growth has sharply increased water pollution on the Cape, and climate change is promoting blooms of toxic algae that feed on nutrients in wastewater.

Increasing uncertainty about the total costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change will inevitably lead rating agencies to downgrade municipal credit ratings. This raises cities’ costs to borrow money for climate-related projects like protecting shorelines and improving wastewater treatment.

Underfunded pensions

Cities also spend a lot of money on employees, and many large cities are struggling to fund pensions and health benefits for their workforces. As municipal retirees live longer and require more health care, the costs are mounting.

For example, Chicago currently faces a budget deficit of nearly $1 billion, which stems partly from underfunded retirement benefits for nearly 30,000 public employees. The city has $35 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and almost $2 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits. Chicago’s teachers are owed $14 billion in unfunded benefits.

Policy studies have shown for years that politicians tend to underfund retirement and pension benefits for public employees. This approach offloads the real cost of providing police, fire protection and education onto future taxpayers.

Struggling downtowns and less federal support

Cities aren’t just facing rising costs – they’re also losing revenues. In many U.S. cities, retail and commercial office economies are declining. Developers have overbuilt commercial properties, creating an excess supply. More unleased properties will mean lower tax revenues.

At the same time, pandemic-related federal aid that cushioned municipal finances from 2020 through 2024 is dwindling.

State and local governments received $150 billion through the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and an additional $130 billion through the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. Now, however, this federal largesse – which some cities used to fill mounting fiscal cracks – is at an end.

In my view, President Donald Trump’s administration is highly unlikely to bail out urban areas – especially more liberal cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Trump has portrayed large cities governed by Democrats in the darkest terms – for example, calling Baltimore a “rodent-infested mess” and Washington, D.C., a “dirty, crime-ridden death trap.” I expect that Trump’s animus against big cities, which was a staple of his 2024 campaign, could become a hallmark of his second term.

Detroit officials respond to disparaging remarks about the city by Donald Trump during a campaign speech in Detroit, Oct. 10, 2024.

Resistance to new taxes

Cities can generate revenue from taxes on sales, businesses, property and utilities. However, increasing municipal taxes – particularly property taxes – can be very difficult.

In 1978, California adopted Proposition 13 – a ballot measure that limited property tax increases to the rate of inflation or 2% per year, whichever is lower. This high-profile campaign created a widespread narrative that property taxes were out of control and made it very hard for local officials to support property tax increases.

Thanks to caps like Prop 13, a persistent public view that taxes are too high and political resistance, property taxes have tended to lag behind inflation in many parts of the country.

The crunch

Taking these factors together, I see a fiscal crunch coming for U.S. cities. Small cities with low budgets are particularly vulnerable. But so are larger, more affluent cities, such as San Francisco with its collapsing downtown office market, or Houston, New York and Miami, which face growing costs from climate change.

Workers in North Miami Beach, Fla., distribute sandbags to residents to help prevent flooding as Hurricane Milton approaches the state on Oct. 8, 2024.
AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee

One city manager who runs an affluent municipality in the Pacific Northwest told me that in these difficult circumstances, politicians need to be more frank and open with their constituents and explain convincingly and compellingly how and why taxpayer money is being spent.

Efforts to balance city budgets are opportunities to build consensus with the public about what municipalities can do, and at what cost. The coming months will show whether politicians and city residents are ready for these hard conversations.

John Rennie Short does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A fiscal crisis is looming for many US cities – https://theconversation.com/a-fiscal-crisis-is-looming-for-many-us-cities-249436

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

February 21, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Impact of Greece’s golden visa scheme on the housing market – E-000613/2025
Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-000613/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Afroditi Latinopoulou (PfE)

According to recent data, Greece’s golden visa scheme has played a significant role in the increase in property and rental prices in the country’s urban centres and popular islands. Although the scheme generated around EUR 4.3 billion for the Greek economy between 2021 and 2023, there has been a sharp decline in the availability of long-term rental housing, forcing local residents to move away.

In view of the above:

1.Given the European Parliament’s 2022 decision to phase out golden visa schemes by 2025, what specific measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure a smooth transition for Member States that implement such schemes?

2.How does it intend to address the social impact on the housing market resulting from these schemes, especially in areas where prices have risen considerably?

Submitted: 11.2.2025
Last updated: 20 February 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
February 21, 2025
MIL-OSI: Establishment of a subsidiary and purchase of the property at Hiiu 42 in Tallinn for the construction of the Südamekodu nursing home

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

Establishment of a subsidiary and purchase of the property at Hiiu 42 in Tallinn for the construction of the Südamekodu nursing home.
A 100% subsidiary of EfTEN Real Estate Fund AS has entered into a contract under the law of obligations, with the aim of establishing a nursing home there together with Südamekodud AS.
The fund’s 100% subsidiary EfTEN Hiiu OÜ has entered into a contract under the law of obligations with Südamekodud AS for the acquisition of the property located at Hiiu 42 in the Nõmme district of Tallinn. The fund plans to partially rebuild the property into a general nursing home “Nõmme Südamekodu”, which could accommodate up to 170 Südamekodu clients in the future.
The sale price of the property is four million euros, which will be paid upon conclusion of the real rights agreement, and the buyer will additionally invest up to two point five million euros in the reconstruction of the building. Currently, the design of the building’s reconstruction has begun. The expected return of the investment excluding bank leverage is 8%.
The North Estonia Medical Centre will continue to use the property under a valid lease agreement. After the conclusion of the real rights agreement, the property will also be rented under a long-term lease agreement to Südamekodud AS, whose vision is to be the best local care service provider in Estonia. Südamekodud AS offers its services in nursing homes located across Estonia, including the Valkla Südamekodu, Tartu Südamekodu and Pirita Südamekodu properties owned by other subsidiaries of the fund. The purchase of the property and investments will be financed from the fund’s equity capital raised from the SPO and a bank loan. The prerequisite for completing the transaction is the consent of the Estonian Competition Authority, after which a real rights agreement will be concluded for the transfer of ownership of the property.
EfTEN Hiiu OÜ is a 100% subsidiary of the fund established in the Republic of Estonia, with a share capital of 2,500 euros. The members of the management board of the limited liability company are Viljar Arakas and Tõnu Uustalu. The limited liability company does not have a supervisory board. The establishment of a subsidiary is not considered an acquisition of a qualifying holding within the meaning of the rules and regulations of the Tallinn Stock Exchange. The members of the Fund’s supervisory board and management board have no other personal interest in the transaction.

Viljar Arakas
Member of the Management Board
Tel 655 9515
E-post: viljar.arakas@eften.ee

The MIL Network –

February 20, 2025

MIL-OSI: Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc. Reports 2024 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Financial Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

2024 Fourth Quarter Financial Highlights:

Total assets were $186.9 million at year end.
Net interest income of $1.00 million for the fourth quarter.
Net interest margin of 2.30% for the fourth quarter and 2.36% for the year.
Total deposits increased 3% to $145.8 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $142.2 million a year ago, with non-interest bearing demand deposits representing 25% of total deposits.
Net loans were $141.6 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $142.8 million a year ago.
Asset quality remains pristine.
Tangible book value per share increased to $7.80 at year end, compared to $7.58 a year ago.

POULSBO, Wash., Feb. 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc. (OTCQX: LBNW) (the “Company”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Liberty Bank today announced a net loss of $43 thousand for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024. This compared to net income of $25 thousand for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024, and $1 thousand for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, net income was $3 thousand, compared to $35 thousand the same period in 2023.

Total assets were $186.9 million as of December 31, 2024, compared to $184.7 million at December 31, 2023. Net loans totaled $141.6 million as of December 31, 2024, a 1% increase compared to $140.0 million at September 30, 2024, and a 1% decrease compared to $142.8 million a year ago. Loan demand was muted during the quarter largely due to the elevated interest rate environment.

Asset quality remained pristine during the fourth quarter. The allowance for credit losses totaled $1.16 million as of December 31, 2024, and was 0.81% of total loans outstanding. The Company recorded net loan recoveries of $31 thousand during the quarter. The Company has one non-performing loan of $235 thousand as of December 31, 2024.

Due to strong credit quality metrics and muted loan growth, the Company recorded a $40 thousand reversal to its provision for credit losses in the fourth quarter of 2024. This compared to a $95 thousand reversal to its provision for credit losses in the third quarter of 2024 and a $60 thousand reversal to its provision for credit losses in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Total deposits increased 3% to $145.8 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $142.2 million at December 31, 2023, and decreased modestly compared to $146.4 million three months earlier. Non-interest bearing demand accounts represented 25%, interest bearing demand represented 30%, money market and savings accounts comprised 18%, and certificates of deposit made up 27% of the total deposit portfolio at December 31, 2024.

“The vibrant Pacific Northwest markets that we operate in continue to fuel our deposit base and loan pipeline,” said Rick Darrow, Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc. President and Chief Executive Officer. “During the fourth quarter, loan growth moderated, as we remain selective with the loans we are putting on the balance sheet. As we look to 2025, we anticipate an increase in growth opportunities, especially if interest rates continue to stabilize.

“The challenging interest rate environment continues to impact net interest income growth with higher interest expense on deposits and borrowings, which affected our operating performance for the fourth quarter of 2024,” said Darrow. Net interest income, before the provision for loan losses, was $1.00 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $1.07 million in the fourth quarter of 2023. For the year, net interest income was $4.11 million, compared to $4.44 million for 2023.

“While our yields on earning assets remained stable during the quarter, they were more than offset by the increase in cost of funds, resulting in net interest margin compression during the quarter,” said Darrow. The Company’s net interest margin was 2.30% for the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to 2.37% for the preceding quarter, and 2.48% for the fourth quarter of 2023. For the full year 2024, the net interest margin was 2.36%, compared to 2.59% for 2023.

Total non-interest income increased 6% to $82 thousand for the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $78 thousand for the fourth quarter a year ago. For the year, non-interest income was $308 thousand, compared to $449 thousand for 2023. The decrease in 2024 compared to the prior year was primarily due to higher referral fee income earned in 2023.

Total noninterest expense was $1.18 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, a decrease of $43 thousand, or 3%, from the fourth quarter a year ago. Compensation and benefits costs decreased by $55 thousand, or 8%, over the year ago quarter, while occupancy costs decreased by $51 thousand, or 34% from the same quarter a year ago. For the year, total noninterest expense decreased $275 thousand, or 6%, to $4.68 million, over 2023.

“We remain focused on enhancing revenue generation and driving cost efficiencies to improve our operational effectiveness,” said Darrow. “Our operating performance is expected to continue to improve, as we improve our margin, while keeping operating expenses in line. We are well positioned for continued growth in our core business operations and remain focused on creating value for all of our customers, employees and shareholders.”

Capital ratios continue to exceed regulatory requirements, with a total risk-based capital ratio at 15.81% at December 31, 2024, substantially above well-capitalized regulatory requirements. The tangible book value per share was $7.80 at year end, compared to $7.58 a year earlier.

Near the end of the second quarter of 2024, the Company completed the issuance of $1.2 million of Preferred Stock. Under the terms of the transaction, the Preferred Stock will convert to Common Stock within a 2 year time period.

“We are deploying the proceeds from this offering to further strengthen our capital position and to support continued loan growth in our vibrant Pacific Northwest markets,” said Darrow.

About Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc.
Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc. is the bank holding company for Liberty Bank, a commercial bank chartered in the State of Washington. The Bank began operations June 11, 2009, and operates a full-service branch in Poulsbo, WA. The Bank provides loan and deposit services to predominantly small and middle-sized businesses and individuals in and around Kitsap and King counties. The Bank is subject to regulation by the State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). For more information, please visit www.libertybanknw.com. Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc. (OTCQX: LBNW), qualified to trade on the OTCQX® Best Market in June 2022. For information related to the trading of LBNW, please visit www.otcmarkets.com.

For further discussion, please contact:
Rick Darrow, Chief Executive Officer | 360-394-4750

Forward-Looking Statement Safe Harbor: This news release contains comments or information that constitutes forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) that are based on current expectations that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements describe Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc.’s projections, estimates, plans and expectations of future results and can be identified by words such as “believe,” “intend,” “estimate,” “likely,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “looking forward,” and other similar expressions. They are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from the results expressed in these forward-looking statements, which because of their forward-looking nature, are difficult to predict. Investors should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement, and should consider factors that might cause differences including but not limited to the degree of competition by traditional and nontraditional competitors, declines in real estate markets, an increase in unemployment or sustained high levels of unemployment; changes in interest rates; greater than expected costs to integrate acquisitions, adverse changes in local, national and international economies; changes in the Federal Reserve’s actions that affect monetary and fiscal policies; changes in legislative or regulatory actions or reform, including without limitation, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; demand for products and services; changes to the quality of the loan portfolio and our ability to succeed in our problem-asset resolution efforts; the impact of technological advances; changes in tax laws; and other risk factors. Liberty Northwest Bancorp, Inc. undertakes no obligation to publicly update or clarify any forward-looking statement to reflect the impact of events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this release.

STATEMENTS OF INCOME (Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands)
		Quarter Ended Dec 31, 2024			Quarter Ended Sept 30, 2024			Three Month Change		Quarter Ended Dec 31, 2023			Quarter over Quarter – One Year Change		Year to Date Dec 31, 2024			Year to Date Dec 30, 2023			One Year Change
Interest Income
	Loans	$	1,932		$	1,994		-3	%	$	1,890		2	%	$	7,807		$	7,173		9	%
	Interest bearing deposits in banks		142			83		70	%		101		41	%		365			323		13	%
	Securities		108			114		-5	%		140		-23	%		461			483		-5	%
	Total interest income		2,182			2,192		-0	%		2,112		3	%		8,632			7,979		8	%

Interest Expense
	Deposits		928			903		3	%		656		41	%		3,298			2,141		54	%
	Other Borrowings		252			283		-11	%		384		-34	%		1,226			1,396		-12	%
	Total interest expense		1,179			1,186		-1	%		1,040		13	%		4,524			3,537		28	%

Net Interest Income			1,003			1,005		-0	%		1,072		-7	%		4,109			4,442		-8	%
	Provision for Loan Losses		(40	)		(95	)	-58	%		(60	)	-33	%		(265	)		(105	)	152	%
Net interest income after provision for loan losses			1,043			1,100		-5	%		1,132		-8	%		4,374			4,547		-4	%

Non-Interest Income
	Service charges on deposit accounts		28			28		-0	%		17		61	%		104			67		55	%
	Other non-interest income		55			46		19	%		61		-10	%		204			382		-47	%
	Total non-interest income		82			74		12	%		78		6	%		308			449		-31	%

Non-Interest Expense
	Salaries and employee benefits		650			668		-3	%		705		-8	%		2,596			2,854		-9	%
	Occupancy and equipment expenses		100			88		14	%		151		-34	%		429			595		-28	%
	Other operating expenses		429			387		11	%		367		17	%		1,652			1,503		10	%
	Total non-interest expenses		1,180			1,143		3	%		1,223		-3	%		4,677			4,952		-6	%

Net Income Before Income Tax			(55	)		31		-275	%		2		-3027	%		4			44		-90	%
Provision for Income Tax			(12	)		7		-275	%		0		-3027	%		1			9		-90	%
Net Income			(43	)	$	25		-275	%	$	1		-3027	%	$	3		$	35		-90	%

BALANCE SHEETS (Unaudited)
(Dollars in thousands)
		Dec 31, 2024			Sept 30, 2024			Three Month Change		Dec 31, 2023			One Year Change
Assets
	Cash and due from Banks	$	1,655		$	2,408		-31	%	$	1,817		-9	%
	Interest bearing deposits in banks		14,341			11,262		27	%		7,896		82	%
	Securities		20,586			21,225		-3	%		23,034		-11	%

	Loans		142,720			141,206		1	%		143,913		-1	%
	Allowance for loan losses		(1,158	)		(1,167	)	-1	%		(1,150	)	1	%
	Net Loans		141,561			140,038		1	%		142,763		-1	%

	Premises and fixed assets		6,101			6,161		-1	%		6,418		-5	%
	Accrued Interest receivable		681			668		2	%		765		-11	%
	Intangible assets		11			19		-43	%		39		-72	%
	Other assets		1,949			2,262		21	%		1,992		-2	%

	Total Assets	$	186,884		$	183,678		2	%	$	184,724		1	%


Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
	Deposits
	Demand, non-interest bearing	$	35,845		$	39,669		-10	%	$	42,803		-16	%
	Interest Bearing Demand		44,149			40,764		8	%		23,528		88	%
	Money Market and Savings		26,495			27,419		-3	%		26,667		-1	%
	Certificates of Deposit		39,345			38,507		2	%		49,200		-20	%
	Total Deposits		145,833			146,359		-0	%		142,198		3	%

	Total Borrowing		26,461			22,454		18	%		29,430		-10	%
	Accrued interest payable		173			238		-27	%		335		-48	%
	Other liabilities		286			704		133	%		214		34	%
	Total Liabilities		172,753			169,756		2	%		172,177		0	%

	Shareholders’ Equity
	Preferred Stock		1,242			1,242		0	%				***
	Common Stock		1,656			1,650		0	%		1,650		0	%
	Additional paid in capital		13,149			13,138		0	%		13,108		0	%
	Retained Earnings		(1,490	)		(1,447	)	-3	%		(1,493	)	0	%
	Other Comprehensive Income		(426	)		(661	)	36	%		(718	)	41	%
	Total Shareholders’ Equity		14,131			13,922		1	%		12,547		13	%
	Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity	$	186,884		$	183,678		2	%	$	184,724		1	%

		Quarter Ended Dec 31, 2024			Quarter Ended Sept 30, 2024			Quarter Ended Dec 31, 2023			YTD 2024			YTD 2023
Financial Ratios
	Return on Average Assets		-0.09	%		0.06	%		0.00	%		0.00	%		0.02	%
	Return on Average Equity		-1.23	%		0.70	%		0.03	%		0.03	%		0.28	%
	Efficiency Ratio		108.7	%		105.9	%		106.4	%		105.9	%		101.2	%
	Net Interest Margin		2.30	%		2.37	%		2.48	%		2.36	%		2.59	%
	Loan to Deposits		97.9	%		96.5	%		101.2	%

	Tangible Book Value per Share	$	7.80		$	7.67		$	7.58
	Book Value per Share	$	7.81		$	7.68		$	7.60
	Earnings per Share	$	(0.03	)	$	0.01		$	–		$	0.03		$	0.02

	Asset Quality
	Net Loan Charge-offs (recoveries)	$	(31	)	$	4		$	–
	Nonperforming Loans	$	235		$	235		$	–
	Nonperforming Assets to Total Assets		0.13	%		0.13	%		0.00	%
	Allowance for Loan Losses to Total Loans		0.81	%		0.83	%		0.80	%
	Other Real Estate Owned		–			–			–

	CAPITAL (Bank only)
	Tier 1 leverage ratio		9.98	%		10.23	%		9.56	%
	Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		14.87	%		15.00	%		14.16	%
	Total risk based capital ratio		15.81	%		15.97	%		15.09	%

The MIL Network –

February 20, 2025

MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: A conclave on Restructuring of Real Estate Projects organised at IICA

Source: Government of India (2)

A conclave on Restructuring of Real Estate Projects organised at IICA

Discussions held around the theme “Resolving Insolvencies in Real Estate Projects”

Development of real estate insolvency and the role of IBC in successful resolution of distressed assets in real estate sector highlighted

Posted On: 19 FEB 2025 7:19PM by PIB Delhi

The Post Graduate Insolvency Programme (PGIP), Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs successfully organized a conclave today at Manesar bringing together insolvency professionals, legal experts, experts from ARCs from across the country. The inaugural ceremony was graced by distinguished industry professionals including Mr. Anuj Jain, Mr. Pallav Mohapatra, Mr. Hari Hara Mishra and Dr. K.L. Dhingra, Head of the Centre of Insolvency and Bankruptcy at IICA. Dr. Dhingra highlighted the objective behind the existence of PGIP by IBBI the regulator.

The conclave featured keynote addresses from prominent figures, including Mr. Anuj Jain and Mr. Pallav Mohapatra, discussions were centered around the theme “Resolving Insolvencies in Real Estate Projects” The keynote address mainly focused on the development of real estate insolvency and the role of IBC in shaping the successful resolution of distressed assets in the real estate sector. Mr. Mohapatra also highlighted the challenges faced by the Insolvency Professionals and the relevant skills required for sector-specific insolvency resolution.

The panelists included various professionals from Insolvency Professional Entities, Law Firms, ARC and Academicians where leading domain experts expressed their views.

The PGIP Conclave 2025 served as a vital platform for professionals to exchange knowledge and stay abreast of developments in the insolvency domain.

****

NB/AD

(Release ID: 2104806) Visitor Counter : 24

MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI: Northern Horizon Capital A/S appoints Christoffer Abramson as the Group CEO

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

Northern Horizon Capital AS, the management company of Baltic Horizon Fund, hereby informs of changes in the leadership of Northern Horizon Capital A/S (the parent company of Northern Horizon Capital AS).

After leading Northern Horizon group for almost 7 years, Milda Darguzaite will step aside from her CEO position to assume the role as Member of the Board of Directors of Northern Horizon Capital A/S.

Christoffer Abramson shall assume the position as Group Chief Executive Officer of Northern Horizon Capital A/S effective 4 March 2025.

Christoffer Abramson is a seasoned international executive and real estate investment expert. Most recently, Christoffer Abramson was President and CEO of Catella AB (publ.). Prior to this role, Christoffer Abramson spent seven years based in the US at EF Education First where he helped create and build a significant global Real Estate business. He has also worked General Electric across the globe for 10 years, ending his GE career as the CFO of GE Real Estate based in London.

“We are confident that Christoffer, with his extensive experience, Nordic background and strategic thinking, is the right person to lead the company and drive our next chapter of growth. On behalf of the Board of Directors, I would also like to extend our sincere gratitude to Milda for her dedicated leadership. We are privileged that she has accepted to become a Member of the Board. Her expertise will be invaluable as we continue to grow our platform,” Lars Ohnemus, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Northern Horizon Capital A/S, commented.

For additional information, please contact:

Tarmo Karotam
Baltic Horizon Fund manager
E-mail tarmo.karotam@nh-cap.com
www.baltichorizon.com

The Fund is a registered contractual public closed-end real estate fund that is managed by Alternative Investment Fund Manager license holder Northern Horizon Capital AS.

Distribution: GlobeNewswire, Nasdaq Tallinn, Nasdaq Stockholm, www.baltichorizon.com

To receive Nasdaq announcements and news from Baltic Horizon Fund about its projects, plans and more, register on www.baltichorizon.com. You can also follow Baltic Horizon Fund on www.baltichorizon.com and on LinkedIn, Facebook, X and YouTube.

The MIL Network –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: Isabel Schnabel: Interview with the Financial Times

Source: European Central Bank

Interview with Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, conducted by Olaf Storbeck on 14 February 2025

19 February 2025

How relevant is the natural rate – R* – for day-to-day policymaking from your point of view?

The natural rate of interest is an important theoretical concept. But it’s not well-suited to determine the appropriate monetary policy stance. The ECB staff analysis that was published recently had one main message: we know that we know very little. Model and estimation uncertainty result in confidence bands that are so wide that they include any reasonable interest rate that the ECB may set at this point. Moreover, R* is a steady-state concept for a world without shocks. That’s certainly not the world that we are in today. Just look at what’s happening with the evolving trade conflict on which we are getting news on a daily basis. So for all those reasons, I think R* cannot be any reliable guide for monetary policy in real time.

Has your view on this changed?

The point I have always emphasised is how R* is evolving over the longer term. People have focused too much on the narrow range for R* that was given in the staff note. This is misleading for several reasons. The narrow range only includes the models for which estimates were already available for the fourth quarter of 2024. If you look at the R* estimates for the third quarter, you see that the range actually goes up all the way to 3%. This is even above the current deposit facility rate of 2.75%. And that range still only includes the uncertainty stemming from using different models. If you add the parameter and filtering uncertainty, you get even wider bands. The one thing that you do see is that the overall range seems to have moved up over recent years. For me, that is the key point.

But the most recent ECB estimates of R* also suggest that the current level is still lower than it was before the global financial crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis.

That remains to be seen. There has been a clear upward trend. I expect this trend to continue for a number of reasons, including high and rising public debt and the huge investment needs for the digital and green transitions. Another factor is increasing global fragmentation. It leads to a partial reversal of the global savings glut, due to shrinking current account surpluses of some major economies, which was one of the main factors that had pushed R* down. So for me, the main message from the R* analysis is: maintaining price stability over the medium term is likely to require higher real rates in the future than before the pandemic. We cannot pin down the level of R* with any degree of confidence, but we can get an impression about the direction. For me, that direction for R* now is upwards again.

The Euro zone economy suffers from a lack of economic dynamism and economic growth. Doesn’t this put downward pressure on the natural interest rate?

Yes, there have been secular factors that have pushed R* down. But we are currently in a situation of transformation that may actually reverse that trend. That’s the whole point.

When you say that R* is not very helpful for short-term monetary policymaking, why have you stressed it so much in your speeches and interviews?

It’s important that we understand general macroeconomic trends. Also in the pre-pandemic period, it was very important to understand the underlying natural real rate environment. It can never be precise, but it helps us understand the broader picture. It has no impact on any individual rate decision.

But would you say that it is relevant for the medium-term trajectory of monetary policy, let’s say for the next year or two? Or does it only matter over the next ten or 20 years?

I think it has an impact on our medium-term thinking.

Medium-term thinking would mean: it matters over the next two to three years, right?

Well, it’s hard to pin down precisely.

Some ECB observers have suggested that the natural rate was used by more hawkish voices as an argument in favour of being more careful and not lowering interest rates too fast. Would you agree?

If you believe that R* has moved up, this argues for a more cautious approach. But this cannot just depend on R*. We need to look at the incoming data in order to understand how restrictive our monetary policy is. And the more evidence we have that monetary policy is no longer restrictive, the more cautious we have to become because further rate cuts may no longer be appropriate.

So how restrictive is the ECB’s monetary policy at the moment?

The data are showing that the degree of restriction has come down significantly, up to a point where we can no longer say with confidence that our monetary policy is still restrictive. One of the important data sources in this context is the bank lending survey.

We’re looking at that very carefully. For corporate loans, 90% of banks said in the most recent round that the general level of interest rates has no impact on loan demand, while 8% said it has lifted credit demand. A year ago, a third of banks said that interest rates were weighing on loan demand. It’s even clearer when you look at mortgages. Almost half of banks said in the most recent round that the general level of interest rates is supporting loan demand. A year ago, more than 40% said that it was constraining loan demand. This is also reflected in a historically strong increase in mortgage demand in that same survey, which is gradually transmitting into the hard data on loan growth. Corporate loans were growing by 1.5% in December, mortgages by 1.1%.

The easing is also being transmitted to the real economy. Consumption picked up in the third quarter by more than we had expected. And the savings rate has started to come down from its very high level. But of course, there are transmission lags, and part of the easing is still in the pipeline.

You said that you can’t say with confidence anymore if monetary policy is still restrictive. The last ECB policy statement clearly stated that it still is. Do you have a different view than the ECB stated in its latest policy statement?

No, I fully agreed with the statement last time. But we are now a step further, right? The January monetary policy statement referred to the interest rate of 3% and the level of restrictiveness before the latest monetary policy decision. The further we go down, the lower my conviction in such a statement will be. And note that I’m not saying our monetary policy is no longer restrictive. What I’m saying is I’m no longer sure whether it is still restrictive. But we should not overstate a difference of 25 basis points.

Should the ECB drop the reference to restrictiveness in March?

That is a discussion we should have in the next meeting.

In an FT survey of Euro zone economists just before Christmas, half of them said they think that the ECB is behind the curve. What is your view on this?

I’m firmly in the camp of the other half who think that we are right on track. The data that we’ve seen have confirmed that our gradual and cautious approach has been appropriate. Domestic inflation is still high, wage growth is still elevated, and we’ve seen new shocks to energy prices. We’ve also seen that inflation expectations are very sensitive to such shocks. So I think our approach is just right.

Some economists argue that the big uncertainty and all those shocks could justify insurance cuts. Do you have any view on that?

I don’t see any argument for that at this point, especially as we are getting closer to no longer being restrictive. If anything, we are getting closer to the point where we may have to pause or halt our rate cuts.

Pause or halt… but not increase?

No. That I would exclude.

How close do you think we are to the point where the ECB should pause its easing?

I will leave that to your interpretation. I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next meetings, so let’s see. But we need to start that discussion.

That’s not what markets take as the base case scenario right now. Do you think that markets are ahead of themselves?

Well, markets have been jumping around a bit in response to what is happening in the world. But an April rate cut is no longer fully priced in. So markets are not entirely sure either.

How well is monetary transmission working at the moment? We saw quite an uptick in yields in December although there wasn’t any change in monetary policy. All other things being equal, this slows down monetary policy transmission, doesn’t it?

We have lowered the deposit facility rate by 125 basis points over the past eight months, and this has been transmitted smoothly to short-term market rates. We’ve also seen that bank lending rates have come down quite a bit – corporate loan rates by 92 basis points and mortgage rates by 64 basis points by December. This is significant. It tells you that transmission is working. When it comes to government bond yields, it’s important to look through the short-term volatility and take a somewhat longer perspective. And what you see then is that sovereign bond yields have remained rather stable. We had a strong repricing in 2022, when the ten-year Bund moved from negative territory at the end of 2021 to around 2.4% in October 2022. That is very close to the number that we’re seeing today. So we’ve been seeing a return of long-term sovereign bond yields to their new normal. We shouldn’t overstate the short-term volatility that we’ve experienced over the past weeks.

There’s another aspect that is quite important. One of the most interesting features of this tightening cycle is that it has not led to a comparable tightening of broader financial conditions. The exceptionally strong risk appetite of financial investors has even boosted equity prices and compressed credit spreads, and that has weakened monetary policy transmission. And part of that is due to the fact that we are still holding a very large monetary policy bond portfolio.

But overall, also taking into account the lags, monetary policy transmission is working fine.

Is the ECB’s “meeting-by-meeting” communication really credible? The ECB now says that the direction of travel is clear. Isn’t this a pre-commitment to further rate cuts?

I firmly believe in the meeting-by-meeting approach. The current time of high volatility is certainly not the time to tie our hands through forward guidance. And this is also what we stress in our monetary policy statements: we are not pre-committing to any particular rate path. At the time when it was still relatively clear that monetary policy was restrictive, one could infer the direction of travel from that. But this is no longer the case. And therefore, for me, the direction of travel is not so clear anymore.

Is this view shared by the majority of the Executive Board or the Governing Council?

It’s not for me to comment on that. It’s going back to the point that we now have to start the discussion on how far we should go. I’m not saying that we’re there yet. But we have to start the discussion.

If we take the meeting-by-meeting approach and data dependency as a given, does the type of data that has to be assessed need to change over time?

There are broadly two sets of data that we need to focus on. The first one refers to the inflation outlook: inflation itself, inflation expectations, wages, productivity, exchange rates. We use incoming data to cross-check the assumptions underlying our projections. This is why I never saw data dependence as a backward-looking concept. It was always forward-looking because we use incoming data to learn more about the credibility of our inflation outlook. The second set of data relates to the level of restrictiveness of monetary policy: interest rates, broader financial conditions, lending markets, the housing market as well as domestic demand, that is consumption, savings and investment. Of course, when we have a monetary policy meeting, we always look at all available data.

Can I challenge you on your claim that it was always forward-looking? At the time of high inflation, the ECB put a lot of emphasis on the actual inflation data from the previous month, which by definition is backward-looking. GDP numbers are by definition also very backward-looking.

I don’t agree. What do we learn from the current inflation data? We learn whether the transmission of our policy or of shocks is working as expected. High services inflation tells us something about its stickiness. If we spot deviations, we will eventually adjust our models but we also have to change our view about the medium-term outlook. So, in my view it was never backward-looking.

Data dependence is all the more important in today’s world. Some people say that the projections have become more credible. But who knows what’s going to happen as regards the trade conflict, the war in Ukraine and so on. We are faced with an unusual number of shocks, and that requires us to be always able to react. I don’t have a fixed mindset about what to do. Quite the opposite. I think we need to be able to adjust to whatever data or shock is coming in and what’s happening in the world and in the euro area economy.

What are the current data telling us about the inflation outlook?

Both services inflation and wage growth are still at an uncomfortably high level. Our projections foresee a deceleration of both. But this still needs to materialise. Services inflation has been stuck at around 4% since November 2023, and it still has to come down. For me, this is actually quite important. And therefore, the incoming data will be very relevant because our projections foresee a relatively quick deceleration of services inflation over this year.

How quickly do you want to see service inflation coming down?

It should start to come down in February. That’s what we expect. Over time, it does not necessarily have to come down to 2% but to a level that is consistent with our medium-term 2% target. Wage growth is also still high, but we have many indications that it is going to decelerate. For example, our wage tracker shows that wage growth is expected to drop steeply in the second half of the year. Part of that is due to a base effect from one-off payments. Hence, wage growth is expected to stay relatively elevated over the first half of the year. So we still need to see this deceleration. This is something that I pay a lot of attention to.

How concerned are you about recent swings in energy prices?

Energy and food prices can always offer surprises. We have seen some relatively strong moves in energy prices recently. Gas prices moved up a lot. That was mainly driven by cold temperatures. Very recently, gas prices dropped sharply. This seems to be driven partly by uncertainty about whether countries will fill up their gas storages as quickly as originally intended. A second reason is the debate about a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. This can cause a lot of volatility, which can have a strong impact on headline inflation and also on underlying inflation because energy serves as an input. We have to monitor this carefully.

What are the implications for monetary policy from energy price volatility? Is this deflationary or inflationary?

Recent volatility has been extreme. Before the recent fall in gas prices it was clearly inflationary. But now we have to see how that is going to play out. In general, I see risks to our inflation outlook as somewhat skewed to the upside. So I would not exclude that inflation comes back to 2% later than we had anticipated. But that remains to be seen.

The ECB this year will review its monetary strategy. President Lagarde has excluded the current inflation target from that review. Do you think that’s the right call?

Our symmetric, medium-term inflation target of 2% has served us very well in the high inflation period. So I really don’t see any reason to question it. And I believe there is strong support for this view in the Governing Council. What we have seen, however, is how quickly the inflation environment can change. And we have also learned how much people dislike inflation. But for me, that has implications primarily for the reaction function and not for the target. I think these two should be kept apart.

What are the potential implications for the reaction function?

The reaction function should be part of the debate. Back in 2021 during the previous strategy review, the discussion was very much under the impression of the low-for-long period. The main concern at the time was that our monetary policy was constrained by the effective lower bound on interest rates. When you read the monetary policy strategy statement today, you would think it comes from a different world. It focused on the risk of inflation being too low, and stated that we should be particularly forceful or persistent in such a scenario. But we have shifted to a new world. The past few years have shown that there are also risks of a de-anchoring of inflation expectations to the upside and that upside inflation risks can materialise quickly and become more persistent due to second-round effects. And therefore, I believe that the new reaction function should be symmetric in order to take into account the risks in both directions. This is especially true given that we are likely to face more adverse supply-side shocks going forward.

So effectively you are arguing in favour of a more hawkish reaction function?

I don’t like these notions of hawks and doves, and I don’t think that they are relevant here. My point is that our reaction function should acknowledge the fundamental shift of the macroeconomic environment. Up to 2021, we paid very little attention to upside risks to inflation. There was the perception that central banks would know precisely how to deal with a surge in inflation. But we’ve experienced that it has been quite difficult. Inflation has been above target now for almost four years. Looking forward, we should be putting equal weight on risks in both directions. And I wouldn’t call that a hawkish assertion.

Should the ECB toolkit be changed?

We’ve gained a lot of experience with the different tools. I do believe that all the tools we have should remain in our toolkit. But we’ve learned how important it is to carefully weigh the benefits and costs of our instruments – especially when it comes to asset purchases. They have proven very effective in stabilising markets. But as a monetary policy stance instrument, they have been less beneficial and costlier than we thought. This should be taken into account. The same applies to forward guidance. Many people believe that forward guidance led to a delayed response to the inflation surge. So forward guidance is another tool that we need to look at very carefully.

Are you implicitly saying that ECB should not have done as much quantitative easing as it did in the years up to 2021?

My point is that once we are back to a more normal world – a situation where inflation expectations are well anchored, and services inflation and unit labour cost growth have come down – and we are confident that we are sustainably back at our target, then we could become more tolerant of moderate deviations from our target. We should stop fine-tuning and responding to single data points. We should instead focus on large persistent shocks that give rise to a risk of a de-anchoring of inflation expectations in either direction.

So is your point that the ECB should be more willing to tolerate downward deviations to the 2% target in a steady state?

We should be more willing to tolerate both moderate downward and upward deviations, and act when there is a threat of de-anchoring.

But that’s an implicit change to the inflation target, is it not?

No, not at all. My point is that we should be less activist and rather take the time to assess whether shocks pose a serious risk to inflation expectations. Of course, we should keep in mind that the vulnerability of inflation expectations may have changed after the recent inflation experience. People have learned that inflation can increase sharply and that this is very harmful. Firms have learned that they can reprice relatively quickly, and we have to take this into account.

Finally, we need to think about how to deal with the uncertainty around our economic and inflation outlook. For me, the most useful way to deal with that is to make greater use of scenario analysis – and in a different way than we’ve done over the past years. Back then we were looking at tail risks, which was very useful. But in the future, we should also look at plausible alternative scenarios in order to get away from the illusion of precision that we create by just focusing on the baseline point estimate. We all know there is a lot of uncertainty around it. So I think it would be important to also look at plausible alternative scenarios to illustrate this uncertainty.

MIL OSI Economics –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Record of discussion of meeting of Exchange Fund Advisory Committee Currency Board Sub-Committee held on January 8

Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

Record of discussion of meeting of Exchange Fund Advisory Committee Currency Board Sub-Committee held on January 8
Record of discussion of meeting of Exchange Fund Advisory Committee Currency Board Sub-Committee held on January 8
******************************************************************************************

The following is issued on behalf of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority: (Approved for Issue by the Exchange Fund Advisory Committee on February 5, 2025) Report on Currency Board Operations (October 19 – December 24, 2024)———————————————————————————- The Currency Board Sub-Committee (Sub-Committee) noted that the Hong Kong dollar (HKD) traded within a range of 7.7656 – 7.7848 against the US dollar (USD) during the review period. The HKD exchange rate moderated slightly in the first half of November amid a pullback of the local stock market, and then recovered in December. HKD interbank rates continued to track the USD rates while also being affected by local supply and demand. Meanwhile, following the decreases in the target range for the US federal funds rate in early November and mid-December, many banks reduced their Best Lending Rates by a total of 37.5 basis points, and the Best Lending Rates in the market ranged from 5.25 per cent – 5.75 per cent at the end of the review period. The Convertibility Undertakings were not triggered and the Aggregate Balance was stable at around HK$45 billion. No abnormality was noted in the usage of the Discount Window. Overall, the HKD exchange and interbank markets continued to trade in a smooth and orderly manner. The Sub-Committee noted that the Monetary Base increased to HK$1,958.14 billion at the end of the review period. In accordance with the Currency Board principles, all changes in the Monetary Base had been fully matched by changes in foreign reserves. The Report on Currency Board Operations for the review period is at Annex.Monitoring of Risks and Vulnerabilities—————————————— The Sub-Committee noted that with the incoming US administration, uncertainties over US fiscal sustainability and trade policies, the future policy direction of the US Federal Reserve and the global economic outlook had increased considerably. The Sub-Committee noted that in Mainland China, the introduction of a series of new policy measures since late-September 2024 had boosted asset market sentiment and led to some signs of improvement in the real economy moving into Q4 2024. At the Central Economic Work Conference and the Politburo Meeting in December 2024, the authorities further signalled more stimulus measures. However, the economic outlook was still subject to the tussle between the challenging external environment and domestic policy response. The renminbi exchange rate had remained relatively stable against the currency basket but had recently come under pressure against the USD amid a strengthening dollar, reversing the rally in August and September 2024. The Sub-Committee noted that in Hong Kong, the economy continued to grow but the momentum had softened in Q3 2024 amid subdued private consumption and decelerated growth of merchandise exports. Looking ahead, Hong Kong’s economy was expected to grow moderately in 2025, with downside risks stemming from the US policy rate path, global growth prospects, and the trade policies under the new US administration. Despite the sharp increase in housing market transactions in October and November 2024, market sentiment had softened in recent weeks amid increased concerns about a slower pace of US interest rate cuts. Meanwhile, the commercial real estate markets remained subdued especially in the office segment.

Ends/Wednesday, February 19, 2025Issued at HKT 16:30

NNNN

MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Isabel Schnabel: Interview with the Financial Times

Source: European Central Bank

Interview with Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, conducted by Olaf Storbeck on 14 February 2025

19 February 2025

How relevant is the natural rate – R* – for day-to-day policymaking from your point of view?

The natural rate of interest is an important theoretical concept. But it’s not well-suited to determine the appropriate monetary policy stance. The ECB staff analysis that was published recently had one main message: we know that we know very little. Model and estimation uncertainty result in confidence bands that are so wide that they include any reasonable interest rate that the ECB may set at this point. Moreover, R* is a steady-state concept for a world without shocks. That’s certainly not the world that we are in today. Just look at what’s happening with the evolving trade conflict on which we are getting news on a daily basis. So for all those reasons, I think R* cannot be any reliable guide for monetary policy in real time.

Has your view on this changed?

The point I have always emphasised is how R* is evolving over the longer term. People have focused too much on the narrow range for R* that was given in the staff note. This is misleading for several reasons. The narrow range only includes the models for which estimates were already available for the fourth quarter of 2024. If you look at the R* estimates for the third quarter, you see that the range actually goes up all the way to 3%. This is even above the current deposit facility rate of 2.75%. And that range still only includes the uncertainty stemming from using different models. If you add the parameter and filtering uncertainty, you get even wider bands. The one thing that you do see is that the overall range seems to have moved up over recent years. For me, that is the key point.

But the most recent ECB estimates of R* also suggest that the current level is still lower than it was before the global financial crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis.

That remains to be seen. There has been a clear upward trend. I expect this trend to continue for a number of reasons, including high and rising public debt and the huge investment needs for the digital and green transitions. Another factor is increasing global fragmentation. It leads to a partial reversal of the global savings glut, due to shrinking current account surpluses of some major economies, which was one of the main factors that had pushed R* down. So for me, the main message from the R* analysis is: maintaining price stability over the medium term is likely to require higher real rates in the future than before the pandemic. We cannot pin down the level of R* with any degree of confidence, but we can get an impression about the direction. For me, that direction for R* now is upwards again.

The Euro zone economy suffers from a lack of economic dynamism and economic growth. Doesn’t this put downward pressure on the natural interest rate?

Yes, there have been secular factors that have pushed R* down. But we are currently in a situation of transformation that may actually reverse that trend. That’s the whole point.

When you say that R* is not very helpful for short-term monetary policymaking, why have you stressed it so much in your speeches and interviews?

It’s important that we understand general macroeconomic trends. Also in the pre-pandemic period, it was very important to understand the underlying natural real rate environment. It can never be precise, but it helps us understand the broader picture. It has no impact on any individual rate decision.

But would you say that it is relevant for the medium-term trajectory of monetary policy, let’s say for the next year or two? Or does it only matter over the next ten or 20 years?

I think it has an impact on our medium-term thinking.

Medium-term thinking would mean: it matters over the next two to three years, right?

Well, it’s hard to pin down precisely.

Some ECB observers have suggested that the natural rate was used by more hawkish voices as an argument in favour of being more careful and not lowering interest rates too fast. Would you agree?

If you believe that R* has moved up, this argues for a more cautious approach. But this cannot just depend on R*. We need to look at the incoming data in order to understand how restrictive our monetary policy is. And the more evidence we have that monetary policy is no longer restrictive, the more cautious we have to become because further rate cuts may no longer be appropriate.

So how restrictive is the ECB’s monetary policy at the moment?

The data are showing that the degree of restriction has come down significantly, up to a point where we can no longer say with confidence that our monetary policy is still restrictive. One of the important data sources in this context is the bank lending survey.

We’re looking at that very carefully. For corporate loans, 90% of banks said in the most recent round that the general level of interest rates has no impact on loan demand, while 8% said it has lifted credit demand. A year ago, a third of banks said that interest rates were weighing on loan demand. It’s even clearer when you look at mortgages. Almost half of banks said in the most recent round that the general level of interest rates is supporting loan demand. A year ago, more than 40% said that it was constraining loan demand. This is also reflected in a historically strong increase in mortgage demand in that same survey, which is gradually transmitting into the hard data on loan growth. Corporate loans were growing by 1.5% in December, mortgages by 1.1%.

The easing is also being transmitted to the real economy. Consumption picked up in the third quarter by more than we had expected. And the savings rate has started to come down from its very high level. But of course, there are transmission lags, and part of the easing is still in the pipeline.

You said that you can’t say with confidence anymore if monetary policy is still restrictive. The last ECB policy statement clearly stated that it still is. Do you have a different view than the ECB stated in its latest policy statement?

No, I fully agreed with the statement last time. But we are now a step further, right? The January monetary policy statement referred to the interest rate of 3% and the level of restrictiveness before the latest monetary policy decision. The further we go down, the lower my conviction in such a statement will be. And note that I’m not saying our monetary policy is no longer restrictive. What I’m saying is I’m no longer sure whether it is still restrictive. But we should not overstate a difference of 25 basis points.

Should the ECB drop the reference to restrictiveness in March?

That is a discussion we should have in the next meeting.

In an FT survey of Euro zone economists just before Christmas, half of them said they think that the ECB is behind the curve. What is your view on this?

I’m firmly in the camp of the other half who think that we are right on track. The data that we’ve seen have confirmed that our gradual and cautious approach has been appropriate. Domestic inflation is still high, wage growth is still elevated, and we’ve seen new shocks to energy prices. We’ve also seen that inflation expectations are very sensitive to such shocks. So I think our approach is just right.

Some economists argue that the big uncertainty and all those shocks could justify insurance cuts. Do you have any view on that?

I don’t see any argument for that at this point, especially as we are getting closer to no longer being restrictive. If anything, we are getting closer to the point where we may have to pause or halt our rate cuts.

Pause or halt… but not increase?

No. That I would exclude.

How close do you think we are to the point where the ECB should pause its easing?

I will leave that to your interpretation. I don’t know what’s going to happen in the next meetings, so let’s see. But we need to start that discussion.

That’s not what markets take as the base case scenario right now. Do you think that markets are ahead of themselves?

Well, markets have been jumping around a bit in response to what is happening in the world. But an April rate cut is no longer fully priced in. So markets are not entirely sure either.

How well is monetary transmission working at the moment? We saw quite an uptick in yields in December although there wasn’t any change in monetary policy. All other things being equal, this slows down monetary policy transmission, doesn’t it?

We have lowered the deposit facility rate by 125 basis points over the past eight months, and this has been transmitted smoothly to short-term market rates. We’ve also seen that bank lending rates have come down quite a bit – corporate loan rates by 92 basis points and mortgage rates by 64 basis points by December. This is significant. It tells you that transmission is working. When it comes to government bond yields, it’s important to look through the short-term volatility and take a somewhat longer perspective. And what you see then is that sovereign bond yields have remained rather stable. We had a strong repricing in 2022, when the ten-year Bund moved from negative territory at the end of 2021 to around 2.4% in October 2022. That is very close to the number that we’re seeing today. So we’ve been seeing a return of long-term sovereign bond yields to their new normal. We shouldn’t overstate the short-term volatility that we’ve experienced over the past weeks.

There’s another aspect that is quite important. One of the most interesting features of this tightening cycle is that it has not led to a comparable tightening of broader financial conditions. The exceptionally strong risk appetite of financial investors has even boosted equity prices and compressed credit spreads, and that has weakened monetary policy transmission. And part of that is due to the fact that we are still holding a very large monetary policy bond portfolio.

But overall, also taking into account the lags, monetary policy transmission is working fine.

Is the ECB’s “meeting-by-meeting” communication really credible? The ECB now says that the direction of travel is clear. Isn’t this a pre-commitment to further rate cuts?

I firmly believe in the meeting-by-meeting approach. The current time of high volatility is certainly not the time to tie our hands through forward guidance. And this is also what we stress in our monetary policy statements: we are not pre-committing to any particular rate path. At the time when it was still relatively clear that monetary policy was restrictive, one could infer the direction of travel from that. But this is no longer the case. And therefore, for me, the direction of travel is not so clear anymore.

Is this view shared by the majority of the Executive Board or the Governing Council?

It’s not for me to comment on that. It’s going back to the point that we now have to start the discussion on how far we should go. I’m not saying that we’re there yet. But we have to start the discussion.

If we take the meeting-by-meeting approach and data dependency as a given, does the type of data that has to be assessed need to change over time?

There are broadly two sets of data that we need to focus on. The first one refers to the inflation outlook: inflation itself, inflation expectations, wages, productivity, exchange rates. We use incoming data to cross-check the assumptions underlying our projections. This is why I never saw data dependence as a backward-looking concept. It was always forward-looking because we use incoming data to learn more about the credibility of our inflation outlook. The second set of data relates to the level of restrictiveness of monetary policy: interest rates, broader financial conditions, lending markets, the housing market as well as domestic demand, that is consumption, savings and investment. Of course, when we have a monetary policy meeting, we always look at all available data.

Can I challenge you on your claim that it was always forward-looking? At the time of high inflation, the ECB put a lot of emphasis on the actual inflation data from the previous month, which by definition is backward-looking. GDP numbers are by definition also very backward-looking.

I don’t agree. What do we learn from the current inflation data? We learn whether the transmission of our policy or of shocks is working as expected. High services inflation tells us something about its stickiness. If we spot deviations, we will eventually adjust our models but we also have to change our view about the medium-term outlook. So, in my view it was never backward-looking.

Data dependence is all the more important in today’s world. Some people say that the projections have become more credible. But who knows what’s going to happen as regards the trade conflict, the war in Ukraine and so on. We are faced with an unusual number of shocks, and that requires us to be always able to react. I don’t have a fixed mindset about what to do. Quite the opposite. I think we need to be able to adjust to whatever data or shock is coming in and what’s happening in the world and in the euro area economy.

What are the current data telling us about the inflation outlook?

Both services inflation and wage growth are still at an uncomfortably high level. Our projections foresee a deceleration of both. But this still needs to materialise. Services inflation has been stuck at around 4% since November 2023, and it still has to come down. For me, this is actually quite important. And therefore, the incoming data will be very relevant because our projections foresee a relatively quick deceleration of services inflation over this year.

How quickly do you want to see service inflation coming down?

It should start to come down in February. That’s what we expect. Over time, it does not necessarily have to come down to 2% but to a level that is consistent with our medium-term 2% target. Wage growth is also still high, but we have many indications that it is going to decelerate. For example, our wage tracker shows that wage growth is expected to drop steeply in the second half of the year. Part of that is due to a base effect from one-off payments. Hence, wage growth is expected to stay relatively elevated over the first half of the year. So we still need to see this deceleration. This is something that I pay a lot of attention to.

How concerned are you about recent swings in energy prices?

Energy and food prices can always offer surprises. We have seen some relatively strong moves in energy prices recently. Gas prices moved up a lot. That was mainly driven by cold temperatures. Very recently, gas prices dropped sharply. This seems to be driven partly by uncertainty about whether countries will fill up their gas storages as quickly as originally intended. A second reason is the debate about a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. This can cause a lot of volatility, which can have a strong impact on headline inflation and also on underlying inflation because energy serves as an input. We have to monitor this carefully.

What are the implications for monetary policy from energy price volatility? Is this deflationary or inflationary?

Recent volatility has been extreme. Before the recent fall in gas prices it was clearly inflationary. But now we have to see how that is going to play out. In general, I see risks to our inflation outlook as somewhat skewed to the upside. So I would not exclude that inflation comes back to 2% later than we had anticipated. But that remains to be seen.

The ECB this year will review its monetary strategy. President Lagarde has excluded the current inflation target from that review. Do you think that’s the right call?

Our symmetric, medium-term inflation target of 2% has served us very well in the high inflation period. So I really don’t see any reason to question it. And I believe there is strong support for this view in the Governing Council. What we have seen, however, is how quickly the inflation environment can change. And we have also learned how much people dislike inflation. But for me, that has implications primarily for the reaction function and not for the target. I think these two should be kept apart.

What are the potential implications for the reaction function?

The reaction function should be part of the debate. Back in 2021 during the previous strategy review, the discussion was very much under the impression of the low-for-long period. The main concern at the time was that our monetary policy was constrained by the effective lower bound on interest rates. When you read the monetary policy strategy statement today, you would think it comes from a different world. It focused on the risk of inflation being too low, and stated that we should be particularly forceful or persistent in such a scenario. But we have shifted to a new world. The past few years have shown that there are also risks of a de-anchoring of inflation expectations to the upside and that upside inflation risks can materialise quickly and become more persistent due to second-round effects. And therefore, I believe that the new reaction function should be symmetric in order to take into account the risks in both directions. This is especially true given that we are likely to face more adverse supply-side shocks going forward.

So effectively you are arguing in favour of a more hawkish reaction function?

I don’t like these notions of hawks and doves, and I don’t think that they are relevant here. My point is that our reaction function should acknowledge the fundamental shift of the macroeconomic environment. Up to 2021, we paid very little attention to upside risks to inflation. There was the perception that central banks would know precisely how to deal with a surge in inflation. But we’ve experienced that it has been quite difficult. Inflation has been above target now for almost four years. Looking forward, we should be putting equal weight on risks in both directions. And I wouldn’t call that a hawkish assertion.

Should the ECB toolkit be changed?

We’ve gained a lot of experience with the different tools. I do believe that all the tools we have should remain in our toolkit. But we’ve learned how important it is to carefully weigh the benefits and costs of our instruments – especially when it comes to asset purchases. They have proven very effective in stabilising markets. But as a monetary policy stance instrument, they have been less beneficial and costlier than we thought. This should be taken into account. The same applies to forward guidance. Many people believe that forward guidance led to a delayed response to the inflation surge. So forward guidance is another tool that we need to look at very carefully.

Are you implicitly saying that ECB should not have done as much quantitative easing as it did in the years up to 2021?

My point is that once we are back to a more normal world – a situation where inflation expectations are well anchored, and services inflation and unit labour cost growth have come down – and we are confident that we are sustainably back at our target, then we could become more tolerant of moderate deviations from our target. We should stop fine-tuning and responding to single data points. We should instead focus on large persistent shocks that give rise to a risk of a de-anchoring of inflation expectations in either direction.

So is your point that the ECB should be more willing to tolerate downward deviations to the 2% target in a steady state?

We should be more willing to tolerate both moderate downward and upward deviations, and act when there is a threat of de-anchoring.

But that’s an implicit change to the inflation target, is it not?

No, not at all. My point is that we should be less activist and rather take the time to assess whether shocks pose a serious risk to inflation expectations. Of course, we should keep in mind that the vulnerability of inflation expectations may have changed after the recent inflation experience. People have learned that inflation can increase sharply and that this is very harmful. Firms have learned that they can reprice relatively quickly, and we have to take this into account.

Finally, we need to think about how to deal with the uncertainty around our economic and inflation outlook. For me, the most useful way to deal with that is to make greater use of scenario analysis – and in a different way than we’ve done over the past years. Back then we were looking at tail risks, which was very useful. But in the future, we should also look at plausible alternative scenarios in order to get away from the illusion of precision that we create by just focusing on the baseline point estimate. We all know there is a lot of uncertainty around it. So I think it would be important to also look at plausible alternative scenarios to illustrate this uncertainty.

MIL OSI Europe News –

February 20, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK House Price Index for December 2024

Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

The UK HPI shows house price changes for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Tom Curtis/Shutterstock.com

The December data shows:

on average, house prices have fallen by 0.1% since November 2024
there has been an annual price rise of 4.6% which makes the average property in the UK valued at £268,000

England

In England the December data shows, on average, house prices have not changed since November 2024. The annual price rise of 4.3% takes the average property value to £291,000.

The regional data for England indicates that:

East of England experienced the most significant monthly increase with a movement of 0.6%
Yorkshire and the Humber saw the greatest monthly price fall, with a fall of -0.8%
the North East experienced the greatest annual price rise, up by 6.7%
London saw the lowest annual price growth, at 0%

Price change by region for England

Region	Average price December 2024	Annual change % since December 2023	Monthly change % since November 2024
East Midlands	£242,000	5.3	0.5
East of England	£340,000	4.4	0.6
London	£549,000	0	-0.3
North East	£161,000	6.7	0.5
North West	£211,000	5.4	-0.4
South East	£384,000	4.4	0.6
South West	£306,000	3.8	-0.3
West Midlands	£244,000	4.2	-0.4
Yorkshire and the Humber	£204,000	5.9	-0.8

Repossession sales by volume for England

The lowest number of repossession sales in October 2024 was in East of England.

The highest number of repossession sales in October 2024 was in the North East.

Repossession sales	October 2024
East Midlands	6
East of England	0
London	11
North East	13
North West	21
South East	8
South West	2
West Midlands	5
Yorkshire and the Humber	11
England	77

Average price by property type for England

Property type	December 2024	December 2023	Difference %
Detached	£472,000	£451,000	4.7
Semi-detached	£286,000	£271,000	5.4
Terraced	£240,000	£229,000	4.6
Flat/maisonette	£225,000	£222,000	1.6
All	£291,000	£279,000	4.3

Funding and buyer status for England

Transaction type	Average price December 2024	Annual price change % since December 2023	Monthly price change % since November 2024
Cash	£277,000	3.7	0
Mortgage	£296,000	4.5	0
First-time buyer	£244,000	4.5	-0.3
Former owner occupier	£352,000	1.8	-0.3

Building status for England

Building status*	Average price October 2024	Annual price change % since October 2023	Monthly price change % since Setpember 2024
New build	£420,000	17.7	-1.4
Existing resold property	£285,000	1.8	-0.3

*Figures for the 2 most recent months are not being published because there are not enough new build transactions to give a meaningful result.

London

London shows, on average, house prices decreased by 0.3% since November 2024. House prices have shown no annual change meaning the average price of a property is £549,000.

Average price by property type for London

Property type	December 2024	December 2023	Difference %
Detached	£1,110,000	£1,113,000	-0.3
Semi-detached	£691,000	£681,000	1.6
Terraced	£617,000	£609,000	1.3
Flat/maisonette	£440,000	£445,000	-1.3
All	£549,000	£549,000	0

Funding and buyer status for London

Transaction type	Average price December 2024	Annual price change % since December 2023	Monthly price change % since November 2024
Cash	£580,000	-2.	-0.5
Mortgage	£543,000	0.8	-0.2
First-time buyer	£473,000	0.2	-0.4
Former owner occupier	£677,000	-0.4	-0.1

Building status for London

Building status*	Average price October 2024	Annual price change % since October 2023	Monthly price change % since September 2024
New build	£566,000	13.4	-4.1
Existing resold property	£553,000	-0.9	-2.9

*Figures for the 2 most recent months are not being published because there are not enough new build transactions to give a meaningful result.

Wales

Wales shows, on average, house prices fell by 0.5% since November 2024. An annual price increase of 3% takes the average property value to £208,000

There were 4 repossession sales for Wales in October 2024.

Average price by property type for Wales

Property type	December 2024	December 2023	Difference %
Detached	£325,000	£319,000	1.9
Semi-detached	£206,000	£199,000	3.6
Terraced	£166,000	£160,000	3.6
Flat/maisonette	£132,000	£129,000	2.3
All	£208,000	£202,000	3

Funding and buyer status for Wales

Transaction type	Average price December 2024	Annual price change % since December 2023	Monthly price change % since November 2024
Cash	£207,000	2.3	-1
Mortgage	£209,000	3.4	-0.3
First-time buyer	£179,000	3.5	-0.6
Former owner occupier	£248,000	2.4	-0.4

Building status for Wales

Building status*	Average price October 2024	Annual price change % since October 2023	Monthly price change % since September 2024
New build	£362,000	20.5	-0.4
Existing resold property	£206,000	2.4	0.6

*Figures for the 2 most recent months are not being published because there are not enough new build transactions to give a meaningful result.

UK house prices

UK house prices rose by 4.6% in the year to December 2024, up from the revised estimate of 3.9% in the 12 months to November 2024. On a non-seasonally adjusted basis, average house prices in the UK decreased by 0.1% between November 2024 and December 2024, compared with a decease 0.8% from the same period 12 months ago (November and December 2023).

The UK Property Transactions Statistics showed that in December 2024, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the estimated number of transactions of residential properties with a value of £40,000 or greater was 96,000. This is 18.7% higher than a year ago (December 2023). Between November 2024 and December 24, UK transactions increased by 2.9% on a seasonally adjusted basis.

House price monthly increase was highest in the East of England where prices increased by 0.6% in the year to December 2024. The highest annual growth was in the the North East, where prices increased by 6.7% in the year to December 2024.

See the economic statement.

The UK HPI is based on completed housing transactions. Typically, a house purchase can take 6 to 8 weeks to reach completion. As with other indicators in the housing market, which typically fluctuate from month to month, it is important not to put too much weight on one month’s set of house price data.

Access the full UK HPI

Background

We publish the UK House Price Index (HPI) on the second or third Wednesday of each month with Northern Ireland figures updated quarterly. We will publish the January 2025 UK HPI at 9:30am on Wednesday 26 March 2025. See calendar of release dates.
We have made some changes to improve the accuracy of the UK HPI. We are not publishing average price and percentage change for new builds and existing resold property as done previously because there are not currently enough new build transactions to provide a reliable result. This means that in this month’s UK HPI reports, new builds and existing resold property are reported in line with the sales volumes currently available.
The UK HPI revision period has been extended to 13 months, following a review of the revision policy (see calculating the UK HPI section 4.4). This ensures the data used is more comprehensive.
Sales volume data is available by property status (new build and existing property) and funding status (cash and mortgage) in our downloadable data tables. Transactions that require us to create a new register, such as new builds, are more complex and require more time to process. Read revisions to the UK HPI data.
Revision tables are available for England and Wales within the downloadable data in CSV format. See about the UK HPI for more information.
HM Land Registry, Registers of Scotland, Land & Property Services/Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency and the Valuation Office Agency supply data for the UK HPI.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Land & Property Services/Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency calculate the UK HPI. It applies a hedonic regression model that uses the various sources of data on property price, including HM Land Registry’s Price Paid Dataset, and attributes to produce estimates of the change in house prices each month. Find out more about the methodology used from the ONS and Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency.
We take the UK Property Transaction statistics from the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) monthly estimates of the number of residential and non-residential property transactions in the UK and its constituent countries. The number of property transactions in the UK is highly seasonal, with more activity in the summer months and less in the winter. This regular annual pattern can sometimes mask the underlying movements and trends in the data series. HMRC presents the UK aggregate transaction figures on a seasonally adjusted basis. We make adjustments for both the time of year and the construction of the calendar, including corrections for the position of Easter and the number of trading days in a particular month.
UK HPI seasonally adjusted series are calculated at regional and national levels only. See data tables.
The first estimate for new build average price (April 2016 report) was based on a small sample which can cause volatility. A three-month moving average has been applied to the latest estimate to remove some of this volatility.
The UK HPI reflects the final transaction price for sales of residential property. Using the geometric mean, it covers purchases at market value for owner-occupation and buy-to-let, excluding those purchases not at market value (such as re-mortgages), where the ‘price’ represents a valuation.
HM Land Registry provides information on residential property transactions for England and Wales, collected as part of the official registration process for properties that are sold for full market value.
The HM Land Registry dataset contains the sale price of the property, the date when the sale was completed, full address details, the type of property (detached, semi-detached, terraced or flat), if it is a newly built property or an established residential building and a variable to indicate if the property has been purchased as a financed transaction (using a mortgage) or as a non-financed transaction (cash purchase).
Repossession sales data is based on the number of transactions lodged with HM Land Registry by lenders exercising their power of sale.
For England, we show repossession sales volume recorded by government office region. For Wales, we provide repossession sales volume for the number of repossession sales.
Repossession sales data is available from April 2016 in CSV format. Find out more information about repossession sales.
We publish CSV files of the raw and cleansed aggregated data every month for England, Scotland and Wales. We publish Northern Ireland data on a quarterly basis. They are available for free use and re-use under the Open Government Licence.
HM Land Registry is a government department created in 1862. Its vision is: “A world-leading property market as part of a thriving economy and a sustainable future.”
HM Land Registry’s purpose is: “We protect your land ownership and provide services and data that underpin an efficient and informed property market.”
HM Land Registry safeguards land and property ownership valued at £8 trillion, enabling over £1 trillion worth of personal and commercial lending to be secured against property across England and Wales. The Land Register contains more than 26.5 million titles showing evidence of ownership for more than 89% of the land mass of England and Wales.
For further information about HM Land Registry visit www.gov.uk/land-registry.
Follow us on @HMLandRegistry, our blog, LinkedIn and Facebook.

Contact

Press Office

Trafalgar House
1 Bedford Park
Croydon
CR0 2AQ

Email HMLRPressOffice@landregistry.gov.uk

Phone (Monday to Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm) 0300 006 3365

Mobile (5:30pm to 8:30am weekdays, all weekend and public holidays) 07864 689 344

Published 19 February 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

February 19, 2025

MIL-Evening Report: Official interest rates have been cut, but not everyone is a winner

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

Gumbariya/Shutterstock

The Reserve Bank’s decision to cut interest rates for the first time in four years has triggered a round of celebration.

Mortgage holders are cheering the fact their monthly repayments are now slightly lower, while the Albanese government hopes the small easing in the cost of living will lift voters’ moods.

This is despite the Reserve Bank’s warnings that further rate cuts may not eventuate, depending on how much further progress is made on taming inflation.

But it’s important to remember not everybody benefits from an interest rate cut. Some will be worse off.

Savers lose out

Not all Australian households are net borrowers. Many are net savers, retirees or prospective homebuyers, who actually lose out when rates fall.

For starters, only about a third of households are in hock to the banks when it comes to a monthly mortgage repayment.

Another third of households have paid off their mortgage entirely, and so don’t benefit from a reduction in mortgage interest rates. And the remaining third are renters, who also don’t pay a mortgage.

So while this news is generally a good thing for borrowers, a fall in mortgage rates only directly benefits a minority of households.

Here are some of the ways lower interest rates might actually hurt rather than help the typical Australian household.

Higher house prices

One of the most immediate effects of lower interest rates is their impact on the housing market. With cheaper borrowing costs, more buyers can afford larger loans, bidding up house prices. This is great if you already own a home, but terrible if you’re still trying to buy one.

For young Australians locked out of home ownership, a rate cut makes things even harder. It drives prices higher, forcing prospective buyers to stretch their finances further just to get a foot in the market. Reserve Bank calculations suggest that, in the long run, higher house prices from lower rates can outweigh the benefit of lower mortgage repayments.

Lower returns on savings

If you’re a saver rather than a borrower, interest rate cuts are unequivocally bad news. Whether you’re saving for a home deposit, retirement, or just an emergency fund, lower rates mean you earn less on your bank deposits. The money in your savings account is now growing more slowly, making it harder to build wealth over time.

Indeed, more than 20 banks actually cut their term deposit rates in advance of the Reserve Bank’s decision on Tuesday, according to Canstar research.

Analysis of HILDA data, which surveys household wealth and income, suggests net savers tend to be younger households without property, retirees living off savings, and those who are not in full-time employment. For these groups, lower rates mean less income and fewer financial opportunities.

Retirees will feel the squeeze

Many retirees rely on income from interest-bearing assets such as term deposits or cash savings. When rates fall, their returns shrink. The cost-of-living crisis has made it harder for retirees on a fixed income to fund their lifestyles, and a rate cut only makes things worse.

While some retirees have exposure to the stock market via superannuation, many prefer the stability of cash savings. With rates falling, they face the tough choice of either reducing their spending or taking on more investment risk in their old age.

Bad news for the dollar, and overseas travellers

When the Reserve Bank cuts rates, it tends to weaken the Australian dollar. A weaker dollar makes overseas travel more expensive for Australians. That pint of beer in London, that piña colada in Puerto Rico, or that shopping trip to New York all become pricier.

For Australians planning international holidays, rate cuts are a blow. A strong Australian dollar makes travel cheaper, and lower rates work against that. So while mortgage holders might celebrate, anyone hoping to travel overseas finds themselves worse off.

A weaker dollar will make overseas travel more expensive.
Shutterstock

Read more:
Heading on an overseas holiday? The Australian dollar tumbled this week – but that’s not bad news for everyone

More expensive imports

Just as a weaker Australian dollar makes travel more expensive, it also increases the cost of imported goods. And Australia imports a lot – especially cars and petrol.

Since the closure of domestic car manufacturing, all new vehicles sold in Australia are imported. Petrol, the second-largest import, is also sensitive to currency fluctuations. When the Australian dollar weakens due to lower interest rates, the cost of these essential goods rises. For the millions of Australians who rely on their cars for daily life, this is a significant financial burden.

This isn’t to say rate cuts don’t benefit a large portion of Australians. Anyone with a significant mortgage debt will find themselves with lower monthly repayments, and that’s undoubtedly a financial relief.

But the public narrative around interest rates tends to treat cuts as a universal good, ignoring the many Australians who are left worse off.

Falling interest rates are a sign the high inflation that has caused the cost-of-living crisis has abated. That is an economic success that ought to be celebrated. But that now rates are falling again, we should at least acknowledge the costs that come with them.

Isaac Gross does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Official interest rates have been cut, but not everyone is a winner – https://theconversation.com/official-interest-rates-have-been-cut-but-not-everyone-is-a-winner-250140

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Finance – The RBNZ cuts 50bp, as telegraphed. And they have lowered the OCR track – 3% here they come – Kiwibank

Source: Kiwibank

Yes, the RBNZ cut 50bps today, as expected. RBNZ officials have proven to be nibble, again, and thankfully. The economy needs help.
But the main message from today’s MPS is the lowering (again) of the OCR track. The RBNZ are signalling more cuts, sooner. The RBNZ has effectively matched market pricing, and moved closer to our long-held view of a 3% terminal rate. There’s only 10bps between us now. It pays to be stubborn. And we agree with the move. We’re all on the same page, now.

Here’s the key dates: the OCR track implies a 25bp cut in April and May to 3.25%. And then there is a welcome drop to 3.14% to end the year. And the track flatlines at 3.1% out to 2028. That’s the RBNZ’s way of saying there’s a 60% chance they go from 3.25% to 3%. You know, it’s kind of needed, but we not quite there yet. In time, they should get to 3%. And the risks are to the downside.

We must point out that a 3.75% cash rate remains well above estimates of neutral – which are close to 3%. So interest rates remain at levels that restrain demand. And after a severe recession, it’s hard to justify. We have rising unemployment and inflation rangebound near target. Job done. Release the break and put it in neutral. If anything, the RBNZ may need to stimulate, by putting the economy in drive, tapping the accelerator, and cutting below 3%.

The REALLY good news is that RBNZ has tamed the inflation beast. And it is time to drag the economy out of recession. With more interest rate cuts on the way, we see the economy recovering in 2025. Rate cuts are feeding through fast, with 81% of mortgages fixed for less than a year. That points to a firmer recovery in the second half of 2025. Along with gains in the housing market. And of course, 2026 is looking better than 2025, which will be a lot better than 2024.

It’s a confidence game. It’s all about confidence. And we expect the lift in confidence to persist, and eventually feed into activity, profitability, hiring and investment. We’re more confident in the recovery.

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI New Zealand: Real Estate – Ark for sale in New Zealand – NZSIR

Source: New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty (NZSIR)

Noah’s Ark is now up for sale in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The distinctive property – believed to be the only ark for sale in the world – is expected to attract international interest.

Listed by leading real estate agency New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty (NZSIR), the (approximate) 860 sq m Ark is nestled upon Clifton Hill in Sumner and features three levels with amenities such as a grand ballroom, two expansive commercial kitchens, several entertaining spaces, and a large basement.

NZSIR sales associate Rod Cross says the Ark – located at Lot 4, 4 Loader Lane – is one of the most intriguing and unconventional properties in NZ.

“The dwelling was built in the early 2000s as a function centre and has been utilised for multiple purposes, from a church and wedding venue to tearooms and a private residence,” Cross says. “The building itself is incredible with its grand, nautical design and exquisite craftsmanship.”

The Ark was a central feature of the renowned Gethsemane Gardens, which has more recently been developed into the high-end subdivision, Gethsemane Heights. The building’s three separate levels each present a blank canvas that can be structured into spaces to suit any lifestyle.

“The beauty of this building is that it’s an opportunity for a visionary, and a chance for the next owner to realise a dream,” Cross adds. “It certainly has ample space and versatility for many options to be considered.”

Vaulted ceilings, exposed timber beams, and picture windows invite natural light while showcasing views of the Southern Alps and Pegasus Bay.

The Ark was part of the Gethsemane Gardens sale in 2016 and, since being subdivided, this is the property’s first time to the market in its own right.

“We’re sailing into new territory with this exceptional property, and expect worldwide interest,” says Cross. “It presents a chance to create something extraordinary.”

The Ark will be sold via auction on Friday, March 28 at 4pm.
  
About New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty                    
New Zealand Sotheby’s International Realty (NZSIR) is a specialist agency that focuses on the sale of premium property through quality marketing and global networking. Founded in 2005 by Mark Harris and Julian Brown, the NZ branch of the global company has 27 offices nationwide – Northland, Auckland Ponsonby, Auckland North Shore, Auckland Remuera, Auckland Eastern Bays, Auckland South East, Waiheke Island, Hamilton, Cambridge, Rotorua, Taupō, Napier, Ahuriri, Havelock North, Palmerston North, Masterton, Greytown, Kapiti, Wellington, Hutt Valley, Nelson, Marlborough, Christchurch, Wānaka, Arrowtown and its head office in Queenstown. It also has an Australian office in Melbourne, Victoria.  

NZSIR is part of Sotheby’s International Realty – the world’s leading luxury real estate company – with a global network of approximately 1,110 offices and more than 26,000 affiliated independent sales associates throughout 84 countries and territories. It is through this unparalleled luxury network that NZSIR is able to access and market properties on an international level. In 2022/2023 NZSIR was named Best International Real Estate Agency Asia Pacific (5-20 offices) at the International Property Awards.                  
www.nzsothebysrealty.com    

MIL OSI New Zealand News –

February 19, 2025

MIL-OSI: Purpose Investments Inc. Announces February 2025 Distributions

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

TORONTO, Feb. 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Purpose Investments Inc. (“Purpose”) is pleased to announce distributions for the month of February 2025 for its open-end exchange-traded funds and closed-end funds (“the Funds”).

The ex-distribution date for all Open-End Funds is February 26, 2025. The ex-distribution date for all closed-end funds is February 28, 2025.

Open-End Funds	Ticker Symbol	Distribution per share/unit	Record Date	Payable Date	Distribution Frequency
Apple (AAPL) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF Units	APLY	$0.1667	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Canadian Financial Income Fund – ETF Series	BNC	$0.1225¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Global Bond Fund – ETF Units	BND	$0.0840	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF Units	BRKY	$0.1000	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Bitcoin Yield ETF – ETF Units	BTCY	$0.0850	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Bitcoin Yield ETF – ETF Non-Currency Hedged Units	BTCY.B	$0.0970	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Bitcoin Yield ETF – ETF USD Units	BTCY.U	US $0.0815	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Credit Opportunities Fund – ETF Units	CROP	$0.0875	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Credit Opportunities Fund – ETF USD Units	CROP.U	US $0.0975	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Ether Yield – ETF Units	ETHY	$0.0405	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Ether Yield ETF – ETF Non-Currency Hedged Units	ETHY.B	$0.0500	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Ether Yield ETF – ETF Units Non-Currency Hedged USD Units	ETHY.U	US $0.0395	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Global Flexible Credit Fund – ETF Units	FLX	$0.0461	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Global Flexible Credit Fund – Non-Currency Hedged – ETF Units	FLX.B	$0.0551	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Global Flexible Credit Fund – Non-Currency Hedged USD – ETF Units	FLX.U	US $0.0385	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Global Bond Class – ETF Units	IGB	$0.0860¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Microsoft (MSFT) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF units	MSFY	$0.1100	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Enhanced Premium Yield Fund – ETF Series	PAYF	$0.1375¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Total Return Bond Fund – ETF Series	PBD	$0.0590¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Core Dividend Fund – ETF Series	PDF	$0.1050¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Enhanced Dividend Fund – ETF Series	PDIV	$0.0950¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Real Estate Income Fund – ETF Series	PHR	$0.0720¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose International Dividend Fund – ETF Series	PID	$0.0780	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Monthly Income Fund – ETF Series	PIN	$0.0830¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Multi-Asset Income Fund – ETF Units	PINC	$0.0840	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Conservative Income Fund – ETF Series	PRP	$0.0600¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Premium Yield Fund – ETF Series	PYF	$0.1100¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Premium Yield Fund Non-Currency Hedged – ETF Series	PYF.B	$0.1230¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Premium Yield Fund Non-Currency Hedged – ETF USD Series	PYF.U	US $0.1200¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Core Equity Income Fund – ETF Series	RDE	$0.0875¹	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Emerging Markets Dividend Fund – ETF Units	REM	$0.0950	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Canadian Preferred Share Fund – ETF Units	RPS	$0.0950	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose US Preferred Share Fund – ETF Series	RPU	$0.0940	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose US Preferred Share Fund Non-Currency Hedged – ETF Units²	RPU.B / RPU.U	$0.0940	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Strategic Yield Fund – ETF Units	SYLD	$0.0970	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
AMD (AMD) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF Series	YAMD	$0.2000	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Amazon (AMZN) Yield Shares Purpose ETF- ETF Units	YAMZ	$0.4000	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Alphabet (GOOGL) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF Units	YGOG	$0.2500	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
META (META) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF Series	YMET	$0.1600	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
NVIDIA (NVDA) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF Units	YNVD	$0.7500	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Tesla (TSLA) Yield Shares Purpose ETF – ETF Units	YTSL	$0.5500	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly

Closed-End Funds	Ticker Symbol	Distribution per share/unit	Record Date	Payable Date	Distribution Frequency
Big Banc Split Corp, Class A	BNK	$0.1200¹	02/28/2025	03/14/2025	Monthly
Big Banc Split Corp, Preferred Shares	BNK.PR.A	$0.0700¹	02/28/2025	03/14/2025	Monthly

Estimated February 2025 Distributions for Purpose USD Cash Management Fund, Purpose Cash Management Fund, Purpose High Interest Savings Fund, and Purpose US Cash Fund

The February 2025 distribution rates for Purpose USD Cash Management Fund, Purpose Cash Management Fund, Purpose High Interest Savings Fund, and Purpose US Cash Fund are estimated to be as follows:

Fund Name	Ticker Symbol	Estimated Distribution per unit	Record Date	Payable Date	Distribution Frequency
Purpose USD Cash Management Fund – ETF Units	MNU.U	US $0.3407	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose Cash Management Fund – ETF Units	MNY	$0.2707	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose High Interest Savings Fund – ETF Units	PSA	$0.1125	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly
Purpose US Cash Fund – ETF Units	PSU.U	US $0.3244	02/26/2025	03/04/2025	Monthly

Purpose expects to issue a press release on or about February 25, 2025, which will provide the final distribution rate for Purpose USD Cash Management Fund, Purpose Cash Management Fund, Purpose High Interest Savings Fund, and Purpose US Cash Fund. The ex-distribution date will be February 26, 2025.

(1)	Dividend is designated as an “eligible” Canadian dividend for purposes of the Income Tax Act (Canada) and any similar provincial and territorial legislation.
(2)	Purpose US Preferred Share Fund Non-Currency Hedged – ETF Units have both a CAD and USD purchase option. Distribution per unit is declared in CAD; however, the USD purchase option (RPU.U) distribution will be made in the USD equivalent. Conversion into USD will use the end-of-day foreign exchange rate prevailing on the ex-distribution date.

About Purpose Investments Inc.

Purpose Investments is an asset management company with more than $23 billion in assets under management. Purpose Investments has an unrelenting focus on client-centric innovation and offers a range of managed and quantitative investment products. Purpose Investments is led by well-known entrepreneur Som Seif and is a division of Purpose Unlimited, an independent technology-driven financial services company.

For further information, please email us at info@purposeinvest.com

Media inquiries:
Keera Hart
keera.hart@kaiserpartners.com
905-580-1257

Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, and expenses may all be associated with investment fund investments. Please read the prospectus and other disclosure documents before investing. Investment funds are not covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government deposit insurer. There can be no assurance that the full amount of your investment in a fund will be returned to you. If the securities are purchased or sold on a stock exchange, you may pay more or receive less than the current net asset value. Investment funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently, and past performance may not be repeated.

The MIL Network –

February 19, 2025

MIL-OSI: Talonvest Secures $14.4M in Financings for two California Properties

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., Feb. 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Talonvest Capital, Inc. is proud to announce two recent closings for SoCal Self Storage. The first was a $7,200,000 non-recourse permanent loan for a self storage facility located at 2550 Willow Lane in Thousand Oaks, California. The property spans 54,937 NRSF and features a total of 525 units. The property benefits from its prime location along the 101 Freeway, which sees over 170,000 vehicles per day. Concurrently, Talonvest negotiated a second loan on behalf of SoCal Self Storage for a facility encompassing 42,979 NRSF spanning 499 units and located in the economically vibrant community of Torrance, California. The $7,200,000 non-recourse refinance loan features a 10-year loan, full-term interest only payments, and an attractive fixed interest rate.

Thanks to the lender competition facilitated by Talonvest, the client secured cash out, loan terms surpassing those offered by life companies, financial cash management triggers waived, and a loan spread well below 200 bps on both transactions. Bill Bromiley, Principal of Syndicated Real Estate Investments, remarked, “The Talonvest team secured an excellent interest rate while structuring favorable loan terms for us, and they proactively managed a seamless closing.” Denny Geiler, Principal of Polo Properties, LLC, added, “Their deep understanding of the capital markets was invaluable, and their hands-on involvement throughout the process had a direct and positive impact on our results.” The Talonvest team responsible for these assignments included Eric Snyder, Kim Bishop, Ivan Viramontes, Morgan Johnson and Lauren Maehler.

About Talonvest Capital Inc.

Talonvest Capital is a commercial real estate advisory firm specializing in sourcing cutting-edge lending programs and advising on capital market trends for industrial, self-storage, multifamily, office, and retail property owners. Talonvest Capital offers a unique boutique approach by leveraging the company’s collective institutional knowledge and remaining highly engaged throughout the entire assignment, including the closing process, to deliver tailored capital solutions for their clients. Learn more at https://talonvest.com.

Thousand Oaks, CA

Torrance, CA

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/df7d6e81-7b58-458f-bb15-905101bbcc6c

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/7078ee40-6c8a-4c41-b9db-ec8708468e8e

The MIL Network –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Net-zero homes are touted as a solution for climate change, but they remain out of reach for most

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi, Visiting Senior Researcher, Smart Structures Research Group, University of British Columbia

Net-zero homes play an important role in combating climate change. (Shutterstock)

Net-zero homes use natural energy sources and are designed to use less energy and, as such, are considered important in the fight against climate change. But for the average Canadian, they’re still out of reach.

Net-zero homes are important for tackling climate change. This includes both net-zero energy (NZE) homes, which produce as much energy as they use each year, and net-zero carbon (NZC) homes, which don’t release any carbon dioxide.

Released in the summer of 2024, the Canada Green Buildings Strategy outlines a bold vision to transform the country’s building sector, aiming for net-zero emissions and enhanced resilience by 2050. This is a bold step forward, but transforming the sector will require sustained collaboration across all levels of government, industry and communities.

CTV News covers the federal government’s Green Buildings Strategy.

Net-zero homes use green energy sources and efficient designs to match the amount of energy they produce with the amount they use. They use strategies like thermal shells that use less energy, high-performance components and the addition of green energy systems.

Net-zero homes also help Canada reach larger climate goals by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide it releases into the air.

Purchasing and installing these technologies can be cost-prohibitive, but in the long run, homeowners both save money on power bills and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Those who are unable to make changes to their homes can still live in a net-zero way by buying green power or carbon offsets.

The sustainable housing market

Net-zero homes are becoming more popular in Canada. To speed up building processes and reduce costs, builders are trying out pre-fabricated and modular building techniques.

In 2024, the Canadian federal government announced a $600 million package of loans and funding to help make it easier and cheaper to build homes. This funding will support innovative technologies like pre-fabricated and modular construction, robotics, 3D-printing and mass timber to build homes faster and cheaper.

Read more:
Canada’s housing crisis: Innovative tech must come with policy reform

The Net Zero Council of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association has also been important in enhancing standards and practices and promoting novel approaches that cut costs while still being environmentally friendly. In doing so, CHBA drives the adoption of cheaper, environmentally friendly technologies and processes, enhancing industry standards and practices across Canada.

While CHBA collaborates with government agencies, such as Natural Resources Canada to promote innovation and elevate industry standards. Government programs typically provide funding, technical support and policy guidance, whereas CHBA focuses on training, best practices and market development for its members.

Government research programs through CanmetENERGY also work to improve technologies and give builders and planners the tools they need.

There are several reasons that owning a net-zero home has not yet become widespread. These include: high initial costs, limited awareness and education, gaps in policy and regulation and market challenges including difficulties in scaling up and integrating net-zero technologies.

Future directions

To make net-zero homes accessible to all Canadians, a multi-faceted approach is required.

Increased subsidies and incentives and expanding financial support for both builders and buyers can lower barriers to entry. The government of Canada’s 2030 Emission Reduction Plan includes $9.1 billion in new investments over the next eight years — adding to the $17 billion announced in 2021 — to support decarbonization efforts.

Enhancing public awareness and developing educational campaigns highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of net-zero homes are both essential approaches to raising awareness and support.

Policy reform can accelerate adoption of net-zero homes. Examples include harmonizing building codes and introducing mandatory energy efficiency standards to accelerate adoption.

Supporting continued research into technical innovation and developing cost-effective materials and renewable energy systems will drive down costs. Investment in modern methods of construction should be prioritized to accelerate the transition toward sustainable and energy-efficient building practices.

Partnerships between governments, private developers and non-profits can bring together resources and expertise to scale net-zero housing initiatives.

The Sustainable Finance Action Council recommends steps to mobilize private capital to support decarbonization and climate resilience in the Canadian economy, including in the housing sector.

Solar panels the roofs of apartment buildings in Munich, Germany.
(Shutterstock)

Successful international models

Several countries have demonstrated how net-zero homes can become a reality through innovative policies, community-driven approaches and public-private partnerships:

BedZED in the United Kingdom is the country’s first eco-village project. It uses community-focused design and renewables to significantly cut carbon footprints.

The Passive House standard is a German housing policy that sets a global benchmark for ultra-low energy consumption, emphasizing airtight construction and heat recovery.

California’s ambitious Zero Net Energy policies help reduce overall carbon footprints by driving cutting-edge home construction practices.

The Net Zero Energy House (ZEH) Program in Japan encourages advanced insulation, efficient appliances and rooftop solar.

The Netherlands is a leader in innovative, large-scale retrofitting for net-zero housing, most notably through the Energiesprong program.

These international models highlight that success lies in integrating strong policy frameworks, advanced technology and collaborative practices. They demonstrate that with the right mix of government support, industry innovation and residents embracing green choices, net-zero living can become more widespread.

Housing is an important part of how to address climate change. As Canada pushes to make net-zero homes more affordable, each step forward strengthens communities, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps homeowners save money.

Dr Ehsan Noroozinejad Farsangi has secured funding to develop innovative solutions for housing and climate crises.

T.Y. Yang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Net-zero homes are touted as a solution for climate change, but they remain out of reach for most – https://theconversation.com/net-zero-homes-are-touted-as-a-solution-for-climate-change-but-they-remain-out-of-reach-for-most-247622

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: Microsoft shares its agenda for the 2025 Washington state legislative session

Source: Microsoft

Headline: Microsoft shares its agenda for the 2025 Washington state legislative session

This year is historic for Washington state as we welcome Governor Bob Ferguson, the first new governor in twelve years. In the few weeks since his inauguration, Bob Ferguson has signaled a pragmatic approach to governance, launching a new era in Washington State. Alongside Washingtonians across the state, Microsoft welcomes the Ferguson administration.

Today, in line with our commitment to transparency, we are sharing our annual legislative agenda.

This year is also notable as the 2025 session is a biennial budget year where over the course of 105 days, the legislature will negotiate, write, and ultimately pass three distinct yet interdependent operating, capital, and transportation budgets, outlining the critical spending and revenue plans for the next twenty-four months. With a new federal administration, new governments around the world, and our new government here in Washington, this biennial budget process has a certain gravitas.

Indeed, this is a critical moment for our state. The complexity of our state’s economic fabric—aerospace, technology, life sciences, agriculture, and space—has resulted in both a growing population and now, more than ever, a moment of unprecedented technological progress, presenting opportunities for Washington State and Washingtonians. Given the pace of progress all around us and the unique role we play in the innovation economy, Governor Ferguson and our legislators must be equally agile with deft and delicate policies over these next weeks of the 2025 legislative session.

As in years past, Microsoft’s 2025 legislative agenda aligns closely with the priorities of Washingtonians. As a homegrown global company, we have an eye on these global shifts of change and opportunity. And in these global shifts of change and opportunity, the priority of policymakers in Olympia must be on maintaining and expanding economic vitality, addressing the crisis of affordable housing, supporting high-quality education, and improving public safety and quality of life for all of Washington.

People-centered outcomes with policies that genuinely increase housing supply

Washington and Oregon have the tightest housing markets in the United States and in Washington we need housing of every kind. There is wide agreement that Washington needs to add one million new housing units over the next 20 years to meet the needs of state residents, thereby making housing more affordable.

In 2019, Microsoft announced a historic investment of $750 million to support the creation and

preservation of affordable housing. This initiative aimed to help low- and middle-income workers, such as nurses, teachers, and police officers, who are increasingly unable to afford housing near their workplaces. Our investment contributed and preserved 12,000 units of housing for our neighbors in the Puget Sound region. What we learned through our financial investment, however, is that funding is not enough. We must increase the supply of land and do more to incentivize housing development.

As we have for the past decade, Microsoft supports policies that make it easier, faster, and less expensive to increase housing production. We need to unlock more land for housing, increase financing, and enable efficient and effective government permitting, including the use of new technology to speed up permit review. This includes reforms and incentives that enable more housing in areas with abundant employment and transportation modes, leveraging public investments in transit to provide affordable living options for people across various income levels, enabling them to build their lives closer to their jobs, schools, parks, and other neighborhood amenities.

Among the novel and promising ideas being advanced this session is to promote and unlock residential uses in commercial zones, especially in close proximity to frequent and reliable transit. The rise of online shopping has led to an increase in empty big box stores and underutilized strip malls surrounded by empty parking lots. Policymakers should prioritize rezoning underutilized commercial spaces along existing transit hubs to create vibrant new communities. Freeing up larger tracts of underutilized land will help housing developers overcome the first hurdle to building multi-family apartments, townhomes, and condos.

For the 2025 legislative session, the legislature must continue to take big swings at policy so that Washington State has housing for all.

Access to all types of education for all Washingtonians

In April, Microsoft will celebrate 50 years in business. In the decades after Microsoft was founded, Washington state shifted to a knowledge and innovation economy. Now, we are participating in the shift to an AI economy. And to meet the needs of this moment, we need an interactive jungle gym of skilling and credentialing opportunities for all Washingtonians so we can move both upward and across career paths to follow the job opportunities that hold the most promise now and as job opportunities evolve.

Washington businesses are creating great jobs, but many people lack the necessary skills or credentials to attain them. We need our state to prioritize policies that address the skills gap limiting employment options for too many people. As a leader in global technology, Washington is also a leader in future technologies like AI, clean energy, and quantum computing, which will create a new wave of meaningful family-wage jobs. Washingtonians must be prepared with the right skills to participate in the economy now and in the economy of the future.

Microsoft also supports policies that enhance K-12 student achievement, foster career awareness in middle school, and encourage more students to pursue post-secondary credentials. Offering all Washington kids these opportunities has long been a priority for Microsoft. This year, lawmakers are advancing policies that create seamless pathways into higher education through guaranteed enrollment and generous eligibility for the Washington College Grant program. We are excited about the work being done in these areas.

We also encourage the state to establish more apprenticeships in high-demand fields and expand higher education programs to produce enough qualified applicants to match available jobs.

These are the policies that create a jungle gym of opportunity.

Committing to our statewide transportation plan

Our transportation system is the lifeblood of our state, and our state legislature has done extraordinary work in recent years. We have many important projects underway across the state. People rely on our roads, highways, rail, and ferries to travel to work, school, obtain healthcare, and find recreation. Employers also depend on reliable transportation to move parts and products around the state and beyond. We applaud the work that has been done to keep Washington moving.

This biennium, the priority is to ensure that projects currently underway are completed on time, provide sufficient maintenance funding for existing facilities, and continue to make necessary investments in transformative regional projects, including ultra high-speed rail in the Cascadia corridor.

Cascadia at the forefront of the digital economy and looking to the future

Washington state serves as one of the world’s leading centers for the development of artificial intelligence technology. Advances in artificial intelligence are enhancing customer service interactions, transaction processing, and workflow efficiency across various sectors. Microsoft sees extraordinary opportunities for our state government to leverage local AI expertise to maximize public resources. We look forward to participating in these crucial conversations, which are more important than ever this year.

As we look to the future, we are optimistic. Microsoft’s long-standing partnership with the state of Washington has been part of the success of our state. As we celebrate our 50th anniversary, we are as committed as we have ever been to collaborating with lawmakers to secure our state’s vibrant future. We look forward to working together to meet the challenges and opportunities of the next 50 years.

We see this as a unique opportunity to partner with Governor Ferguson and the legislature to advance Washington State using technology and innovation, increasing individual productivity capacity, and expanding access to government services for Washingtonians.

State budgets that are sustainable and prioritized

The most important policy bills the legislature will pass, however, will be the budget bills. More than anything, this bill will reflect the state’s priorities now and for the next two years. Budgets are where Washington’s tax dollars are put to work. Over the years, Microsoft has supported targeted tax increases for important programs and services. We have supported and defended nearly every transportation package in recent history. We supported the creation of the Workforce Education Investment Act to expand higher education opportunities for all Washingtonians. We have also provided millions in matching funds to help accelerate affordable housing. And just last year we helped lead the business community in defending the Climate Commitment Act.

This year, legislators are facing grim budget news—a budget deficit ranging from $10 to16 billion, depending on who you ask and how you do the math. Importantly, Washington State is not in a recession. This deficit is not due to an economic downturn that caused a decline in revenues. In fact, most revenues are still marginally increasing or flat. Very simply, our policymakers in Olympia have passed budgets that went beyond our means.

We believe this challenge affords an opportunity to reexamine recent spending and Washington State’s priorities of government.

We join others in Washington in asking straightforward questions about the outcomes Washingtonians are gaining from past and current state investments. Ultimately, the state budget is the state’s most important investment opportunity for improving economic competitiveness and encouraging private sector job growth.

We stand ready

This year, we stand ready to work with Governor Ferguson and the Legislature to find solutions to all these challenges.

The 2025 legislative session is a pivotal moment for our state. With the can-do spirit Washington has always been known for, we are optimistic our legislature and Governor Ferguson will collaborate and find creative solutions to our most pressing challenges. Like so many others across the state, we at Microsoft are eager to be partners.

Together, we can create a brighter, more equitable future for Washington State.

Tags: affordable housing, Education and Jobs, transportation, Washington state

MIL OSI Economics –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: How California can rebuild safer, more resilient cities after wildfires without pricing out workers

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nichole Wissman, Assistant Professor of Management, University of San Diego

After the fires, what comes next for residents? Zoe Meyers/AFP via Getty Images

The dramatic images of wealthy neighborhoods burning during the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires captured global attention, but the damage was much more widespread. Many working-class families lost their homes, businesses and jobs. In all, more than 16,000 structures – most of them homes – were destroyed, leaving thousands of people displaced.

The shock of this catastrophic loss has been reverberating across Southern California, driving up demand for rental homes and prices in an already unaffordable and competitive housing market. Many residents now face rebuilding costs that are expected to skyrocket.

Climate-related disasters like this often have deep roots in policies and practices that overlook growing risks. In the Los Angeles area, those risks are now impossible to ignore.

As the region starts to recover, communities have an opportunity to rebuild in better ways that can protect neighborhoods against a riskier future – but at the same time don’t price out low-income residents.

Sisters Emilee and Natalee De Santiago sit on the front porch of what remains of their home after the Eaton Fire in Altadena, Calif., in January 2025.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Research shows that low-income residents struggle the most during and after a disaster. Disaster assistance also tends to benefit the wealthy, who may have more time and resources to navigate the paperwork and process. This can have long-term effects on inequality in a community. In Los Angeles County, where one-third of even moderate-income households spend at least half their income on housing, many residents may simply be unable to recover.

My research at the University of San Diego focuses on managing risk in the face of climate change. I see several ways to design solutions that help low- and moderate-income residents recover while building a safer community for the future.

Better building policies that recognize future risk

Before a disaster, communities trying to adapt to climate change often prioritize protecting high-risk, high-value property, such as a beachfront or hillside neighborhood with wealthy homes. My own research also shows a trend toward incremental climate adaptations that don’t disturb the status quo too much and, as a result, leave many risks unaddressed.

Climate risks are often underestimated, in part because of policy limitations and a political reluctance to consider unpopular solutions, such as restricting where people can build. Yet, disasters once considered unimaginable, such as the Los Angeles wildfires, are occurring with increasing frequency.

An aerial view shows the devastation left by the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades section of Los Angeles in January 2025. Homes in the hills can be at the highest fire risk during dry weather and strong winds.
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Making communities safer from these risks requires communitywide efforts. And that can mean making difficult decisions.

Policy changes, such as updating zoning laws to prevent rebuilding in highly vulnerable areas, can avoid costly damage in the future. So can not building in risky areas in the first place.

California already has some of the strictest wildfire-prevention codes in the country, but the same rules for new homes don’t apply to older homes. Communities can invest in programs to help these property owners retrofit their homes by offering grants or incentives to remove highly flammable landscaping or to “harden” existing homes to make them less vulnerable to burning.

Research shows that resilience efforts can spur “climate gentrification,” or displacement due to increases in property values. So, focusing on affordability in resilience efforts is important. For long-term affordability and resilience, governments can collaborate with communities to develop strategies such as supporting Community Land Trusts through grants, low-interest loans or land transfers; implementing zoning reforms to enable higher-density, climate-resilient affordable housing; and incentivizing green infrastructure to strengthen community resilience.

Beverly Hills Fire Department

In some cases, communities may have to considered managed retreat – moving people out of high-risk areas – but with adequate compensation and support for displaced residents to ensure that they can rebuild their lives elsewhere.

Making the risks clear through insurance

Insurance rates can also encourage residents and communities to lower their risks. Yet in many places, insurance policies have instead obscured the risks, leaving homeowners less aware of how vulnerable their property may be.

For years, insurers underpriced wildfire risk, driven by market competition. California policies also capped the premiums they could charge. As fire damage and rebuilding costs soared in recent years, insurers unwilling to shoulder more of the risk themselves pulled out of the state. That left countless Californians uninsured and hundreds of thousands reliant on the state-run insurance known as the FAIR Plan. The plan imposes caps on payouts and is now struggling to stay solvent, resulting in higher costs that insurers are expected to pass on to consumers.

Insurance reforms could help reduce the financial burden on vulnerable populations while also lowering overall risk. To achieve this, the reforms could incentivize building more resilient homes in less risky areas.

As seen with the LA fires, what your neighbor does matters. Reducing fire risk in each home can make entire neighborhoods safer. Insurers can provide a road map for how to reduce those risks, while state and local governments can provide assistance to retrofit homes and help ensure that insurance premiums remain affordable.

There are also innovative approaches to fund resilience efforts that can include insurers. One example is New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, which requires fossil fuel companies to finance climate adaptation efforts.

Equipping communities with resilience hubs

When disasters strike, local groups and neighbors play critical roles in stabilizing neighborhoods. But residents also need more specialized help to find housing and apply for disaster aid.

Building resilience hubs in communities could help support residents before, during and after disasters.

The resilience hub in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles provides one model for what these spaces can achieve. It’s anchored in a community arts center with solar power and backup energy storage. Residents can drop in to cool down during heat waves or charge their phones during power outages. It also hosts community classes, including in disaster preparedness.

Boyle Heights, a largely Hispanic neighborhood in Los Angeles, has a resilience hub that provides disaster preparedness training, as well as support with food, housing and applying for assistance after disasters strike.
Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

During and after a disaster, resilience hubs can serve as central organizing points. They can provide crucial information, resources and assistance with completing paperwork to access aid. Having access to skilled help in navigating what can be a complicated, time-consuming process is often critical, particularly for people who aren’t native English speakers.

Getting assistance is also often critical for displaced renters, who may have little certainty about when or if they will be able to return to their homes. Understanding their legal rights can be confusing, and rising costs as rental housing is rebuilt can price them out of the market.

Research shows that building a supportive community can provide a crucial social safety net when dealing with disasters and also boost the community’s social and economic well-being.

Reframing policies for everyone

The catastrophic LA wildfires were a powerful reminder that governments and communities need to think carefully about the risks they face and the role policies may play as they learn to live with greater fire risk.

Building a resilient future in a warming world will require bold, innovative and collective strategies that support communities while advancing equitable solutions.

Nichole Wissman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How California can rebuild safer, more resilient cities after wildfires without pricing out workers – https://theconversation.com/how-california-can-rebuild-safer-more-resilient-cities-after-wildfires-without-pricing-out-workers-247680

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: $23 million for new key health worker accommodation for communities in the Murrumbidgee

Source: New South Wales Government 2

Headline: $23 million for new key health worker accommodation for communities in the Murrumbidgee

Published: 18 February 2025

Released by: Minister for Regional Health

Communities in Griffith, Deniliquin and Lake Cargelligo are set to benefit from new Key Worker Accommodation which will help attract, recruit and retain more healthcare workers to the region.

The Minns Labor Government will invest $23 million in health worker housing in the Murrumbidgee region as part of the Key Health Worker Accommodation program.

The $200.1 million program supports more than 20 projects across rural, regional and remote NSW.

The funding will secure approximately 120 dwellings across regional NSW, which includes the building of new accommodation, refurbishment of existing living quarters and the purchase of suitable properties such as residential units.

The four-year program will support the recruitment and retention of more than 500 health workers and their families by providing a range of accommodation options.

The program is one of a number of investments the Minns Labor Government is making to strengthen the regional, rural and remote health workforce and builds on the success of the NSW Government’s $73.2 million investment in key health worker accommodation across five regional local health districts (Far West, Murrumbidgee, Southern NSW, Hunter New England and Western NSW).

Quotes attributable to Minister for Regional Health, Ryan Park:

“The Minns Labor Government is committed to investing in modern, sustainable accommodation options for key health workers who are the backbone of our regional, rural and remote communities.

“Strengthening our regional health workforce is a key priority for our government and this $23 million investment in accommodation will support attraction of key healthcare workers to the Murrumbidgee.

“The Key Health Worker Accommodation program will support Murrumbidgee Local Health District in providing high-quality health services to the community.”

Quote attributable to Member for Murray, Helen Dalton:

“This investment is set to significantly benefit communities across Griffith and Deniliquin. The success of the initiative in other areas such as Narrandera, Finley and West Wyalong shows that provision of quality housing can help to attract and retain essential healthcare professionals to regional and rural areas.

“With the new Griffith Base Hospital opening soon it is also a wonderful time to be promoting our community as an attractive destination for healthcare workers looking to take the next step in their career, or enjoy a tree change to our beautiful region.”

Quote attributable to Member for Barwon, Roy Butler:

“Lake Cargelligo is warm and friendly community, with a dedicated team working at their MPS. Accommodation in town is tight at the best of times, so providing more places to live for health workers is essential for the community.

“More accommodation for health workers means less pressure on local rental and housing markets. Rural and remote communities desperately need more accommodation for our key workers, and this will be a good start.”

MIL OSI News –

February 18, 2025
MIL-OSI: ACET (ACT) Secures MOU with Saif Belhasa Holding, Paving the Way for Blockchain-Powered Finance in the UAE
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

LONDON, Feb. 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ACET (ACT), a global blockchain-driven digital asset, has signed a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Saif Belhasa Holding (SBH), one of the most influential business conglomerates in the Middle East and UAE. This collaboration is set to revolutionize the region’s digital economy, integrating ACET (ACT) into financial transactions across various industries within the SBH ecosystem.

Since Donald Trump became President with pro-crypto policies, ACET (ACT) has witnessed a remarkable price surge of over 100%, reflecting heightened market confidence and increased adoption of blockchain-based financial solutions.

A Strategic Partnership with Multi-Billion-Dollar Impact

The agreement, signed on February 13, 2025, marks a significant milestone for both ACET (ACT) and SBH. Led by Dr. Saif Ahmad Belhasa, SBH manages a diverse business empire spanning real estate, construction, automotive, retail, education, and finance, with a corporate valuation exceeding $5 billion USD.

This partnership is structured around a three-year roadmap to integrate ACET (ACT) as a key financial instrument within SBH’s operations, focusing on:
- Real Estate – ACET (ACT) will facilitate luxury real estate transactions, with plans to implement NFT-based Property Tokenization for fractional ownership.
- Automotive – Customers will be able to purchase and lease luxury vehicles from SBH dealerships using ACET (ACT), along with crypto-backed financing options.
- Retail & Hospitality – ACET (ACT) will be accepted in malls, restaurants, hotels, and other SBH-affiliated businesses, offering exclusive VIP perks and discounts for token holders.
- Financial Services – The partnership will introduce blockchain-powered financial products, including staking, lending, and investment funds tailored for institutional investors and family offices.
- Smart Contracts & AI Integration – ACET (ACT) will be embedded into SBH’s financial infrastructure, enabling automated transactions, asset transfers, and AI-enhanced business solutions.
- Institutional Expansion & Government Collaboration – The initiative aims to align with UAE’s financial regulations, securing recognition from Dubai’s Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM).
Crypto Market Reacts: ACET (ACT) Gains Momentum

Following the MOU announcement, crypto investors and influencers across the world have hailed this deal as a game-changer for real-world-asset (RWA) crypto adoption. The market response has been overwhelmingly bullish, fueling a viral hashtags like #iHoldACT, #ACTxSBH, #ACTRWA and #ACT100X dominating discussions.

Industry Leaders on the Partnership

Acme Worawat, founder of ACT (ACET) and one of Asia’s largest Bitcoin holders, emphasized:

“This partnership transforms ACET (ACT) into a fundamental component of the UAE’s digital economy. With SBH’s global presence, ACET (ACT) is poised for exponential growth beyond the Middle East, driving mainstream crypto adoption worldwide.”

Dr. Saif Ahmad Belhasa, Chairman of SBH, added:

“This MOU marks SBH’s bold step into blockchain finance, positioning us as a leader in digital payments. ACET (ACT) will be officially integrated into our financial ecosystem, making crypto a mainstream financial tool in the UAE and beyond.”

About ACET (ACT) & SBH

ACET (ACT) was founded in 2021 by Acme Worawat, a veteran crypto investor with over 13 years of experience. With a current trading volume of $412million (Approximately 14Billion THB) and over 156,000 holders worldwide, ACET (ACT) is rapidly emerging as a top-tier digital asset.

Saif Belhasa Holding (SBH), established in 2001, is one of the most powerful business groups in the UAE, with a vast portfolio spanning 50+ subsidiaries and over 10,000 employees across various industries.

With this partnership, ACET (ACT) is set to become one of the most widely adopted cryptocurrencies in institutional finance and real-world commerce. The bull run is on!

Social Links:

X: https://x.com/ACTDeFansFi

Telegram: https://t.me/ACTAcet

Media contact:
Brand: ACET
Contact: Corporate Communication Division
Email: media@acet.finance
Website: https://acet.finance/

Disclaimer: This content is provided by Acet Finance. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the sponsor and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial, investment, or trading advice. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before investing in or trading cryptocurrency and securities. Please conduct your own research and invest at your own risk.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/62035c52-66f6-48e1-903e-015fa27ee8db

The MIL Network –
February 18, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom announces appointments 2.14.25

Source: US State of California 2

Feb 14, 2025

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the following appointments:

Melissa Stone, of Elk Grove, has been appointed Chief Deputy Director at the Department of Child Support Services. Stone has been Deputy Director of the Disability Insurance Branch at the Employment Development Department since 2022, where she was previously a Division Chief from 2020 to 2022. She held several roles at the Franchise Tax Board from 2014 to 2020, including Section Manager, Assistant Section Manager, and Compliance Program Manager. Stone was Chief of the Casualty Insurance Section at the Department of Health Care Services from 2011 to 2014, where she was previously Chief of the Overpayments Unit from 2009 to 2011. She earned a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Phoenix and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from California State University, Sacramento. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $189,600. Stone is registered with no party preference.

Stephanie Weldon, of McKinleyville, has been appointed Deputy Director of the Office of Health Equity at the Department of Public Health. Weldon has been Chief Operations Officer at United Indian Health Services since 2024. She was the Director of the Office of Tribal Affairs at the California Department of Social Services from 2021 to 2024. Weldon was a Program Associate for the Indian Child Welfare Act and Tribal Social Services Specialist at the Child and Family Institute of California from 2020 to 2021. She was Director of Health and Human Services for the Yurok Tribe from 2019 to 2020. Weldon held several roles at the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services from 2014 to 2019, including Child Welfare Director, Social Services Branch Director, and Deputy Director. She was Director of Social Services for the Yurok Tribe from 2010 to 2013. Weldon is a member of the Yurok Tribe, National Indian Child Welfare Association, and California Department of Public Health Tribal Equity Advisory Group. She earned a Master of Social Work degree and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Native American Studies from Humboldt State University. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $191,868. Weldon is a Democrat.

Melissa Gear, of Elk Grove, has been appointed Deputy Director of Legislative and Governmental Affairs at the Department of Health Care Access and Information. Gear has been Deputy Director of Board and Bureau Relations at the California Department of Consumer Affairs since 2022. She was the Chief Deputy Legislative Director at the Department of Insurance from 2014 to 2022. Gear was a Legislative Advocate at the California State Teachers’ Retirement System from 2008 to 2014. She was a Legislative Coordinator and Fiscal Coordinator at the California Attorney General’s Office from 2005 to 2008. Gear was a Fiscal and Policy Analyst at the California Legislative Analyst’s Office from 2003 to 2005. She was an Executive Fellow and Legislative Representative at the California Department of Education from 2002 to 2003. She is a Nehemiah Emerging Leaders Program Senior Fellow. Gear earned a Master of Public Health and Administration degree from New York University and a Bachelor of Arts in American Studies from University of California, Berkeley. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $158,400. Gear is a Democrat.

Daniel Millsap, of Folsom, has been appointed Deputy Director of the Real Estate Services Division at the California Department of General Services. Millsap has been Deputy Director for Capital Outlay Programs at the California Conservation Corps since 2019. He was Project Director III at the California Department of General Services in 2018. Millsap held several positions at the California Department of Parks and Recreation from 2007 to 2018, including Construction Supervisor III, Construction Supervisor II Lead, and Construction Supervisor II. He was Project Manager at 4Leaf, Inc., from 2006 to 2007. Millsap was Regional Health and Safety Officer at Kennedy Jenks Consultants from 2002 to 2006. He was Staff Engineer at Kleinfelder from 2001 to 2002. Millsap is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Civil Engineering from University of the Pacific. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $195,960. Millsap is a Democrat.

Katie Hardeman, of Sacramento, has been appointed Chief Deputy Executive Director at the State Board of Education. She has been a Legislative Advocate at the California Teachers Association since 2019. She was a Consultant for the California Assembly Budget Committee from 2013 to 2019. Hardeman was a Senior Legislative Aide for Assemblymember Susan Bonilla at the California State Assembly from 2011 to 2013. She was an Executive Assistant for Assemblymember Jose Solorio at the California State Assembly in 2011. Hardeman was a Legislative Assistant at Johan Klehs and Company from 2009 to 2010. She is a member of the Women’s Leadership Program at Leadership California and a player for the California Storm, a semi-professional women’s soccer team. Hardeman earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from California State University, Sacramento. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $210,000. Hardeman is a Democrat.

Richard Roth, of Riverside, has been appointed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Roth was a State Senator at the California State Senate from 2012 to 2024. He was a Managing Member at Roth Carney LLC from 2011 to 2012. Roth was a Managing Partner at Roth Carney Knudsen LLP from 2008 to 2011. He was a Partner at Carney and Delany LLP from 2003 to 2008. Roth was a Partner and Managing Partner at Reid & Hellyer, APC from 1981 to 2003. He served in the United States Air Force from 1975 to 2007, where he retired as a Major General. Roth is a member of the Monday Morning Group of Western Riverside County and Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce. He earned a Juris Doctor Degree from Emory University and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Miami University. This position requires Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $180,840. Roth is a Democrat.

Seanna Griffis, of Sacramento, has been appointed Special Assistant to the Secretary and Undersecretary at the Government Operations Agency. Griffis has been Legislative Manager at the California Department of Food and Agriculture since 2024. She was an Associate Governmental Program Analyst at the Government Operations Agency from 2022 to 2024. Griffis was Management Services Technician at the California Energy Commission from 2021 to 2022. She was a Paralegal at HealthSentry from 2020 to 2021. Griffis was Legislative Coordinator at the California Veterinary Medical Association from 2019 to 2020. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Business and Management from the California State University, Chico. The position does not require Senate confirmation, and the compensation is $100,008. Griffis is registered without party preference.

Christopher Contreras, of Northridge, has been appointed to the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. He has been Chief Operating Officer at Brilliant Corners since 2023, where he has held several roles since 2014, including Chief Program Officer, Director of Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool, Associate Director of Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool Operations & Housing Acquisitions and Housing Acquisitions Manager for the Flexible Housing Subsidy Pool. Contreras was a Data Analyst and Surveyor at Data Stream Market Intelligence Inc. from 2008 to 2014. Contreras was a Program Coordinator at the University of California, Santa Barbara Community Housing Office from 2005 to 2007. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from University of California, Santa Barbara. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and there is no compensation. Contreras is a Democrat.

Makenzie Cross, of Elk Grove, has been appointed to the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. Cross has been a Youth Leader at KAI Partners since 2024. She was a Service Coordinator for Early Intervention at Alta California Regional Center in 2024. Cross was a Behavioral Specialist at the Center for Social Dynamics from 2022 to 2023. She is a member of Impact 100 Greater Sacramento. Cross earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Biological Sciences from the University of California, Merced. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and there is no compensation. Cross is a Democrat.

Robert Callan, Jr., of San Francisco, has been appointed to the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. Callan has been a Realtor at Sotheby’s International Realty since 2020. He was a Realtor at McGuire Real Estate from 2005 to 2020. Callan is a member of The Olympic Club, Screen Actors Guild, The Dolphin Club, California Association of Realtors, National Association of Realtors, and San Francisco Association of Realtors. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Boston College. This position does not require Senate confirmation, and there is no compensation. Callan is registered with no party preference.

Jody Kolbach, of Watsonville, has been appointed to the 14th District Agricultural Association Santa Cruz Fair Board. Kolbach has been the Senior Director of HR Services at Granite Construction since 2025, where she held multiple positions from 2008 to 2021 including Director of HR Transformation and Services, Continuous Improvement Leader, Supply Chain Sourcing Manager, and Senior Finance Analyst. Kolbach was a Worldwide Operations Controller at Seagate Technologies from 2003 to 2008. She earned a Master of Business degree from the University of Phoenix and a Bachelor of Art degree in Accounting from Kansas State University. This position does not require Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Kolbach is a Democrat.

Press Releases, Recent News

Recent news

Feb 14, 2025

News What you need to know: California’s work to pre-deploy resources ahead of this week’s major storms paid off with successful rescue efforts and no major damage reported. SACRAMENTO — Governor Gavin Newsom today praised the proactive emergency response efforts that…

Feb 14, 2025

News SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced his appointment of 14 Superior Court Judges: seven in Los Angeles County; one in Modoc County; two in Riverside County; one in San Diego County; one in San Mateo County; one in Tulare County; and one in Ventura…

Feb 14, 2025

News What you need to know: Governor Newsom today announced that the Delta Conveyance Project has received a required permit to advance the project, which will upgrade the State Water Project to allow the state to capture and move more water efficiently. SACRAMENTO —…

MIL OSI USA News –

February 17, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 2.14.25

Source: US State of California 2

Feb 14, 2025

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced his appointment of 14 Superior Court Judges: seven in Los Angeles County; one in Modoc County; two in Riverside County; one in San Diego County; one in San Mateo County; one in Tulare County; and one in Ventura County.

Los Angeles County Superior Court

Phu Nguyen, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Nguyen has served the Los Angeles County Superior Court as Court Counsel since 2017. She has been a Lecturer in Law at UCLA School of Law since 2022. Nguyen served as Senior Counsel at Dykema Gossett from 2014 to 2017, an Associate at Fayer Gipson from 2013 to 2014, and an Associate at Huron Law Group from 2008 to 2012. Nguyen was an Associate at Irell & Manella from 2006 to 2007. She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Louise Suzette Clover. Nguyen is a Democrat.

Sonia Dujan, of Ventura County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. She has served as a Commissioner at the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2024. Dujan has been a sole practitioner since 2004. She received a Juris Doctor degree from University of San Francisco School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Margaret Oldendorf. Dujan is a Democrat.

Mike Madokoro, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Madokoro has been a Partner at Bowman and Brooke LLP since 1999, served as a Managing Partner or Co-Managing Partner from 2006 to 2024. He previously worked as an Associate at Morgan, Wenzel and McNicholas from 1990 to 1994. Madokoro served as a Law Clerk and Associate at Adams and Kirkpatrick from 1989 to 1990. Madokoro received a Juris Doctor degree from McGeorge School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Gergory Keosian. Madokoro is a Republican.

James Montgomery Jr., of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Montgomery has served as a Commissioner at Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2023. He was a Partner at Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP from 1999 to 2023. He served as an attorney at Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch & Lebovits, LLP from 1982 to 1999. Montgomery received a Juris Doctor degree from UCLA School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Yvette Palazuelos. Montgomery is a Democrat.

Jacob Yim, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Yim has served as the Deputy-in-Charge of the Real Estate Fraud Section in the White Collar Crime Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office since 2022. Yim has served as a deputy in several roles and units of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office from 2000 to 2008 and 2009 to 2022. He was a Special Assistant United States Attorney at the United States Attorney’s Office – Domestic Security and Immigration Crimes Section from 2008 to 2009. Yim received a Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern University School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Carol Elswick. Yim is a Democrat.

Helen Yang, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Yang was a Partner at Squire Patton Boggs since 2016 and an Associate at Squire Patton Boggs from 2005 to 2008 and 2009 to 2016. She was Deputy in the Riverside County Counsel’s Office from 2008 to 2009. Yang received a Juris Doctor degree from Cornell Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Michael Linfield. Yang is registered as no party preference.

Louis Parise, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Parise has served various roles as a Deputy District Attorney at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office since 1998. He was an Associate Attorney at Ferrari, Olsen, Ottoboni, and Bebb from 1997 to 1998. Parise received a Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Martin L. Herscovitz. Parise is registered as no party preference.

Modoc County Superior Court

Randall Harr, of Shasta County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Modoc County Superior Court. Harr was a Partner at Maire & Deedon since 2022. He worked at the Law Office of Randall Harr from 2011 to 2022. Harr served as a Partner at Gifford & Harr from 2009 to 2011. He was a Partner at Harr Arthofer & Ayres from 2001 to 2009. Harr worked at Borton Petrini & Conron as a Partner from 1985 to 2000 and an Associate Attorney from 1982 to 1985. Harr received a Juris Doctor degree from McGeorge School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Francis W. Barclay. Harr is registered as no party preference.

Riverside County Superior Court

Mickie Reed, of Riverside County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Riverside County Superior Court. Reed has served as a Commissioner in the Riverside County Superior Court since 2014. She previously worked as a Professor of Professional Responsibility at the California Desert Trial Academy from 2014 to 2018. Reed was a sole practitioner from 1996 to 2014. She worked as a Planning Commissioner at the City of Indio from 2004 to 2010. Reed received a Juris Doctor degree from Western State University School of Law. She fills the position created by the retirement of Judge Gregory Olson. Reed is a Democrat.

Michael Martin, of Riverside County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Riverside County Superior Court. Martin previously served as Lead Appellate Court Attorney at the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6 since 2017. Martin worked as an Adjunct Professor at The Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law from 2017 to 2022. He was an Adjunct Professor at the University of California College of Law, San Francisco in 2021. Martin was a Legal Research Assistant at the San Francisco County Superior Court from 2014 to 2017. He served as a Contract Attorney at Valdez Todd & Doyle LLP in 2014. Martin was a Contract Attorney at Harowitz & Tigerman LLP in 2014. He served as a Contract Attorney at Podo Legal in 2013. Martin worked as a Contract Attorney at the Law Office of E. Craig Moody in 2013. He was a Bridge Fellow at Legal Services of Northern California in 2012. Martin received a Juris Doctor degree from University of California College of Law, San Francisco. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Irma Asberry. Martin is a Democrat.

San Diego County Superior Court

Chandra Reid, of San Diego County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the San Diego County Superior Court. Reid has served as a Commissioner at the San Diego County Superior Court since 2021. She served as a Deputy District Attorney in several roles at the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office from 2005 to 2021. She served as a Deputy City Attorney at the San Diego City Attorney’s Office from 2001 to 2004. Reid received a Juris Doctor degree from Catholic University Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Kenneth Medel. Reid is a Democrat.

San Mateo County Superior Court

Mark McCannon, of San Francisco County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the San Mateo County Superior Court. McCannon has served at Alameda County Superior Court as a Superior Court Judge since 2013. He worked as a Deputy District Attorney at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office from 1997 to 2013. McCannon received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Marie S. Weiner. McCannon is a Democrat.

Tulare County Superior Court

Jason Taylor, of Kings County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Tulare County Superior Court. Taylor has worked as a sole practitioner since 2014. He worked at the Tulare County Public Defender Conflict Panel as a Contract Attorney from 2018 to 2025. Taylor served at the Kings County Public Defender’s Office as a Contract Attorney from 2019 to 2022. He worked at the Tulare County Public Defender’s Office as a Deputy Public Defender in 2014. Taylor received a Juris Doctorate degree from the San Joaquin College of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Walter L. Gorlick. Taylor is registered as no party preference.

Ventura County Superior Court

Amy Van Sickle, of Ventura, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Ventura County Superior Court. Van Sickle has served as a Commissioner at the Ventura County Superior Court since 2023. She worked at the Law Office of Amy Van Sickle as an Attorney from 2012 to 2023. Van Sickle worked as an Attorney at Van Sickle & Rowley, LLP from 2003 to 2012. Van Sickle received a Juris Doctorate degree from the Ventura College of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Patricia M. Murphy. Van Sickle is a Republican.

The compensation for each of these positions is $244,727.

Press Releases, Recent News

Recent news

Feb 14, 2025

News What you need to know: Governor Newsom today announced that the Delta Conveyance Project has received a required permit to advance the project, which will upgrade the State Water Project to allow the state to capture and move more water efficiently. SACRAMENTO —…

Feb 13, 2025

News What you need to know: Governor Newsom today issued an executive order to cut more red tape and continue streamlining rebuilding, recovery, and relief for survivors of the Los Angeles area firestorms. SACRAMENTO — Today, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive…

Feb 12, 2025

News Kate Hoit, of Sacramento, has been appointed Deputy Secretary of Communications at the California Department of Veterans Affairs. Hoit has been the PACT Act Enterprise Program Management Office Communications and Outreach Lead at the U.S. Department of Veterans…

MIL OSI USA News –

February 17, 2025
MIL-OSI Australia: Albanese Government clamping down on foreign purchase of established homes and land banking

Source: Australian Treasurer

The Albanese Government will ban foreign investors from buying established homes for at least two years and crack down on foreign land banking.

We’re coming at this housing challenge from every responsible angle.

This is all about easing pressure on our housing market at the same time as we build more homes.

These initiatives are a small but important part of our already big and broad housing agenda which is focused on boosting supply and helping more people into homes.

It’s a minor change, but a meaningful one because we know that every effort helps in addressing the housing challenge we’ve inherited.

We’re banning foreign purchases of established dwellings from 1 April 2025, until 31 March 2027. A review will be undertaken to determine whether it should be extended beyond this point.

The ban will mean Australians will be able to buy homes that would have otherwise been bought by foreign investors.

Until now, foreign investors have generally been barred from buying existing property except in limited circumstances, such as when they come to live here for work or study.

From 1 April 2025, foreign investors (including temporary residents and foreign‑owned companies) will no longer be able to purchase an established dwelling in Australia while the ban is in place unless an exception applies.

These limited exceptions will include investments that significantly increase housing supply or support the availability of housing supply, and for the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme.

We will also bolster the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) foreign investment compliance team to enforce the ban and enhance screening of foreign investment proposals relating to residential property by providing $5.7 million over 4 years from 2025–26.

This will ensure that the ban and exemptions are complied with and tough enforcement action is taken for any non‑compliance.

Alongside the temporary ban on foreign purchases of established dwellings, we will tackle land banking by foreign investors.

We’re cracking down on land banking by foreign investors to free up land to build more homes more quickly.

Foreign investors are subject to development conditions when they acquire vacant land in Australia to ensure that it is put to productive use within reasonable timeframes.

The Government is focused on making sure these rules are complied with and identifying any investors who are acquiring vacant land, not developing it while prices rise and then selling it for a profit.

This activity breaks the rules and results in delays to the development of essential residential housing and commercial developments.

We are providing the ATO and Treasury $8.9 million over four years from 2025–26 and $1.9 million ongoing from 2029–30 to implement an audit program and enhance their compliance approach to target land banking by foreign investors.

Foreign investors that have already acquired or are proposing to acquire vacant residential or non‑residential land will be subject to heightened scrutiny by the ATO and Treasury to ensure they comply with development conditions.

A temporary ban on foreign purchases of established dwellings, strengthened compliance activity by the ATO to enforce the ban, and an enhanced compliance approach by both the ATO and Treasury to discourage land banking by foreign investors will help ensure that foreign investment in housing is in our national interest.

The ATO and Treasury will publish updated policy guidance prior to the commencement of these changes.

These initiatives are an important part of the Albanese Government’s $32 billion Homes for Australia plan.

We’re investing more in housing than any government in history.

Peter Dutton and the Coalition have promised to cut tens of billions from housing and to halt construction on thousands of new homes by scrapping Labor’s Housing Australia Future Fund.

The housing crisis would only get worse under Peter Dutton.

The contrast is clear – Labor is all about more homes, the Liberals are all about more cuts.

We’ll continue to do everything we can to ease pressure on the housing market and build more homes, more quickly, in more parts of Australia.

MIL OSI News –

February 16, 2025

MIL-OSI: Bogota Financial Corp. Reports Results for the Three and Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2024

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

TEANECK, N.J., Feb. 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bogota Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: BSBK) (the “Company”), the holding company for Bogota Savings Bank (the “Bank”), reported a net loss for the three months ended December 31, 2024 of $930,000 or $0.07 per basic and diluted share, compared to a net loss of $1.2 million or $0.09 per basic and diluted share for the comparable prior year period. The Company reported a net loss for the year ended December 31, 2024 of $2.2 million or $0.17 per basic and diluted share compared to net income of $643,000, or $0.05 per basic and diluted share, for the prior year.

On April 24, 2024, the Company announced it had received regulatory approval to repurchase up to 237,090 shares of its common stock, which was approximately 5% of its then outstanding common stock (excluding shares held by Bogota Financial, MHC). The program does not have a scheduled expiration date and the Board of Directors may suspend or discontinue the program at any time. As of December 31, 2024, 188,047 shares have been repurchased under this program at a cost of $1.4 million.

Other Financial Highlights:

Total assets increased $32.2 million, or 3.4%, to $971.5 million at December 31, 2024 from $939.3 million at December 31, 2023, largely due to an increase in cash and cash equivalents and other assets, offset by a decrease in net loans and premises and equipment.
Cash and cash equivalents increased $27.3 million, or 109.5%, to $52.2 million at December 31, 2024 from $24.9 million at December 31, 2023, as increases in deposits and borrowings and loan and security maturities outpaced loan growth.
Securities decreased $1.2 million, or 0.9%, to $140.3 million at December 31, 2024 from $141.5 million at December 31, 2023.
Net loans decreased $3.0 million, or 0.4%, to $711.7 million at December 31, 2024 from $714.7 million at December 31, 2023 due to decreases in residential and construction loans, offset by an increase in commercial real estate loans.
Total deposits at December 31, 2024 were $642.2 million, increasing $16.9 million, or 2.7%, as compared to $625.3 million at December 31, 2023, primarily due to a $14.7 million increase in interest-bearing deposits and by a $2.1 million increase in non-interest bearing checking accounts. The average rate paid on deposits increased 31 basis points to 3.73% for 2024 from 3.42% for 2023 due to higher interest rates and an increase in NOW accounts, which increased $14.1 million, or 34.0%, to $55.4 million at December 31, 2024 from $41.3 million at December 31, 2023. The yield on such accounts also increased 63 basis points to 2.53% for 2024 from 1.90% for 2023.
Federal Home Loan Bank advances increased $4.5 million, or 2.7% to $172.2 million at December 31, 2024 from $167.7 million as of December 31, 2023.

The Bank completed a balance sheet restructuring consisting of two key transactions in the fourth quarter of 2024. The Bank entered into a sale-leaseback transaction whereby the Bank sold three of its branch offices resulting in a $9.0 million pre-tax gain. Subsequently, the Bank realized a pre-tax loss of $8.9 million on the sale of approximately $66.0 million in amortized cost ($57.1 million in market value) of securities with a weighted average life of approximately 5.5 years and a weighted average yield of 1.89%. The Bank reinvested $32.7 million of these proceeds into securities with a weighted average life of approximately 29.6 years and a weighted average yield of 5.60%. As of December 31, 2024 all securities were classified as available for sale and marked to market.

Kevin Pace, President and Chief Executive Officer, said, “We were able to accomplish a key piece of our strategic plan this quarter. The sale-leaseback transaction gave us the ability to dispose of underperforming legacy investments without deteriorating regulatory capital. We were able to utilize this strategy to strengthen our balance sheet and improve future earnings. Reinvesting those funds in securities and loans at current market rates, as well as paying down higher cost borrowings, will provide both short- and long-term benefits.

“Uncertainty around rates continues to be a necessary consideration when planning for growth. The repositioning will help with this process while improving our net interest margin. We were able to achieve modest asset and deposit growth for the year while remaining focused on prudent lending practices. The high cost of funds, in particular in our competitive market, continued to pressure earnings. As we continue with our current stock buyback program, we remain committed to adding shareholder value.”

Income Statement Analysis

Comparison of Operating Results for the Three Months Ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023

Net income increased by $248,000, or 21.0%, to a net loss of $930,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from a net loss of $1.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. This increase was primarily due to an increase of $1.0 million in interest income, a $1.3 million decrease in non-interest expense and a decrease of $998,000 in income tax expense, offset by a $1.5 million increase in interest expense.

Interest income increased $1.0 million, or 10.7%, from $9.6 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 to $10.6 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 due to higher yields on interest-earning assets and higher average balances.

Interest income on cash and cash equivalents increased $46,000, or 31.7%, to $191,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $145,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2023 due to a $4.1 million increase in the average balance to $13.5 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $9.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023, reflecting the increase of liquidity due to lower loan originations. Due to rate cuts enacted in the third and fourth quarter of the year, the yield on cash and cash equivalents decreased 47 basis points from 6.08% for the three months ended December 31, 2023 to 5.61% for the three months ended December 31, 2024.

Interest income on loans increased $299,000, or 3.6%, to $8.5 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 compared to $8.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 due primarily to 16 basis point increase in the average yield from 4.57% for the three months ended December 31, 2023 to 4.73% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 and by a $3.0 million increase in the average balance to $717.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $714.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023.

Interest income on securities increased $612,000, or 58.8%, to $1.7 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $1.0 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 primarily due to a $42.1 million increase in the average balance to $175.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $133.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 and due to a 65 basis point increase in the average yield from 3.12% for the three months ended December 31, 2023 to 3.77% for the three months ended December 31, 2024.

Interest expense increased $1.5 million, or 22.1%, from $6.6 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 to $8.1 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 due to higher costs on interest-bearing liabilities and by a $58.9 million increase in the average balance of interest-bearing liabilities from $747.0 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 to $805.9 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024. During the three months ended December 31, 2024, the use of the cash flow hedges reduced the interest expense by $280,000.

Interest expense on interest-bearing deposits increased $954,000, or 18.2%, to $6.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $5.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. The increase was due to a 61 basis point increase in the average cost of deposits to 4.02% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from 3.41% for the three months ended December 31, 2023. The increase in the average cost of deposits was due to the higher interest rate environment. The average balances of certificates of deposit increased $4.7 million to $501.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $497.1 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 while NOW and money market accounts and savings accounts decreased $148,000 and $430,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2024, respectively, compared to the three months ended December 31, 2023.

Interest expense on Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings increased $513,000, or 37.1%, from $1.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023 to $1.9 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024. The increase was due to an increase in the average balance of borrowings of $54.8 million to $192.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $137.4 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023, which was partially offset by a decrease in the average cost of 7 basis points to 3.92% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from 3.99% for the three months ended December 31, 2023 as new borrowings in the second half of the year were at slightly lower rates. At December 31, 2024, cash flow hedges used to manage interest rate risk had a notional value of $65.0 million, while fair value hedges totaled $60.0 million in notional value.

Net interest income decreased $439,000, or 14.9%, to $2.5 million for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $2.9 million for the three months ended December 31, 2023. The decrease reflected a 27 basis point decrease in our net interest rate spread to 0.61% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from 0.88% for the three months ended December 31, 2023. Our net interest margin decreased 26 basis points to 1.09% for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from 1.35% for the three months ended December 31, 2023.

We recorded a $218,000 recovery for credit losses for the three months ended December 31, 2024 compared to a no provision for credit losses for the three-month period ended December 31, 2023. The recovery in the fourth quarter of 2024 reflects the decrease in the loan and securities portfolio.

Non-interest income increased by $136,000, or 48.2%, to $419,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from $283,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2023. Bank-owned life insurance income increased $16,000, or 7.7%, due to higher balances during 2024. Gain on sale of assets was $74,000 as proceeds from the sale-leaseback transaction exceeded the loss on securities.

For the three months ended December 31, 2024, non-interest expense decreased $1.3 million, or 26.9%, over the comparable December 31, 2023 period. Salaries and employee benefits decreased $776,000, or 25.2%, due to lower headcount. Professional fees decreased $141,000, or 56.9% due to lower legal costs in 2024. FDIC insurance premiums increased $12,000, or 12.1%, due to a higher assessment rate in 2024. Data processing expense increased $23,000, or 9.3%, due to higher processing costs. Director fees increased $14,000, or 9.9%, due to higher pension expense. The decrease in advertising expense of $35,000, or 36.4%, was due to reduced promotions for branch locations and less promotions on deposit and loan products. Other expense decreased $456,000, or 68.2%, as 2023 expenses were elevated due to a pending fraud claim that was under review with the insurance company.

Income tax expense increased $998,000, or 182.1%, to an expense of $450,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2024 from a benefit of $548,000 for the three months ended December 31, 2023. The increase was due to tax reserves on uncertain deferred tax assets.

Comparison of Operating Results for the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023

Net income decreased by $2.8 million, or 437.8%, to a net loss of $2.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from net income of $643,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease of $4.4 million in net interest income, offset by a decrease of $1.2 million in non-interest expense and by an increase of $209,000 in non-interest income and $209,000 in income tax benefit.

Interest income increased $4.4 million, or 12.0%, from $37.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 to $41.7 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 due to increases in the average balances of and higher yields on interest-earning assets.

Interest income on cash and cash equivalents increased $38,000, or 6.7%, to $606,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $568,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 due to a 71 basis point increase in the average yield from 5.23% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 to 5.94% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 due to the higher interest rate environment for most of 2024. This was offset by a $671,000 decrease in the average balance to $10.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $10.9 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023, reflecting the use of excess liquidity primarily to fund securities purchases.

Interest income on loans increased $1.4 million, or 4.3%, to $33.4 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 compared to $32.0 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 due primarily to a 20 basis point increase in the average yield from 4.49% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 to 4.69% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024. The increase was offset by a $661,000 decrease in the average balance to $713.1 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $713.8 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

Interest income on securities increased $2.7 million, or 66.7%, to $6.9 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $4.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 due to a 101 basis point increase in the average yield from 2.87% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 to 3.88% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 and by a $33.8 million increase in the average balance of securities to $178.7 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $144.9 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

Interest expense increased $8.9 million, or 39.9%, from $22.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 to $31.2 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 due to increases in the average balance of and higher costs on interest-bearing liabilities. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, the use of the cash flow hedges reduced the interest expense on the Federal Home Loan Bank advances by $1.5 million.

Interest expense on interest-bearing deposits increased $6.6 million, or 36.4%, to $24.6 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $18.0 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. The increase was due to a 112 basis point increase in the average cost of interest-bearing deposits to 3.97% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from 2.85% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023, offset by a $12.3 million decrease in the average balance of interest-bearing deposits. The increase in the average cost of deposits was due to the higher interest rate environment and a change in the composition of the deposit portfolio. The average balances of certificates of deposit increased $10.2 million to $508.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $498.1 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 while NOW and money market accounts and savings accounts decreased $18.1 million and $4.4 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, respectively, compared to the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

Interest expense on Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings increased $2.3 million, or 54.4%, from $4.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 to $6.6 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024. The increase was due to an increase in the average balance of borrowings of $59.2 million to $176.0 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $116.8 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. The increase was due to an increase in the average cost of 9 basis points to 3.76% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from 3.67% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023 due to the new borrowings at higher rates. At December 31, 2024, cash flow hedges used to manage interest rate risk had a notional value of $65.0 million, while fair value hedges totaled $60.0 million in notional value.

Net interest income decreased $4.4 million, or 29.5%, to $10.6 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from $15.0 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. The decrease reflected a 62 basis point decrease in our net interest rate spread to 0.66% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from 1.28% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. Our net interest margin decreased 55 basis points to 1.16% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from 1.71% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023.

We recorded a $148,000 recovery of credit losses for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 compared to a $125,000 recovery for credit losses for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2023 which reflected a decrease in the loan and securities portfolios, as well as no charge-offs during the years. This recovery was inclusive of the effect due to the transfer of certain securities from the held to maturity portfolio to the available for sale portfolio, which resulted in a $108,000 recovery for credit losses.

Non-interest income increased by $209,000, or 18.4%. Gain on sale of assets increased $74,000 while fee and service charged income increased $22,000 or 10.6%, and income related to bank owned life insurance increased $90,000, or 11.5%, due to higher balances during 2024.

For the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, non-interest expense decreased $1.2 million, or 7.4%, compared to the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. Salaries and employee benefits decreased $1.1 million, or 10.9%, as 2023 amounts included an accrual of a severance contract for the retirement of the previous President and a higher employee count when compared to 2024. Professional fees increased $129,000 or 19.5%, due to higher legal expense. Data processing increased $234,000, or 24.1%, due to higher processing costs. Other expense decreased $369,000, or 27.8%, as 2023 amounts included charges for a pending fraud claim that is under review with the insurance company.

Income tax benefit increased $209,000, or 129.1%, to a benefit of $372,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 from a benefit of $162,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2023. The increase in benefit was due to $3.0 million, or 629.2%, of lower taxable income. The effective tax rate for the twelve months ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023 was (14.62%) and (33.76%), respectively. The benefit would have been higher but there were valuation reserves on certain deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2024.

Balance Sheet Analysis

Total assets were $971.5 million at December 31, 2024, representing an increase of $32.2 million, or 3.4%, from December 31, 2023. Cash and cash equivalents increased $27.3 million during the period primarily due to loan payments received and growth in deposits and borrowings. Net loans decreased $3.0 million, or 0.4%, due to $63.8 million in repayments, partially offset by new production of $61.2 million. Due to the interest rate environment, we have seen a decrease in demand for residential and construction loans, which have been primary drivers of our loan growth in recent periods. Securities held to maturity were reclassified to securities available for sale which decreased an aggregate $1.2 million or 0.9%, due to the repayments of mortgage-backed securities and maturities of corporate bonds. Right of use assets increased $10.8 million due to new right-of-use lease assets recognized as part of the sale-leaseback transaction.

Delinquent loans increased $1.7 million to $14.3 million, or 2.01% of total loans, at December 31, 2024. The increase was mostly due to one commercial real estate loan with a balance of $755,000 and two residential mortgages totaling $653,000, all of which are classified as nonaccrual. During the same timeframe, non-performing assets increased to $14.0 million and were 1.44% of total assets at December 31, 2024. The Company’s allowance for credit losses was 0.37% of total loans and 18.77% of non-performing loans at December 31, 2024 compared to 0.39% of total loans and 21.81% of non-performing loans at December 31, 2023. At that date, $10.9 million, or 76.0%, of the total non-performing loans consisted of one construction loan with a loan-to-value of 45%, which required no specific reserve. The Bank does not have any exposure to commercial real estate loans secured by office space.

Total liabilities increased $32.0 million, or 4.0%, to $834.2 million mainly due to a $16.8 million increase in deposits and by a $4.5 million increase in borrowings. Lease liabilities also increased $10.8 million due to new lease liabilities recognized as part of the sale-leaseback transaction. Total deposits increased $16.9 million, or 2.7%, to $642.2 million at December 31, 2024 from $625.3 million at December 31, 2023. The increase in deposits reflected increases in NOW, money market and savings accounts, which increased by $14.7 million from $101.5 million at December 31, 2023 to $116.2 million at December 31, 2024 and by an increase in non-interest bearing accounts, which increased by $2.1 million to $32.7 million from $30.6 million at December 31, 2023. At December 31, 2024, brokered deposits were $101.6 million or 15.8% of deposits and municipal deposits were $30.7 million or 4.8% of deposits. At December 31, 2024, uninsured deposits represented 6.9% of the Bank’s total deposits. Federal Home Loan Bank advances increased $4.5 million, or 2.7%. Total borrowing capacity at the Federal Home Loan Bank is $280.4 million, of which $172.2 million is advanced.

Total stockholders’ equity increased $116,000 to $137.3 million, which was largely unchanged from last year. The increase was due to a reduction in the accumulated other comprehensive loss on the securities portfolio of $2.9 million, offset by a net loss of $2.2 million and the repurchase of 221,130 shares of stock at a total cost of $1.7 million. At December 31, 2024, the Company’s ratio of average stockholders’ equity-to-average total assets was 14.10%, compared to 14.89% at December 31, 2023.

About Bogota Financial Corp.

Bogota Financial Corp. is a Maryland corporation organized as the mid-tier holding company of Bogota Savings Bank and is the majority-owned subsidiary of Bogota Financial, MHC. Bogota Savings Bank is a New Jersey chartered stock savings bank that has served the banking needs of its customers in northern and central New Jersey since 1893. It operates from seven offices located in Bogota, Hasbrouck Heights, Newark, Oak Ridge, Parsippany, Teaneck and Upper Saddle River, New Jersey and operates a loan production office in Spring Lake, New Jersey.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements about the Company and the Bank. 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 increased competitive pressures, changes in the interest rate environment, inflation, general economic conditions or conditions within the securities markets, potential recessionary conditions, real estate market values in the Bank’s lending area, changes in liquidity, including the size and composition of our deposit portfolio, including the percentage of uninsured deposits in the portfolio; changes in the quality of our loan and security portfolios, increases in non-performing and classified loans, monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. Government including policies of the U.S. Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the imposition of tariffs or other domestic or international governmental policies, a failure in or breach of the Company’s operational or security systems or infrastructure, including cyberattacks, the failure to maintain current technologies, failure to retain or attract employees and legislative, accounting and regulatory changes that could adversely affect the business in which the Company and the Bank are engaged.

The Company undertakes no obligation to revise these forward-looking statements or to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this press release.


BOGOTA FINANCIAL CORP. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (unaudited)

	As of December 31, 2024			As of December 31, 2023
ASSETS
Cash and due from banks	$	18,020,527		$	13,567,115
Interest-bearing deposits in other banks		34,211,681			11,362,356
Cash and cash equivalents		52,232,208			24,929,471

Securities available for sale		140,307,447			68,888,179
Securities held to maturity (fair value of $70,699,651 at December 31, 2023)		–			72,656,179
Loans, net of allowance $2,620,949 and $2,785,949, respectively		711,716,236			714,688,635
Premises and equipment, net		4,727,302			7,687,387
Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) stock		8,803,000			8,616,100
Accrued interest receivable		4,232,563			3,932,785
Core deposit intangibles		152,893			206,116
Bank owned life insurance		31,859,604			30,987,851
Right of use asset		10,776,596			–
Other assets		6,682,035			6,731,500
Total assets	$	971,489,884		$	939,324,203

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Liabilities
Deposits
Non-interest bearing	$	32,681,963		$	30,554,842
Interest bearing		609,506,079			594,792,300
		642,188,042			625,347,142

FHLB advances-short term		29,500,000			37,500,000
FHLB advances-long term		142,673,182			130,189,663
Advance payments by borrowers for taxes and insurance		2,809,205			2,733,709
Lease liability		10,780,363			–
Other liabilities		6,249,932			6,380,486
Total liabilities		834,200,724			802,151,000

Stockholders’ Equity
Preferred stock $0.01 par value 1,000,000 shares authorized, none issued and outstanding at December 31, 2024, and 2023		—			—
Common stock $0.01 par value, 30,000,000 shares authorized, 13,059,175 issued and outstanding at December 31, 2024 and 13,279,230 at December 31, 2023		130,591			132,792
Additional Paid-In capital		55,269,962			56,149,915
Retained earnings		90,006,649			92,177,068
Unearned ESOP shares (382,933 shares at December 31, 2024 and 409,750 shares at December 31, 2023)		(4,520,594	)		(4,821,798	)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(3,597,448	)		(6,464,774	)
Total stockholders’ equity		137,289,160			137,173,203
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	971,489,884		$	939,324,203


BOGOTA FINANCIAL CORP. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (unaudited)

	Three Months Ended						Year Ended
	December 31,						December 31,
	2024			2023			2024			2023
Interest income
Loans	$	8,522,844		$	8,224,488		$	33,411,221		$	32,046,033
Securities
Taxable		1,641,126			1,027,755			6,888,462			4,070,144
Tax-exempt		11,483			13,135			50,892			91,428
Other interest-earning assets		418,634			300,656			1,399,170			1,072,240
Total interest income		10,594,087			9,566,034			41,749,745			37,279,845
Interest expense
Deposits		6,200,367			5,245,865			24,584,690			18,023,772
FHLB advances		1,894,789			1,382,244			6,613,845			4,282,603
Total interest expense		8,095,156			6,628,109			31,198,535			22,306,375
Net interest income		2,498,931			2,937,925			10,551,210			14,973,470
Provision (credit) for credit losses		(218,000	)		—			(148,000	)		(125,000	)
Net interest income after provision (credit) for credit losses		2,716,931			2,937,925			10,699,210			15,098,470
Non-interest income
Fees and service charges		64,285			47,382			228,685			206,763
Gain on sale of loans		20,232			—			31,942			29,375
Gain on sale of properties		9,005,245			—			9,005,245			—
Loss on sale of securities		(8,930,843	)		—			(8,930,843	)		—
Bank-owned life insurance		223,616			207,453			871,753			781,526
Other		36,202			27,711			141,622			121,371
Total non-interest income		418,737			282,546			1,348,404			1,139,035
Non-interest expense
Salaries and employee benefits		2,345,404			3,082,176			8,750,350			9,820,128
Occupancy and equipment		348,778			359,937			1,467,517			1,474,107
FDIC insurance assessment		110,464			98,525			424,090			418,215
Data processing		274,889			251,485			1,203,181			969,398
Advertising		60,840			95,681			371,790			465,064
Director fees		155,699			141,639			622,799			619,650
Professional fees		107,129			248,526			789,646			661,045
Other		212,632			668,220			960,230			1,329,520
Total non-interest expense		3,615,835			4,946,189			14,589,603			15,757,127
(Loss) income before income taxes		(480,167	)		(1,725,718	)		(2,541,989	)		480,378
Income tax (benefit) expense		449,834			(547,958	)		(371,569	)		(162,157	)
Net (loss) income	$	(930,001	)	$	(1,177,760	)	$	(2,170,420	)	$	642,535
Earnings (loss) per Share – basic	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.09	)	$	(0.17	)	$	0.05
Earnings (loss) per Share – diluted	$	(0.07	)	$	(0.09	)	$	(0.17	)	$	0.05
Weighted average shares outstanding – basic		12,686,765			12,767,410			12,767,628			12,891,847
Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted		12,686,765			12,767,410			12,767,628			12,891,847


BOGOTA FINANCIAL CORP. SELECTED RATIOS (unaudited)

	At or For the Three Months Ended December 31,						At or For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
	2024			2023			2024			2023
Performance Ratios ⁽¹⁾:
(Loss) return on average assets (2)		(0.09	)%		(0.51	)%		(0.22	)%		0.07	%
(Loss) return on average equity (3)		(0.68	)%		(3.43	)%		(1.59	)%		0.46	%
Interest rate spread ⁽⁴⁾		0.61	%		0.88	%		0.66	%		1.28	%
Net interest margin ⁽⁵⁾		1.09	%		1.35	%		1.16	%		1.71	%
Efficiency ratio ⁽⁶⁾		123.93	%		153.59	%		122.61	%		97.04	%
Average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities		113.67	%		115.71	%		114.48	%		116.95	%
Net loans to deposits		110.83	%		114.29	%		110.83	%		114.29	%
Equity to assets ⁽⁷⁾		13.99	%		14.94	%		14.10	%		14.89	%
Capital Ratios:
Tier 1 capital to average assets								13.34	%		15.24	%
Asset Quality Ratios:
Allowance for credit losses as a percent of total loans								0.37	%		0.39	%
Allowance for credit losses as a percent of non-performing loans								18.77	%		21.81	%
Net charge-offs to average outstanding loans during the period								0.00	%		0.00	%
Non-performing loans as a percent of total loans								1.95	%		1.79	%
Non-performing assets as a percent of total assets								1.44	%		1.36	%

(1	)	Certain performance ratios for the three-month periods are annualized.
(2	)	Represents net income divided by average total assets.
(3	)	Represents net income divided by average stockholders’ equity.
(4	)	Represents the difference between the weighted average yield on average interest-earning assets and the weighted average cost of average interest-bearing liabilities. Tax exempt income is reported on a tax equivalent basis using a combined federal and state marginal tax rate of 27.5%.
(5	)	Represents net interest income as a percent of average interest-earning assets. Tax exempt income is reported on a tax equivalent basis using a combined federal and state marginal tax rate of 27.5% for 2024 and 2023.
(6	)	Represents non-interest expenses divided by the sum of net interest income and non-interest income.
(7	)	Represents average stockholders’ equity divided by average total assets.

LOANS

Loans are summarized as follows at December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023:

	December 31,			December 31,
	2024			2023
Real estate:		(unaudited)
Residential First Mortgage	$	472,747,542		$	486,052,422
Commercial Real Estate		118,008,866			99,830,514
Multi-Family Real Estate		74,152,418			75,612,566
Construction		43,183,657			49,302,040
Commercial and Industrial		6,163,747			6,658,370
Consumer		80,955			18,672
Total loans		714,337,185			717,474,584
Allowance for credit losses		(2,620,949	)		(2,785,949	)
Net loans	$	711,716,236		$	714,688,635

The following tables set forth the distribution of total deposit accounts, by account type, at the dates indicated (unaudited).

	At December 31,
	2024								2023
	Amount		Percent			Average Rate			Amount		Percent			Average Rate
	(Dollars in thousands)
Noninterest bearing demand accounts	$	32,681,963		5.09	%		—	%	$	30,554,842		4.89	%		—	%
NOW accounts		55,048,614		8.62			2.53			41,320,723		6.61			1.90
Money market accounts		24,578,021		2.18			0.58			14,641,846		2.34			0.30
Savings accounts		47,001,817		7.3			1.90			45,554,964		7.28			1.76
Certificates of deposit		482,877,627		76.81			4.37			493,274,767		78.88			4.00
Total	$	642,188,042		100.00	%		3.73	%	$	625,347,142		100.00	%		3.42	%

Average Balance Sheets and Related Yields and Rates

The following tables present information regarding average balances of assets and liabilities, the total dollar amounts of interest income and dividends from average interest-earning assets, the total dollar amounts of interest expense on average interest-bearing liabilities, and the resulting annualized average yields and costs. The yields and costs for the periods indicated are derived by dividing income or expense by the average balances of assets or liabilities, respectively, for the periods presented. Average balances have been calculated using daily balances. Nonaccrual loans are included in average balances only. Loan fees are included in interest income on loans and are not material.

	Three Months Ended December 31,
	2024								2023
	Average			Interest and		Yield/			Average			Interest and		Yield/
	Balance			Dividends		Cost ⁽³⁾			Balance			Dividends		Cost ⁽³⁾
	(Dollars in thousands)
	(unaudited)
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	13,547		$	191		5.61	%	$	9,433		$	145		6.08	%
Loans		717,433			8,523		4.73	%		714,380			8,224		4.57	%
Securities		175,308			1,653		3.77	%		133,241			1,041		3.12	%
Other interest-earning assets		9,711			227		9.37	%		7,216			156		8.70	%
Total interest-earning assets		915,999			10,594		4.61	%		864,270			9,566		4.40	%
Non-interest-earning assets		63,511								56,543
Total assets	$	979,510							$	920,813
Liabilities and equity:
NOW and money market accounts	$	67,362		$	366		2.16	%	$	67,510		$	310		1.82	%
Savings accounts		44,425			213		1.91	%		44,855			205		1.81	%
Certificates of deposit		501,875			5,621		4.46	%		497,147			4,731		3.78	%
Total interest-bearing deposits		613,662			6,200		4.02	%		609,512			5,246		3.41	%
Federal Home Loan Bank advances ⁽¹⁾		192,196			1,895		3.92	%		137,445			1,382		3.99	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities		805,858			8,095		4.00	%		746,957			6,628		3.52	%
Non-interest-bearing deposits		32,734								34,835
Other non-interest-bearing liabilities		3,837								1,454
Total liabilities		842,429								783,246
Total equity		137,081								137,567
Total liabilities and equity	$	979,510							$	920,813
Net interest income				$	2,499							$	2,938
Interest rate spread ⁽²⁾							0.61	%							0.88	%
Net interest margin ⁽³⁾							1.09	%							1.35	%
Average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities		113.67	%							115.71	%

1.	Cash flow hedges are used to manage interest rate risk. During the three months ended December 31, 2024, the net effect on interest expense on the Federal Home Loan Bank advances was a reduced expense of $280,000.
2.	Interest rate spread represents the difference between the weighted average yield on interest-earning assets and the weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities.
3.	Net interest margin represents net interest income divided by average total interest-earning assets.

	Twelve Months Ended December 31,
	2024								2023
	Average			Interest and		Yield/			Average			Interest and		Yield/
	Balance			Dividends		Cost ⁽³⁾			Balance			Dividends		Cost ⁽³⁾
	(Dollars in thousands)
	(unaudited)
Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	10,197		$	606		5.94	%	$	10,868		$	568		5.23	%
Loans		713,138			33,412		4.69	%		713,799			32,046		4.49	%
Securities		178,684			6,939		3.88	%		144,880			4,162		2.87	%
Other interest-earning assets		9,106			793		8.71	%		6,389			504		7.89	%
Total interest-earning assets		911,125			41,750		4.58	%		875,936			37,280		4.26	%
Non-interest-earning assets		59,511								54,925
Total assets	$	970,636							$	930,861
Liabilities and equity:
NOW and money market accounts	$	67,561		$	1,359		2.01	%	$	85,663		$	1,399		1.63	%
Savings accounts		43,975			821		1.87	%		48,351			580		1.20	%
Certificates of deposit		508,327			22,405		4.41	%		498,129			16,045		3.22	%
Total interest-bearing deposits		619,863			24,585		3.97	%		632,143			18,024		2.85	%
Federal Home Loan Bank advances ⁽¹⁾		175,997			6,614		3.76	%		116,816			4,283		3.67	%
Total interest-bearing liabilities		795,860			31,199		3.92	%		748,959			22,307		2.98	%
Non-interest-bearing deposits		31,572								38,636
Other non-interest-bearing liabilities		6,303								4,627
Total liabilities		833,735								792,222
Total equity		136,901								138,639
Total liabilities and equity	$	970,636							$	930,861
Net interest income				$	10,551							$	14,973
Interest rate spread ⁽²⁾							0.66	%							1.28	%
Net interest margin ⁽³⁾							1.16	%							1.71	%
Average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities		114.48	%							116.95	%

1.	Cash flow hedges are used to manage interest rate risk. During the twelve months ended December 31, 2024, the net effect on interest expense on the Federal Home Loan Bank advances was a reduced expense of $1.5 million.
2.	Interest rate spread represents the difference between the weighted average yield on interest-earning assets and the weighted average cost of interest-bearing liabilities.
3.	Net interest margin represents net interest income divided by average total interest-earning assets.

Rate/Volume Analysis

The following table sets forth the effects of changing rates and volumes on net interest income. The rate column shows the effects attributable to changes in rate (changes in rate multiplied by prior volume). The volume column shows the effects attributable to changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by prior rate). The net column represents the sum of the prior columns. Changes attributable to changes in both rate and volume that cannot be segregated have been allocated proportionally based on the changes due to rate and the changes due to volume.

	Three Months Ended December 31,									Twelve Months Ended December 31,
	2024 Compared to Three									2024 Compared to Twelve Months
	Months Ended December 31, 2023									Ended December 31, 2023
	Increase (Decrease) Due to									Increase (Decrease) Due to
	Volume			Rate			Net			Volume			Rate			Net
	(In thousands)
	(unaudited)
Interest income:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	114		$	(68	)	$	46		$	(37	)	$	75		$	38
Loans receivable		33			266			299			(30	)		1,396			1,366
Securities		369			243			612			1,108			1,669			2,777
Other interest earning assets		58			13			71			232			57			289
Total interest-earning assets		574			454			1,028			1,273			3,197			4,470
Interest expense:
NOW and money market accounts		(5	)	$	61		$	56			(328	)		288			(40	)
Savings accounts		(12	)		20			8			(57	)		298			241
Certificates of deposit		45			845			890			335			6,025			6,360
Federal Home Loan Bank advances		676			(163	)		513			2,221			110			2,331
Total interest-bearing liabilities		704			763			1,467			2,171			6,721			8,892
Net decrease in net interest income	$	(130	)	$	(309	)	$	(439	)	$	(898	)	$	(3,524	)	$	(4,422	)

Contacts
Kevin Pace – President & CEO, 201-862-0660 ext. 1110

The MIL Network –

February 15, 2025

Category: Housing Sector

Why cities struggle

Climate-driven disasters

Underfunded pensions

Struggling downtowns and less federal support

Resistance to new taxes

The crunch

Why cities struggle

Climate-driven disasters

Underfunded pensions

Struggling downtowns and less federal support

Resistance to new taxes

The crunch

A conclave on Restructuring of Real Estate Projects organised at IICA

Interview with Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, conducted by Olaf Storbeck on 14 February 2025

Interview with Isabel Schnabel, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, conducted by Olaf Storbeck on 14 February 2025

England

Price change by region for England

Repossession sales by volume for England

Average price by property type for England

Funding and buyer status for England

Building status for England

London

Average price by property type for London

Funding and buyer status for London

Building status for London

Wales

Average price by property type for Wales

Funding and buyer status for Wales

Building status for Wales

UK house prices

Background

Contact

Share this page

Updates to this page

Savers lose out

Higher house prices

Lower returns on savings

Retirees will feel the squeeze

Bad news for the dollar, and overseas travellers

More expensive imports

The sustainable housing market

Future directions

Successful international models

People-centered outcomes with policies that genuinely increase housing supply

Access to all types of education for all Washingtonians

Committing to our statewide transportation plan

State budgets that are sustainable and prioritized

We stand ready

Better building policies that recognize future risk

Making the risks clear through insurance

Equipping communities with resilience hubs

Reframing policies for everyone

Recent news

Los Angeles County Superior Court

Modoc County Superior Court

Riverside County Superior Court

San Diego County Superior Court

San Mateo County Superior Court

Tulare County Superior Court

Ventura County Superior Court

Recent news