Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11)
July 24, 2025
|
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11)
July 24, 2025
|
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer
Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced she advanced over $18 million in funding for critical Nebraska water infrastructure projects.
The funding was included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which now awaits consideration on the Senate Floor.“Strong, reliable water infrastructure is an essential part of our daily lives. I’m proud to advance this funding for these critical projects, which will improve the lives of Nebraskans for years to come. I look forward to supporting this bill through to final passage and returning more taxpayer money back to our state,” Fischer said.Fischer advanced funding to support critical water infrastructure projects:
$8.25 million to improve the Santee Sioux Tribe’s water source
$3.2 million to repair and upgrade the water treatment plant in McCook
$2.3 million to construct a retention lagoon, lift station, and sanitary sewer extensions in Greeley
$1.4 million for watershed and stream improvements in the Middle Niobrara Natural Resources District
$776,000 for reconstruction of water and storm sewer facilities in Gothenburg
$696,000 to replace an aging well and renovate the sanitary water storage tank in Farwell
$620,000 to construct a new well and transmission line in Genoa
$600,000 to construct an additional lagoon cell in Shelby
$468,000 to line the sewer mains in Valparaiso
$100,000 to renovate an existing lagoon cell and install a depth mark in Ong
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mark Takano (D-Calif)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Mark Takano signed onto H.Res.581, bipartisan legislation that would ensure the American public can know the truth about convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
“I cosponsored this bipartisan legislation because the American people deserve the truth. Jeffrey Epstein committed horrific crimes andfor years, powerful people helped him, enabled him, or looked the other way. The public deserves to know who was involved.
But instead of helping us shine a light, House Republicans are doing everything they can to keep the truth hidden. They are shutting down the House to avoid a vote on this bill. They promised transparency. What they are delivering is a cover-up.”
If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence, resources are available here.
Source: US FBI
Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) San Diego Field Office–Imperial County Resident Agency, FBI Los Angeles, FBI SWAT, ATF Los Angeles–El Centro Office, the Imperial County Sheriff’s Office (ICSO) Border Crime Suppression Team, the United States Marshals Service, and other law enforcement partners conducted court-authorized law enforcement activity related to an ongoing investigation involving the Mexican Mafia criminal enterprise.
“Removing violent criminals from our streets and seizing their resources is a top priority for the FBI and paramount to our mission of protecting the American people,” said Special Agent in Charge Mark Dargis of the San Diego Field Office. “Today’s successful operation is another example of what we can accomplish by working closely with our law enforcement partners on the shared goal of safer communities.”
The FBI and its law enforcement partners arrested a total of five individuals believed to be associated with the Mexican Mafia prison gang and seized several firearms, illicit proceeds, distribution amounts of methamphetamine, and electronics. All subjects were indicted for allegedly operating an illegal gambling establishment, money laundering, and/or importation of methamphetamine.
Since the start of this extensive investigation, the FBI, ATF, ICSO, and other law enforcement partner agencies have executed a number of search warrants and seized U.S. currency, drugs, firearms, electronics, and gambling machines. So far, 16 subjects associated with the Mexican Mafia have been indicted and or arrested on federal charges, including alleged drug trafficking and importation, weapons offenses, money laundering, and operating an illegal gambling business.
FBI San Diego will continue to collaborate with its law enforcement partners and U.S. Attorney’s Office to apprehend individuals tied to violent criminal organizations and bring them to justice. Learn more about the FBI’s violent crime program.
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
TORONTO, July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ninepoint Partners LP (“Ninepoint Partners”) today announced the July 2025 cash distributions for its ETF Series securities. The record date for the distributions is July 31, 2025. All distributions are payable on August 8, 2025.
The per-unit July 2025 distributions are detailed below:
About Ninepoint Partners
Based in Toronto, Ninepoint Partners LP is one of Canada’s leading alternative investment management firms overseeing approximately $7 billion in assets under management and institutional contracts. Committed to helping investors explore innovative investment solutions that have the potential to enhance returns and manage portfolio risk, Ninepoint offers a diverse set of alternative strategies spanning Equities, Fixed Income, Alternative Income, Real Assets, F/X and Digital Assets.
For more information on Ninepoint Partners LP, please visit www.ninepoint.com or for inquiries regarding the offering, please contact us at (416) 943-6707 or (866) 299-9906 or invest@ninepoint.com.
Ninepoint Partners LP is the investment manager to the Ninepoint Funds (collectively, the “Funds”). Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees, performance fees (if any), and other expenses all may be associated with investing in the Funds. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. The information contained herein does not constitute an offer or solicitation by anyone in the United States or in any other jurisdiction in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such an offer or solicitation. Prospective investors who are not resident in Canada should contact their financial advisor to determine whether securities of the Fund may be lawfully sold in their jurisdiction.
Please note that distribution factors (breakdown between income, capital gains and return of capital) can only be calculated when a fund has reached its year-end. Distribution information should not be relied upon for income tax reporting purposes as this is only a component of total distributions for the year. For accurate distribution amounts for the purpose of filing an income tax return, please refer to the appropriate T3/T5 slips for that particular taxation year. Please refer to the prospectus or offering memorandum of each Fund for details of the Fund’s distribution policy.
The payment of distributions and distribution breakdown, if applicable, is not guaranteed and may fluctuate. The payment of distributions should not be confused with a Fund’s performance, rate of return, or yield. If distributions paid by the Fund are greater than the performance of the Fund, then an investor’s original investment will shrink. Distributions paid as a result of capital gains realized by a Fund and income and dividends earned by a Fund are taxable in the year they are paid. An investor’s adjusted cost base will be reduced by the amount of any returns of capital. If an investor’s adjusted cost base goes below zero, then capital gains tax will have to be paid on the amount below zero.
Sales Inquiries:
Ninepoint Partners LP
Neil Ross
416-945-6227
nross@ninepoint.com
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
Manhattan, KS, July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (“Landmark”; Nasdaq: LARK) reported diluted earnings per share of $0.75 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $0.81 per share in the first quarter of 2025 and $0.52 per share in the same quarter of the prior year. Net earnings for the second quarter totaled $4.4 million, compared to $4.7 million in the prior quarter and $3.0 million in the second quarter of 2024. For the three months ended June 30, 2025, the return on average assets was 1.11%, the return on average equity was 12.25% and the efficiency ratio(1) was 62.8%.
For the first six months of 2025, diluted earnings per share totaled $1.56 compared to $1.01 during the same period in 2024. Net earnings for the first six months of 2025 totaled $9.1 million, compared to $5.8 million in the first six months of 2024. For the six months ended June 30, 2025, the return on average assets was 1.16%, the return on average equity was 12.96%, and the efficiency ratio(1) was 63.4%.
Second Quarter 2025 Performance Highlights
| ● | Total gross loans increased in the second quarter 2025 by $42.9 million, an annualized increase of 16.0% over the prior quarter. | |
| ● | The net interest margin improved 7 basis points to 3.83% compared to 3.76% in prior quarter and 3.25% in the second quarter of the prior year. | |
| ● | Net interest income increased $564,000, or 4.3%, in the second quarter of 2025, and increased $2.7 million, or 24.7%, from the same quarter of the prior year. | |
| ● | Deposits increased $23.4 million, or 1.9%, from the same quarter of the prior year, and declined $61.9 million from the prior quarter. | |
| ● | Total assets increased $46.7 million, or 11.9% annualized, compared to the prior quarter. | |
| ● | Credit quality remained stable with net charge-offs totaling $40,000 in the second quarter. | |
| ● | Stockholders’ equity increased $5.7 million, and the ratio of equity to assets increased to 9.13% in the second quarter. | |
In making this announcement, Abby Wendel, President and Chief Executive Officer of Landmark, commented, “I am pleased to report continued strong net earnings this quarter driven by growth in loans and net interest income. Loan demand remained strong in the second quarter of 2025, especially for commercial, commercial real estate and residential mortgage loans as total gross loans increased by $42.9 million or 16.0% annualized. Despite a decrease in total deposits in the second quarter, we have sustained year-over-year growth of $23.4 million, or 1.9%. The strong growth in our loan portfolio led to net interest income growth of 24.7% over the previous year and continued expansion in our net interest margin, which increased to 3.83%. Non-interest income increased by 8.0% this quarter compared to the prior quarter and expenses were well controlled. Credit quality remained solid overall with minimal net charge-offs. A provision for credit losses of $1.0 million was recorded this quarter to reflect the growth in loans and higher reserves against individually evaluated loans on non-accrual. Our strong performance is a direct result of the daily commitment and effort our associates put into making Landmark the top choice for both customers and investors.”
Landmark’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.21 per share, to be paid August 27, 2025, to common stockholders of record as of the close of business on August 13, 2025.
Management will host a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial results at 10:00 a.m. (Central time) on Friday, July 25, 2025. Investors may participate via telephone by dialing (833) 470-1428 and using access code 703723. A replay of the call will be available through August 1, 2025, by dialing (855) 762-8306 and using access code 160217.
(1) Non-GAAP financial measure. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation.
Net Interest Income
Net interest income in the second quarter of 2025 totaled $13.7 million representing an increase of $564,000, or 4.3%, compared to the previous quarter and an increase of $2.7 million, or 24.7%, in the same quarter of the prior year. The increase in net interest income this quarter was driven by higher interest income on loans and lower interest expense on deposits. The net interest margin increased to 3.83% during the second quarter from 3.76% during the prior quarter and 3.25% in the second quarter of the prior year. Compared to the previous quarter, interest income on loans increased $791,000 to $17.2 million, due to higher average balances combined with higher yields on loans. Average loan balances increased $33.3 million, while the average tax-equivalent yield on the loan portfolio increased 3 basis points to 6.37%. Interest on investment securities declined slightly due to lower balances, partially offset by higher earning rates. Compared to the first quarter of 2025, interest on deposits decreased $92,000, or 1.8%, due to lower rates and balances. Interest on other borrowed funds increased by $284,000, due to higher average balances. The average rate on interest-bearing deposits decreased 3 basis points to 2.14% while the average rate on other borrowed funds decreased 11 basis points to 4.98% in the second quarter of 2025.
Non-Interest Income
Non-interest income totaled $3.6 million for the second quarter of 2025, an increase of $268,000 from the previous quarter. The increase in non-interest income during the second quarter of 2025 was primarily due to increases of $178,000 in gains on sales of loans and $88,000 in fees and service charges.
Non-Interest Expense
During the second quarter of 2025, non-interest expense totaled $11.0 million, an increase of $200,000, or 1.9%, compared to the prior quarter. The increase in non-interest expense was primarily due to increases of $233,000 in data processing expense and $101,000 in other non-interest expense. The increase in data processing expense resulted from the implementation of additional services added and account growth, while the increase in other non-interest expense was primarily due to higher losses at our captive insurance subsidiary. Partially offsetting those increases was a decline in professional fees related to lower consulting and legal expenses during the quarter.
Income Tax Expense
Landmark recorded income tax expense of $944,000 in the second quarter of 2025 compared to $1.0 million in the first quarter of 2025. The effective tax rate was 17.7% in the second quarter of 2025 compared to 17.8% in the first quarter of 2025.
Balance Sheet Highlights
As of June 30, 2025, gross loans totaled $1.1 billion, an increase of $42.9 million, or 16.0% annualized since March 31, 2025. During the quarter, loan growth was primarily comprised of one-to-four family residential real estate (growth of $21.5 million), commercial (growth of $13.4 million) and commercial real estate (growth of $10.9 million). Investment securities available-for-sale decreased $3.6 million during the second quarter of 2025 mainly due to maturities. Pre-tax unrealized net losses on the investment securities portfolio decreased from $17.1 million at March 31, 2025, to $13.9 million at June 30, 2025, mainly due to lower market rates for these securities at June 30, 2025.
Period end deposit balances decreased $61.9 million to $1.3 billion at June 30, 2025. The decline in deposits was driven by decreases in money market and checking accounts (decrease of $50.5 million), non-interest-bearing demand deposits (decrease of $16.5 million) and savings (decrease of $1.1 million), partially offset by an increase in certificates of deposit (increase of $6.2 million). The decrease in deposits was primarily driven by a decline in brokered deposits as well as lower core deposit balances at June 30, 2025. Total borrowings increased $105.9 million during the second quarter 2025 to fund asset growth and to offset lower deposit balances. At June 30, 2025, the loan to deposits ratio was 86.6% compared to 79.5% in the prior quarter.
Stockholders’ equity increased to $148.4 million (book value of $25.66 per share) as of June 30, 2025, from $142.7 million (book value of $24.69 per share) as of March 31, 2025. The increase in stockholders’ equity was due mainly to a decrease in accumulated other comprehensive losses (lower unrealized net losses on investment securities) along with net earnings during the quarter. The ratio of equity to total assets increased to 9.13% on June 30, 2025, from 9.04% on March 31, 2025.
The allowance for credit losses totaled $13.8 million, or 1.23% of total gross loans on June 30, 2025, compared to $12.8 million, or 1.19% of total gross loans on March 31, 2025. Net loan charge-offs totaled $40,000 in the second quarter of 2025, compared to $23,000 during the first quarter of 2025 and net recoveries of $52,000 in the second quarter of the prior year. A provision for credit losses on loans of $1.0 million was recorded in the second quarter of 2025 compared to no provision in the first quarter of 2025.
Non-performing loans totaled $17.0 million, or 1.52% of gross loans, at June 30, 2025, compared to $13.3 million, or 1.24% of gross loans, at March 31, 2025. Loans 30-89 days delinquent totaled $4.3 million, or 0.39% of gross loans, as of June 30, 2025, compared to $10.0 million, or 0.93% of gross loans, as of March 31, 2025.
About Landmark
Landmark Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Landmark National Bank, is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “LARK.” Headquartered in Manhattan, Kansas, Landmark National Bank is a community banking organization dedicated to providing quality financial and banking services. Landmark National Bank has 29 locations in 23 communities across Kansas: Manhattan (2), Auburn, Dodge City (2), Fort Scott (2), Garden City, Great Bend (2), Hoisington, Iola, Junction City, La Crosse, Lawrence (2), Lenexa, Louisburg, Mound City, Osage City, Osawatomie, Overland Park, Paola, Pittsburg, Prairie Village, Topeka (2), Wamego and Wellsville, Kansas. Visit www.banklandmark.com for more information.
Contact:
Mark A. Herpich
Chief Financial Officer
(785) 565-2000
Special Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of Landmark. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of our management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this press release, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Landmark undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events. A number of factors, many of which are beyond our ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (i) the strength of the local, state, national and international economies and financial markets, including the effects of inflationary pressures and future monetary policies of the Federal Reserve in response thereto; (ii) effects on the U.S. economy resulting from the threat or implementation of new, or changes to, existing policies, regulations, regulatory and other governmental agencies and executive orders, including tariffs, immigration policy, regulatory and other governmental agencies, DEI and ESG initiatives, consumer protection, foreign policy and tax regulations; ; (iii) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of our assets; (iv) increased competition in the financial services sector and the inability to attract new customers, including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and “fintech” companies; (v) timely development and acceptance of new products and services; (vi) rapid and expensive technological changes implemented by us and other parties in the financial services industry, including third-party vendors, which may be more difficult to implement or more expensive than anticipated or which may have unforeseen consequence to us and our customers, including the development and implementation of tools incorporating artificial intelligence; (vii) our risk management framework; (viii) interruptions in information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party services; (ix) the economic effects of severe weather, natural disasters, widespread disease or pandemics, or other external events; (x) the loss of key executives or employees; (xi) changes in consumer spending; (xii) integration of acquired businesses; (xiii) the commencement, cost and outcome of litigation and other legal proceedings and regulatory actions against us or to which the Company may become subject; (xiv) changes in accounting policies and practices, such as the implementation of the current expected credit losses accounting standard; (xv) the economic impact of past and any future terrorist attacks, acts of war, including ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or threats thereof, and the response of the United States to any such threats and attacks; (xvi) the ability to manage credit risk, forecast loan losses and maintain an adequate allowance for loan losses; (xvii) fluctuations in the value of securities held in our securities portfolio; (xviii) concentrations within our loan portfolio and large loans to certain borrowers (including commercial real estate loans); (xix) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current FDIC insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (xx) the level of non-performing assets on our balance sheets; (xxi) the ability to raise additional capital; (xxii) the occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches or failures of our or our third-party vendors’ information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents, including as a result of sophisticated attacks using artificial intelligence and similar tools or as a result of insider fraud; (xxiii) declines in real estate values; (xxiv) the effects of fraud on the part of our employees, customers, vendors or counterparties; (xxv) the Company’s success at managing and responding to the risks involved in the foregoing items; and (xxvi) any other risks described in the “Risk Factors” sections of reports filed by Landmark with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Additional information concerning Landmark and its business, including additional risk factors that could materially affect Landmark’s financial results, is included in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited)
| June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in thousands) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | |||||||||||||||
| Assets | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 25,038 | $ | 21,881 | $ | 20,275 | $ | 21,211 | $ | 23,889 | ||||||||||
| Interest-bearing deposits at other banks | 3,463 | 3,973 | 4,110 | 4,363 | 4,881 | |||||||||||||||
| Investment securities available-for-sale, at fair value: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| U.S. treasury securities | 51,624 | 58,424 | 64,458 | 83,753 | 89,325 | |||||||||||||||
| Municipal obligations, tax exempt | 100,802 | 101,812 | 107,128 | 112,126 | 114,047 | |||||||||||||||
| Municipal obligations, taxable | 75,037 | 70,614 | 71,715 | 75,129 | 74,588 | |||||||||||||||
| Agency mortgage-backed securities | 124,979 | 125,142 | 129,211 | 140,004 | 142,499 | |||||||||||||||
| Total investment securities available-for-sale | 352,442 | 355,992 | 372,512 | 411,012 | 420,459 | |||||||||||||||
| Investment securities held-to-maturity | 3,730 | 3,701 | 3,672 | 3,643 | 3,613 | |||||||||||||||
| Bank stocks, at cost | 10,946 | 6,225 | 6,618 | 7,894 | 9,647 | |||||||||||||||
| Loans: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| One-to-four family residential real estate | 377,133 | 355,632 | 352,209 | 344,380 | 332,090 | |||||||||||||||
| Construction and land | 26,373 | 28,645 | 25,328 | 23,454 | 30,480 | |||||||||||||||
| Commercial real estate | 370,455 | 359,579 | 345,159 | 324,016 | 318,850 | |||||||||||||||
| Commercial | 204,303 | 190,881 | 192,325 | 181,652 | 178,876 | |||||||||||||||
| Agriculture | 100,348 | 101,808 | 100,562 | 91,986 | 84,523 | |||||||||||||||
| Municipal | 6,938 | 7,082 | 7,091 | 7,098 | 6,556 | |||||||||||||||
| Consumer | 32,234 | 31,297 | 29,679 | 29,263 | 29,200 | |||||||||||||||
| Total gross loans | 1,117,784 | 1,074,924 | 1,052,353 | 1,001,849 | 980,575 | |||||||||||||||
| Net deferred loan (fees) costs and loans in process | (615 | ) | (426 | ) | (307 | ) | (63 | ) | (583 | ) | ||||||||||
| Allowance for credit losses | (13,762 | ) | (12,802 | ) | (12,825 | ) | (11,544 | ) | (10,903 | ) | ||||||||||
| Loans, net | 1,103,407 | 1,061,696 | 1,039,221 | 990,242 | 969,089 | |||||||||||||||
| Loans held for sale, at fair value | 4,773 | 2,997 | 3,420 | 3,250 | 2,513 | |||||||||||||||
| Bank owned life insurance | 39,607 | 39,329 | 39,056 | 39,176 | 38,826 | |||||||||||||||
| Premises and equipment, net | 19,654 | 19,886 | 20,220 | 20,976 | 20,986 | |||||||||||||||
| Goodwill | 32,377 | 32,377 | 32,377 | 32,377 | 32,377 | |||||||||||||||
| Other intangible assets, net | 2,275 | 2,426 | 2,578 | 2,729 | 2,900 | |||||||||||||||
| Mortgage servicing rights | 3,082 | 3,045 | 3,061 | 3,041 | 2,997 | |||||||||||||||
| Real estate owned, net | 167 | 167 | 167 | 428 | 428 | |||||||||||||||
| Other assets | 23,904 | 24,894 | 26,855 | 23,309 | 28,149 | |||||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 1,624,865 | $ | 1,578,589 | $ | 1,574,142 | $ | 1,563,651 | $ | 1,560,754 | ||||||||||
| Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Liabilities: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-interest-bearing demand | 351,993 | 368,480 | 351,595 | 360,188 | 360,631 | |||||||||||||||
| Money market and checking | 562,919 | 613,459 | 636,963 | 565,629 | 546,385 | |||||||||||||||
| Savings | 148,092 | 149,223 | 145,514 | 145,825 | 150,996 | |||||||||||||||
| Certificates of deposit | 210,897 | 204,660 | 194,694 | 203,860 | 192,470 | |||||||||||||||
| Total deposits | 1,273,901 | 1,335,822 | 1,328,766 | 1,275,502 | 1,250,482 | |||||||||||||||
| FHLB and other borrowings | 155,110 | 48,767 | 53,046 | 92,050 | 131,330 | |||||||||||||||
| Subordinated debentures | 21,651 | 21,651 | 21,651 | 21,651 | 21,651 | |||||||||||||||
| Repurchase agreements | 5,825 | 6,256 | 13,808 | 9,528 | 8,745 | |||||||||||||||
| Accrued interest and other liabilities | 20,002 | 23,442 | 20,656 | 25,229 | 20,292 | |||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 1,476,489 | 1,435,938 | 1,437,927 | 1,423,960 | 1,432,500 | |||||||||||||||
| Stockholders’ equity: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Common stock | 58 | 58 | 58 | 55 | 55 | |||||||||||||||
| Additional paid-in capital | 95,266 | 95,148 | 95,051 | 89,532 | 89,469 | |||||||||||||||
| Retained earnings | 63,612 | 60,422 | 56,934 | 60,549 | 57,774 | |||||||||||||||
| Treasury stock, at cost | – | – | – | (396 | ) | (330 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (10,560 | ) | (12,977 | ) | (15,828 | ) | (10,049 | ) | (18,714 | ) | ||||||||||
| Total stockholders’ equity | 148,376 | 142,651 | 136,215 | 139,691 | 128,254 | |||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 1,624,865 | $ | 1,578,589 | $ | 1,574,142 | $ | 1,563,651 | $ | 1,560,754 | ||||||||||
LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Consolidated Statements of Earnings (unaudited)
| Three months ended, | Six months ended, | |||||||||||||||||||
| June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | |||||||||||||||
| Interest income: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans | $ | 17,186 | $ | 16,395 | $ | 15,022 | $ | 33,581 | $ | 29,512 | ||||||||||
| Investment securities: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Taxable | 2,163 | 2,180 | 2,359 | 4,343 | 4,787 | |||||||||||||||
| Tax-exempt | 701 | 719 | 759 | 1,420 | 1,523 | |||||||||||||||
| Interest-bearing deposits at banks | 48 | 48 | 40 | 96 | 103 | |||||||||||||||
| Total interest income | 20,098 | 19,342 | 18,180 | 39,440 | 35,925 | |||||||||||||||
| Interest expense: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits | 5,144 | 5,236 | 5,673 | 10,380 | 11,130 | |||||||||||||||
| FHLB and other borrowings | 861 | 565 | 1,027 | 1,426 | 2,049 | |||||||||||||||
| Subordinated debentures | 358 | 357 | 418 | 715 | 830 | |||||||||||||||
| Repurchase agreements | 52 | 65 | 88 | 117 | 195 | |||||||||||||||
| Total interest expense | 6,415 | 6,223 | 7,206 | 12,638 | 14,204 | |||||||||||||||
| Net interest income | 13,683 | 13,119 | 10,974 | 26,802 | 21,721 | |||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses | 1,000 | – | – | 1,000 | 300 | |||||||||||||||
| Net interest income after provision for credit losses | 12,683 | 13,119 | 10,974 | 25,802 | 21,421 | |||||||||||||||
| Non-interest income: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Fees and service charges | 2,476 | 2,388 | 2,691 | 4,864 | 5,152 | |||||||||||||||
| Gains on sales of loans, net | 740 | 562 | 648 | 1,302 | 1,160 | |||||||||||||||
| Bank owned life insurance | 278 | 272 | 248 | 550 | 493 | |||||||||||||||
| Losses on sales of investment securities, net | – | (2 | ) | – | (2 | ) | – | |||||||||||||
| Other | 132 | 138 | 133 | 270 | 315 | |||||||||||||||
| Total non-interest income | 3,626 | 3,358 | 3,720 | 6,984 | 7,120 | |||||||||||||||
| Non-interest expense: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Compensation and benefits | 6,234 | 6,154 | 5,504 | 12,388 | 11,036 | |||||||||||||||
| Occupancy and equipment | 1,244 | 1,252 | 1,294 | 2,496 | 2,684 | |||||||||||||||
| Data processing | 629 | 396 | 492 | 1,025 | 973 | |||||||||||||||
| Amortization of mortgage servicing rights and other intangibles | 238 | 239 | 256 | 477 | 668 | |||||||||||||||
| Professional fees | 540 | 745 | 649 | 1,285 | 1,296 | |||||||||||||||
| Valuation allowance on real estate held for sale | – | – | 979 | – | 1,108 | |||||||||||||||
| Other | 2,076 | 1,975 | 1,921 | 4,051 | 3,881 | |||||||||||||||
| Total non-interest expense | 10,961 | 10,761 | 11,095 | 21,722 | 21,646 | |||||||||||||||
| Earnings before income taxes | 5,348 | 5,716 | 3,599 | 11,064 | 6,895 | |||||||||||||||
| Income tax expense | 944 | 1,015 | 587 | 1,959 | 1,105 | |||||||||||||||
| Net earnings | $ | 4,404 | $ | 4,701 | $ | 3,012 | $ | 9,105 | $ | 5,790 | ||||||||||
| Net earnings per share (1) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Basic | $ | 0.76 | $ | 0.81 | $ | 0.52 | $ | 1.58 | $ | 1.01 | ||||||||||
| Diluted | 0.75 | 0.81 | 0.52 | 1.56 | 1.01 | |||||||||||||||
| Dividends per share (1) | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.20 | 0.42 | 0.40 | |||||||||||||||
| Shares outstanding at end of period (1) | 5,783,312 | 5,778,610 | 5,743,044 | 5,783,312 | 5,743,044 | |||||||||||||||
| Weighted average common shares outstanding – basic (1) | 5,782,555 | 5,777,593 | 5,745,310 | 5,780,930 | 5,744,381 | |||||||||||||||
| Weighted average common shares outstanding – diluted (1) | 5,840,923 | 5,814,650 | 5,748,053 | 5,827,844 | 5,748,332 | |||||||||||||||
| Tax equivalent net interest income | $ | 13,851 | $ | 13,291 | $ | 11,167 | $ | 27,142 | $ | 22,075 | ||||||||||
(1) Share and per share values at or for the periods ended June 30, 2024 have been adjusted to give effect to the 5% stock dividend paid during December 2024.
LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Select Ratios and Other Data (unaudited)
| As of or for the | As of or for the | |||||||||||||||||||
| three months ended, | six months ended, | |||||||||||||||||||
| June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | |||||||||||||||
| Performance ratios: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Return on average assets (1) | 1.11 | % | 1.21 | % | 0.78 | % | 1.16 | % | 0.75 | % | ||||||||||
| Return on average equity (1) | 12.25 | % | 13.71 | % | 9.72 | % | 12.96 | % | 9.30 | % | ||||||||||
| Net interest margin (1)(2) | 3.83 | % | 3.76 | % | 3.21 | % | 3.80 | % | 3.16 | % | ||||||||||
| Effective tax rate | 17.7 | % | 17.8 | % | 16.3 | % | 17.7 | % | 16.0 | % | ||||||||||
| Efficiency ratio (3) | 62.8 | % | 64.1 | % | 67.9 | % | 63.4 | % | 70.0 | % | ||||||||||
| Non-interest income to total income (3) | 20.9 | % | 20.4 | % | 25.3 | % | 20.7 | % | 24.7 | % | ||||||||||
| Average balances: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Investment securities | $ | 363,878 | $ | 377,845 | $ | 437,136 | $ | 370,823 | $ | 447,034 | ||||||||||
| Loans | 1,081,865 | 1,048,585 | 955,104 | 1,065,317 | 950,420 | |||||||||||||||
| Assets | 1,592,939 | 1,574,295 | 1,545,816 | 1,583,669 | 1,550,739 | |||||||||||||||
| Interest-bearing deposits | 965,214 | 979,787 | 936,237 | 972,460 | 935,827 | |||||||||||||||
| FHLB and other borrowings | 74,007 | 48,428 | 72,875 | 61,288 | 72,747 | |||||||||||||||
| Subordinated debentures | 21,651 | 21,651 | 21,651 | 21,651 | 21,651 | |||||||||||||||
| Repurchase agreements | 6,683 | 8,634 | 11,524 | 7,653 | 12,947 | |||||||||||||||
| Stockholders’ equity | $ | 144,151 | $ | 139,068 | $ | 124,624 | $ | 141,623 | $ | 125,235 | ||||||||||
| Average tax equivalent yield/cost (1): | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Investment securities | 3.34 | % | 3.29 | % | 3.04 | % | 3.32 | % | 2.99 | % | ||||||||||
| Loans | 6.37 | % | 6.34 | % | 6.33 | % | 6.36 | % | 6.25 | % | ||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing assets | 5.60 | % | 5.53 | % | 5.29 | % | 5.56 | % | 5.20 | % | ||||||||||
| Interest-bearing deposits | 2.14 | % | 2.17 | % | 2.44 | % | 2.15 | % | 2.39 | % | ||||||||||
| FHLB and other borrowings | 4.67 | % | 4.73 | % | 5.67 | % | 4.69 | % | 5.66 | % | ||||||||||
| Subordinated debentures | 6.63 | % | 6.69 | % | 7.76 | % | 6.66 | % | 7.71 | % | ||||||||||
| Repurchase agreements | 3.12 | % | 3.05 | % | 3.07 | % | 3.08 | % | 3.03 | % | ||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities | 2.41 | % | 2.38 | % | 2.78 | % | 2.40 | % | 2.74 | % | ||||||||||
| Capital ratios: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Equity to total assets | 9.13 | % | 9.04 | % | 8.22 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Tangible equity to tangible assets (3) | 7.15 | % | 6.99 | % | 6.09 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Book value per share | $ | 25.66 | $ | 24.69 | $ | 22.33 | ||||||||||||||
| Tangible book value per share (3) | $ | 19.66 | $ | 18.66 | $ | 16.19 | ||||||||||||||
| Rollforward of allowance for credit losses (loans): | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Beginning balance | $ | 12,802 | $ | 12,825 | $ | 10,851 | $ | 12,825 | $ | 10,608 | ||||||||||
| Charge-offs | (103 | ) | (108 | ) | (119 | ) | (211 | ) | (260 | ) | ||||||||||
| Recoveries | 63 | 85 | 171 | 148 | 305 | |||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses for loans | 1,000 | – | – | 1,000 | 250 | |||||||||||||||
| Ending balance | $ | 13,762 | $ | 12,802 | $ | 10,903 | $ | 13,762 | $ | 10,903 | ||||||||||
| Allowance for unfunded loan commitments | $ | 150 | $ | 150 | $ | 300 | ||||||||||||||
| Non-performing assets: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Non-accrual loans | $ | 16,984 | $ | 13,280 | $ | 5,007 | ||||||||||||||
| Accruing loans over 90 days past due | – | – | – | |||||||||||||||||
| Real estate owned | 167 | 167 | 428 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total non-performing assets | $ | 17,151 | $ | 13,447 | $ | 5,435 | ||||||||||||||
| Loans 30-89 days delinquent | $ | 4,321 | $ | 9,977 | $ | 1,872 | ||||||||||||||
| Other ratios: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans to deposits | 86.62 | % | 79.48 | % | 77.50 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Loans 30-89 days delinquent and still accruing to gross loans outstanding | 0.39 | % | 0.93 | % | 0.19 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Total non-performing loans to gross loans outstanding | 1.52 | % | 1.24 | % | 0.51 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Total non-performing assets to total assets | 1.06 | % | 0.85 | % | 0.35 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Allowance for credit losses to gross loans outstanding | 1.23 | % | 1.19 | % | 1.11 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Allowance for credit losses to total non-performing loans | 81.03 | % | 96.40 | % | 217.76 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1) | 0.01 | % | 0.01 | % | -0.02 | % | 0.01 | % | -0.01 | % | ||||||||||
| (1 | ) | Information is annualized. |
| (2 | ) | Net interest margin is presented on a fully tax equivalent basis, using a 21% federal tax rate. |
| (3 | ) | Non-GAAP financial measures. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP equivalent. |
LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Non-GAAP Finacials Measures (unaudited)
| As of or for the | As of or for the | |||||||||||||||||||
| three months ended, | six months ended, | |||||||||||||||||||
| June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | |||||||||||||||
| Non-GAAP financial ratio reconciliation: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total non-interest expense | $ | 10,961 | $ | 10,761 | $ | 11,095 | $ | 21,722 | $ | 21,646 | ||||||||||
| Less: foreclosure and real estate owned expense | 49 | (50 | ) | 39 | (1 | ) | (11 | ) | ||||||||||||
| Less: amortization of other intangibles | (151 | ) | (152 | ) | (171 | ) | (303 | ) | (341 | ) | ||||||||||
| Less: valuation allowance on real estate held for sale | – | – | (979 | ) | – | (1,108 | ) | |||||||||||||
| Adjusted non-interest expense (A) | 10,859 | 10,559 | 9,984 | 21,418 | 20,186 | |||||||||||||||
| Net interest income (B) | 13,683 | 13,119 | 10,974 | 26,802 | 21,721 | |||||||||||||||
| Non-interest income | 3,626 | 3,358 | 3,720 | 6,984 | 7,120 | |||||||||||||||
| Less: losses on sales of investment securities, net | – | 2 | – | 2 | – | |||||||||||||||
| Less: gains on sales of premises and equipment and foreclosed assets | (9 | ) | – | – | (9 | ) | 9 | |||||||||||||
| Adjusted non-interest income (C) | $ | 3,617 | $ | 3,360 | $ | 3,720 | $ | 6,977 | $ | 7,129 | ||||||||||
| Efficiency ratio (A/(B+C)) | 62.8 | % | 64.1 | % | 67.9 | % | 63.4 | % | 70.0 | % | ||||||||||
| Non-interest income to total income (C/(B+C)) | 20.9 | % | 20.4 | % | 25.3 | % | 20.7 | % | 24.7 | % | ||||||||||
| Total stockholders’ equity | $ | 148,376 | $ | 142,651 | $ | 128,254 | ||||||||||||||
| Less: goodwill and other intangible assets | (34,652 | ) | (34,803 | ) | (35,277 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Tangible equity (D) | $ | 113,724 | $ | 107,848 | $ | 92,977 | ||||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 1,624,865 | $ | 1,578,589 | $ | 1,560,754 | ||||||||||||||
| Less: goodwill and other intangible assets | (34,652 | ) | (34,803 | ) | (35,277 | ) | ||||||||||||||
| Tangible assets (E) | $ | 1,590,213 | $ | 1,543,786 | $ | 1,525,477 | ||||||||||||||
| Tangible equity to tangible assets (D/E) | 7.15 | % | 6.99 | % | 6.09 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Shares outstanding at end of period (F) | 5,783,312 | 5,778,610 | 5,743,044 | |||||||||||||||||
| Tangible book value per share (D/F) | $ | 19.66 | $ | 18.66 | $ | 16.19 | ||||||||||||||
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
SAN JOSE, Calif., July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Heritage Commerce Corp (Nasdaq: HTBK), (the “Company”), the holding company for Heritage Bank of Commerce (the “Bank”) today announced its financial results for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2025. All data are unaudited.
| REPORTED SECOND QUARTER 2025 HIGHLIGHTS: | |||||||||
| Net Income | Earnings Per Share | Pre-Provision Net Revenue (“PPNR”)(1) |
Fully Tax Equivalent (“FTE”) Net Interest Margin(1) |
Efficiency Ratio(1) | Tangible Book Value Per Share(1) |
||||
| $6.4 million | $0.10 | $9.4 million | 3.54 | % | 80.23 | % | $8.49 | ||
| ADJUSTED SECOND QUARTER 2025 HIGHLIGHTS:(1) | |||||||||
| Net Income | Earnings Per Share | PPNR(1) | FTE Net Interest Margin(1) | Efficiency Ratio(1) | Tangible Book Value Per Share(1) |
||||
| $13.0 million | $0.21 | $18.6 million | 3.54 | % | 61.01 | % | $8.59 | ||
CEO COMMENTARY:
“We executed well in the second quarter, generating a higher level of net income and earnings per share, excluding significant charges primarily related to a legal settlement,” said Clay Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer. “We had positive trends in loan growth, an expansion in our net interest margin, and stable asset quality, while deposits declined due to seasonal outflows that we typically see in the second quarter. Our loan growth was well diversified across our portfolios. We continue to successfully add new clients by offering a superior banking experience and generate loan growth while maintaining our disciplined underwriting and pricing criteria.”
“We have a strong balance sheet with a high level of capital and liquidity and healthy asset quality, which provides a strong foundation to weather periods of economic volatility. We are well positioned to navigate the current environment and expect to see positive trends in loan growth, the net interest margin, and expense management,” said Mr. Jones.
| LINKED-QUARTER BASIS | YEAR-OVER-YEAR |
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS:
| • Total revenue of $47.8 million, an increase of 4%, or $1.7 million • Noninterest expense of $38.3 million includes an accrual of $9.2 million for pre-tax charges primarily related to a legal settlement • Reported net income of $6.4 million and earnings per share of $0.10, down 45% and 47%, from $11.6 million and $0.19, respectively • Adjusted net income(1) of $13.0 million and adjusted earnings per share(1) of $0.21, both metrics up 11% from $11.6 million and $0.19, respectively |
• Total revenue of $47.8 million, an increase of 15%, or $6.1 million • Noninterest expense of $38.3 million includes an accrual of $9.2 million for pre-tax charges primarily related to a legal settlement • Reported net income of $6.4 million and earnings per share of $0.10, down 31% and 33%, from $9.2 million and $0.15, respectively • Adjusted net income(1) of $13.0 million and adjusted earnings per share(1) of $0.21, both metrics up 40% from $9.2 million and $0.15, respectively |
FINANCIAL CONDITION:
| • Loans held-for-investment (“HFI”) of $3.5 billion, up $47.4 million or 1% • Total deposits of $4.6 billion, down $55.9 million, or 1% • Loan to deposit ratio of 76.38%, up from 74.45% • Total shareholders’ equity of $694.7 million, down $1.5 million |
• Increase in loans HFI of $154.5 million, or 5%
• Increase in total deposits of $182.7 million, or 4% |
CREDIT QUALITY:
| • Nonperforming assets (“NPAs”) to total assets of 0.11% for both quarters • NPAs to total assets of 0.11% for both quarters |
• Classified assets to total assets of 0.69%, compared to 0.73% • Classified assets to total assets of 0.69%, compared to 0.64% |
KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS:
| • FTE net interest margin(1) of 3.54%, an increase from 3.39% • Common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 13.3%, compared to 13.6% • Total capital ratio of 15.5%, compared to 15.9% • Tangible common equity ratio(1) of 9.85%, an increase of 1% from 9.78% |
• FTE net interest margin(1) of 3.54%, an increase from 3.26% • Common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 13.3%, compared to 13.4% • Total capital ratio of 15.5%, compared to 15.6% • Tangible common equity ratio(1) of 9.85%, a decrease of 1% from 9.91% |
(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release. All references to “adjusted” operating metrics exclude the $9.2 million of charges primarily related to a legal settlement in the second quarter and first six months of 2025 as presented in the reconciliation of non-GAAP financial measures at the end of this press release.
Results of Operations:
Reported net income was $6.4 million, or $0.10 per average diluted common share, for the second quarter of 2025. Adjusted net income(2) was $13.0 million, or $0.21 per average diluted common share, for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $11.6 million, or $0.19 per average diluted common share, for the first quarter of 2025, and $9.2 million, or $0.15 per average diluted common share, for the second quarter of 2024. The annualized return on average assets was 0.47% and annualized return on average equity was 3.68% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 0.85% and 6.81%, respectively, for the first quarter of 2025, and 0.71% and 5.50%, respectively, for the second quarter of 2024. The adjusted annualized return on average assets(2) was 0.95% and adjusted annualized return on average tangible common equity(2) was 9.92% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 0.85% and 9.09%, respectively, for the first quarter ended of 2025, and 0.71% and 7.43%, respectively, for the second quarter of 2024.
Reported net income was $18.0 million, or $0.29 per average diluted common share, for the first six months of 2025. Adjusted net income(2) was $24.6 million, or $0.40 per average diluted common share, for the first six months of 2025, compared to $19.4 million, or $0.32 per average diluted common share, for the first six months of 2024. The annualized return on average assets was 0.66% and annualized return on average equity was 5.23% for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to 0.75% and 5.79%, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The adjusted annualized return on average assets(2) was 0.90% and annualized return on average tangible common equity(2) was 9.51% for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to 0.75% and 7.84%, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2024.
Total revenue, which is defined as net interest income before provision for credit losses on loans plus noninterest income, increased $1.7 million, or 4%, to $47.8 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $46.1 million for the first quarter of 2025, and increased $6.1 million, or 15%, from $41.7 million for the second quarter of 2024. Total revenue increased $9.9 million, or 12%, to $93.8 million for the first six months of 2025, compared to $83.9 million for the first six months of 2024.
For the second quarter and first six months of 2025, the Company’s reported PPNR(2), which is defined as total revenue less adjusted noninterest expense(2) was $9.4 million and $26.0 million, respectively. The adjusted PPNR(2) was $18.6 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $16.6 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $13.5 million for the second quarter of 2024. For the six months of 2025, the Company’s adjusted PPNR(2) was $35.2 million, compared to $28.1 million for the six months of 2024.
Net interest income totaled $44.8 million for the second quarter of 2025, an increase of $1.4 million, or 3%, compared to $43.4 million for the first quarter of 2025. The FTE net interest margin(2) was 3.54% for the second quarter of 2025, an increase over 3.39% for the first quarter of 2025 primarily due to an increase in the average yields and average balances of loans and securities, partially offset by a decrease in the average balances of deposits resulting in a lower average balance of overnight funds.
Net interest income increased $5.9 million, or 15%, to $44.8 million, compared to $38.9 million for the second quarter of 2024. The FTE net interest margin(2) increased from 3.23% for the second quarter of 2024 primarily due to lower rates paid on customer deposits, an increase in the average yields and average balances of loans and securities, and an increase in the average balance of deposits resulting in a higher average balance of overnight funds, partially offset by a lower average yield on overnight funds.
For the first six months of 2025, net interest income increased $9.8 million, or 12% to $88.2 million, compared to $78.4 million for the first six months of 2024. The FTE net interest margin(2) increased 20 basis points to 3.47% for the first six months of 2025, from 3.27% for the first six months of 2024, primarily due to an increase in the average balances of average interest earning assets, and an increase in the average yields on loans and securities, partially offset by higher rates paid on client deposits and a lower yield on overnight funds.
We recorded a provision for credit losses on loans of $516,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $274,000 for the first quarter of 2025, and $471,000 for the second quarter of 2024. There was a provision for credit losses on loans of $790,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2025, compared to $655,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The increase in the provision for credit losses on loans for the second quarter and first six months of 2025 was primarily due to loan growth.
Total noninterest income increased to $3.0 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $2.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $2.9 million for the second quarter of 2024, primarily due to higher termination and facility fees. The increase in noninterest income in the second quarter of 2025 was partially offset by a $219,000 gain on proceeds from company-owned life insurance in the second quarter of 2024.
Total noninterest income increased 3% to $5.7 million for the first six months of 2025, compared to $5.5 million for the first six months of 2024, primarily due to higher termination and facility fees, partially offset by a $219,000 gain on proceeds from company-owned life insurance in the first six months of 2024.
(2)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
Reported noninterest expense for the second quarter of 2025 and first six months of 2025 totaled $38.3 million and $67.8 million, respectively. During the second quarter of 2025, the Company recorded expenses of $9.2 million, primarily due to pre-tax charges related to the settlement of certain litigation matters, including the anticipated settlement of a previously disclosed class action and California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) lawsuit that alleged the violation of certain California wage-and-hour and related laws and regulations, and charges related to the planned closure of a Bank branch. Adjusted noninterest expense(3) was $29.1 million, compared to $29.5 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $28.2 million for the second quarter of 2024. Adjusted noninterest expense(3) for the first six months of 2025 was $58.6 million, compared to $55.7 million for the first six months of 2024.
Income tax expense decreased to $2.5 million for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $4.7 million for the first quarter of 2025, and $3.8 million for the second quarter of 2024, primarily due to lower pre-tax income. The effective tax rate for the second quarter of 2025 was 28.5%, compared to 28.8% for the first quarter of 2025, and 29.4% for the second quarter of 2024.
Income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2025 was $7.2 million, compared to $8.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2024. The effective tax rate for six months ended June 30, 2025 was 28.7%, compared to 29.4% for the six months ended June 30, 2024.
The reported efficiency ratio(3) for the second quarter and first six month of 2025 was 80.23% and 72.24%, respectively. The adjusted efficiency ratio(3) improved to 61.01% for the second quarter of 2025, compared to 63.96% for the first quarter of 2025, as a result of higher total revenue. The adjusted efficiency ratio(3) improved from 67.55% for the second quarter of 2024, primarily due to higher total revenue, partially offset by higher noninterest expense. The adjusted efficiency ratio(3) improved to 62.45% for the first six months of 2025 from 66.44% for the first six months of 2024, primarily due to higher total revenue, partially offset by higher noninterest expense.
Full time equivalent employees were 350 at both June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025, and 353 at June 30, 2024.
Financial Condition and Capital Management:
Total assets remained relatively flat at $5.5 billion at both June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025. Total assets increased 4% from $5.3 billion at June 30, 2024, primarily due to an increase in deposits resulting in an increase in overnight funds, and an increase in loans.
Investment securities available-for-sale (at fair value) decreased to $307.0 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $371.0 million at March 31, 2025, primarily due to maturities and paydowns, partially offset by purchases. Investment securities available-for-sale totaled $273.0 million at June 30, 2024. The pre-tax unrealized loss on the securities available-for-sale portfolio was $448,000, or $396,000 net of taxes, which equaled less than 1% of total shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025.
During the first six months of 2025, the Company purchased $87.2 million of agency mortgage-backed securities, $79.8 million of collateralized mortgage obligations, and $44.8 million of U.S. Treasury securities, for total purchases of $211.8 million in the available-for-sale portfolio. Securities purchased had a book yield of 4.82% and an average life of 4.55 years.
Investment securities held-to-maturity (at amortized cost, net of allowance for credit losses of ($16,000), totaled $561.2 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $576.7 million at March 31, 2025, and $621.2 million at June 30, 2024. The fair value of the securities held-to-maturity portfolio was $486.5 million at June 30, 2025. The pre-tax unrecognized loss on the securities held-to-maturity portfolio was $74.7 million, or $52.7 million net of taxes, which equaled 7.6% of total shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025.
The unrealized and unrecognized losses in both the available-for-sale and held-to-maturity portfolios were due to higher interest rates at June 30, 2025 compared to when the securities were purchased. The issuers are of high credit quality and all principal amounts are expected to be repaid when the securities mature. The fair value is expected to recover as the securities approach their maturity date and/or market rates decline.
Loans HFI, net of deferred costs and fees, increased $47.4 million, or 1% to $3.5 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $3.5 billion at March 31, 2025, and increased $154.5 million, or 5%, from $3.4 billion at June 30, 2024. Loans HFI, excluding residential mortgages, increased $58.3 million, or 2% to $3.1 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $3.0 billion at March 31, 2025, and increased $184.9 million, or 6%, from $2.9 billion at June 30, 2024.
Commercial and industrial line utilization was 32% at June 30, 2025, compared to 31% at both March 31, 2025, and June 30, 2024. Commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans totaled $2.0 billion at June 30, 2025, of which 31% were owner occupied and 31% were investor CRE loans. Owner occupied CRE loans totaled 31% at March 31, 2025 and 32% at June 30, 2024. Approximately 24% of the Company’s loan portfolio consisted of floating interest rate loans at both June 30, 2025 and March 31, 2025, compared to 27% at June 30, 2024.
At June 30, 2025, paydowns and maturities of investment securities and fixed interest rate loans maturing within one year totaled $311.0 million.
(3)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
Total deposits decreased $55.9 million, or 1%, to $4.6 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $4.7 billion at March 31, 2025, primarily due to season outflows. Total deposits increased $182.7 million, or 4% from $4.4 billion at June 30, 2024.
The following table shows the Company’s deposit types as a percentage of total deposits at the dates indicated:
| June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | |||||||
| DEPOSITS TYPE % TO TOTAL DEPOSITS | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | ||||||
| Demand, noninterest-bearing | 25 | % | 24 | % | 27 | % | |||
| Demand, interest-bearing | 21 | % | 20 | % | 21 | % | |||
| Savings and money market | 28 | % | 29 | % | 25 | % | |||
| Time deposits — under $250 | 1 | % | 1 | % | 1 | % | |||
| Time deposits — $250 and over | 4 | % | 5 | % | 4 | % | |||
| Insured Cash Sweep (“ICS”)/Certificate of Deposit Registry | |||||||||
| Service (“CDARS”) – interest-bearing demand, money | |||||||||
| market and time deposits | 21 | % | 21 | % | 22 | % | |||
| Total deposits | 100 | % | 100 | % | 100 | % |
The loan to deposit ratio was 76.38% at June 30, 2025, compared to 74.45% at March 31, 2025, and 76.04% at June 30, 2024.
The Company’s total available liquidity and borrowing capacity was $3.1 billion at June 30, 2025, compared to $3.2 billion at March 31, 2025, and $3.0 billion at June 30, 2024.
Total shareholders’ equity was $694.7 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $696.2 million at March 31, 2025, and $679.2 million at June 30, 2024. The change in shareholders’ equity at June 30, 2025 is primarily a function of net income and the decrease in the total accumulated other comprehensive loss, partially offset by dividends to stockholders.
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss of $5.0 million at June 30, 2025 was comprised of $2.5 million in actuarial losses associated with split dollar insurance contracts, $2.2 million in actuarial losses associated with the supplemental executive retirement plan, unrealized losses on securities available-for-sale of $396,000, and a $42,000 unrealized gain on interest-only strip from SBA loans.
The Company’s consolidated capital ratios exceeded regulatory guidelines and the Bank’s capital ratios exceeded regulatory guidelines under the prompt corrective action (“PCA”) regulatory guidelines for a well-capitalized financial institution, and the Basel III minimum regulatory requirements at June 30, 2025.
Reported tangible book value per share(4) was $8.49 at June 30, 2025. Adjusted tangible book value per share(4) was $8.59 at June 30, 2025, compared to $8.48 at March 31, 2025, and $8.22 at June 30, 2024.
The Company is authorized to repurchase up to $15.0 million of the Company’s shares of its issued and outstanding common stock under its share repurchase program authorized by the Board of Directors in July 2024. During the second quarter of 2025, the Company repurchased 207,989 shares of its common stock with a weighted average price of $9.19 for a total of $1.9 million. The remaining capacity under this share repurchase program was $13.1 million at June 30, 2025. In July 2025, the Company’s Board of Directors extended the program for one year, expiring on July 31, 2026.
Credit Quality:
The provision for credit losses on loans totaled $516,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to a $274,000 provision for credit losses on loans for the first quarter of 2025 and a provision for credit losses on loans of $471,000 for the second quarter of 2024. Net charge-offs totaled $145,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $965,000 for the first quarter of 2025, and $405,000 for the second quarter of 2024.
The provision for credit losses on loans totaled $790,000 for the first six months of 2025, compared to a $655,000 provision for credit losses on loans for the first six months of 2024. Net charge-offs totaled $1.1 million for the first six months of 2025, compared to $659,000 for the first six months of 2024.
The allowance for credit losses on loans (“ACLL”) at June 30, 2025 was $48.6 million, or 1.38% of total loans, representing 787% of total nonperforming loans. The ACLL at March 31, 2025 was $48.3 million, or 1.38% of total loans, representing 765% of total nonperforming loans. The ACLL at June 30, 2024 was $48.0 million, or 1.42% of total loans, representing 795% of total nonperforming loans. The reduction to the allowance for credit on losses on loans reflects our credit assessment and economic factors.
NPAs were $6.2 million at June 30, 2025, compared to $6.3 million at March 31, 2025, and $6.0 million at June 30, 2024. There were no foreclosed assets on the balance sheet at June 30, 2025, March 31, 2025, or June 30, 2024. There were no Shared National Credits (“SNCs”) or material purchased participations included in NPAs or total loans at June 30, 2025, March 31, 2025, or June 30, 2024.
Classified assets totaled $37.5 million, or 0.69% of total assets, at June 30, 2025, compared to $40.0 million, or 0.73% of total assets, at March 31, 2025, and $33.6 million, or 0.64% of total assets, at June 30, 2024.
(4)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
Heritage Commerce Corp, a bank holding company established in October 1997, is the parent company of Heritage Bank of Commerce, established in 1994 and headquartered in San Jose, CA with full-service branches in Danville, Fremont, Gilroy, Hollister, Livermore, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Oakland, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Redwood City, San Francisco, San Jose, San Mateo, San Rafael, and Walnut Creek. Heritage Bank of Commerce is an SBA Preferred Lender. Bay View Funding, a subsidiary of Heritage Bank of Commerce, is based in San Jose, CA and provides business-essential working capital factoring financing to various industries throughout the United States. For more information, please visit www.heritagecommercecorp.com. The contents of our website are not incorporated into, and do not form a part of, this release or of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Reclassifications
During the first quarter of 2025, we reclassified Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) and Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”) stock dividends from interest income to noninterest income and the related average asset balances were reclassified from interest earning assets to other assets on the “Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin” tables. The amounts for the prior periods were reclassified to conform to the current presentation. These reclassifications did not affect previously reported net income or shareholders’ equity.
Non-GAAP Financial Measures
Financial results are presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and prevailing practices in the banking industry. However, certain non-GAAP performance measures and ratios are used by management to evaluate and measure the Company’s performance. These measures include “adjusted” operating metrics that have been adjusted to exclude notable expenses incurred in the second quarter as well as other performance measures and ratios adjusted for notable items. Management believes these non-GAAP financial measures enhance comparability between periods and in some instances are common in the banking industry. These non-GAAP financial measures should be supplemental to primary GAAP financial measures and should not be read in isolation or relied upon as a substitute for primary GAAP financial measures. A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures is presented in the tables at the end of this press release under “Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”
Forward-Looking Statement Disclaimer
Certain matters discussed in this press release constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain in that they reflect plans and expectations for future events. These statements may include, among other things, those relating to the Company’s future financial performance, plans and objectives regarding future events, expectations regarding changes in interest rates and market conditions, projected cash flows of our investment securities portfolio, the performance of our loan portfolio, loan growth, expenses, net interest margin, estimated net interest income resulting from a shift in interest rates, expectation of high credit quality issuers ability to repay, as well as statements relating to the anticipated effects on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations from expected developments or events. Any statements that reflect our belief about, confidence in, or expectations for future events, performance or condition should be considered forward-looking statements. Readers should not construe these statements as assurances of a given level of performance, nor as promises that we will take actions that we currently expect to take. All statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside our control and some of which may fall outside our ability to predict or anticipate. Accordingly, our actual results may differ materially from our projected results, and we may take actions or experience events that we do not currently expect. Risks and uncertainties that could cause our financial performance to differ materially from our goals, plans, expectations and projections expressed in forward-looking statements include those set forth in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Item 1A of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, and include: (i) cybersecurity risks that may affect us directly or may impact us indirectly by virtue of their effects on our clients, markets or vendors, including our ability to identify and address cybersecurity risks, including those posed by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (such as, but not limited to, ransomware, data security breaches, “denial of service” attacks, “hacking” and identity theft) affecting us, our clients, and our third-party vendors and service providers; (ii) events that affect our ability to attract, recruit, and retain qualified officers and other personnel to implement our strategic plan, and that enable current and future personnel to protect and develop our relationships with clients, and to promote our business, results of operations and growth prospects; (iii) media items and consumer confidence as those factors affect our clients’ confidence in the banking system generally and in our bank specifically; (iv) adequacy of our risk management framework, disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (v) the effects of recent wildfires affecting Southern California, which have affected certain clients and certain loans secured by mortgages in Los Angeles County, and which are affecting or may, in the future, affect other clients in those and other markets throughout California; (vi) market, geographic and sociopolitical factors that arise by virtue of the fact that we operate primarily in the general San Francisco Bay Area of Northern California; (vii) risks of geographic concentration of our client base, our loans, and the collateral securing our loans, as those clients and assets may be particularly subject to natural disasters and to events and conditions that directly or indirectly affect those regions, including the particular risks of natural disasters (including earthquakes, fires, and flooding) and other events that disproportionately affect that region; (viii) political events that have accompanied or that may in the future accompany or result from recent political changes, particularly including sociopolitical events and conditions that result from political conflicts and law enforcement activities that may adversely affect our markets or our clients; (ix) our ability to estimate accurately, and to establish adequate reserves against, the risk of loss associated with our loan and lease portfolios and our factoring business; (x) inflationary pressures and changes in the interest rate environment that reduce our margins and yields, the fair value of financial instruments or our level of loan originations, or increase the level of defaults, losses and prepayments on loans to clients, whether held in the portfolio or in the secondary market; (xi) factors that affect the value and liquidity of our investment portfolios, particularly the values of securities available-for-sale; (xii) factors that affect our liquidity and our ability to meet client demands for withdrawals from deposit accounts and undrawn lines of credit, including our cash on hand and the availability of funds from our own lines of credit; (xiii) increased capital requirements for our continual growth or as imposed by banking regulators, which may require us to raise capital at a time when capital is not available on favorable terms or at all; (xiv) the expense and uncertain resolution of litigation matters whether occurring in the ordinary course of business or otherwise, particularly including but not limited to the effects of recent and ongoing developments in California labor and employment laws, regulations and court decisions; (xv) operational issues stemming from, and/or capital spending necessitated by, the potential need to adapt to industry changes in information technology systems, on which we are highly dependent; and (xvi) our success in managing the risks involved in the foregoing factors.
Member FDIC
For additional information, email:
InvestorRelations@herbank.com
| For the Quarter Ended: | Percent Change From: | For the Six Months Ended: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS | June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | June 30, | June 30, | Percent | ||||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
| Interest income | $ | 63,025 | $ | 61,832 | $ | 58,489 | 2 | % | 8 | % | $ | 124,857 | $ | 115,450 | 8 | % | ||||||||||
| Interest expense | 18,220 | 18,472 | 19,622 | (1 | ) | % | (7 | ) | % | 36,692 | 37,080 | (1 | ) | % | ||||||||||||
| Net interest income before provision | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| for credit losses on loans | 44,805 | 43,360 | 38,867 | 3 | % | 15 | % | 88,165 | 78,370 | 12 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses on loans | 516 | 274 | 471 | 88 | % | 10 | % | 790 | 655 | 21 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Net interest income after provision | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| for credit losses on loans | 44,289 | 43,086 | 38,396 | 3 | % | 15 | % | 87,375 | 77,715 | 12 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Noninterest income: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Service charges and fees on deposit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| accounts | 929 | 892 | 891 | 4 | % | 4 | % | 1,821 | 1,768 | 3 | % | |||||||||||||||
| FHLB and FRB stock dividends | 584 | 590 | 588 | (1 | ) | % | (1 | ) | % | 1,174 | 1,178 | |||||||||||||||
| Increase in cash surrender value of | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| life insurance | 548 | 538 | 521 | 2 | % | 5 | % | 1,086 | 1,039 | 5 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Termination fees | 227 | 87 | 100 | 161 | % | 127 | % | 314 | 113 | 178 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Gain on sales of SBA loans | 87 | 98 | 76 | (11 | ) | % | 14 | % | 185 | 254 | (27 | ) | % | |||||||||||||
| Servicing income | 61 | 82 | 90 | (26 | ) | % | (32 | ) | % | 143 | 180 | (21 | ) | % | ||||||||||||
| Gain on proceeds from company-owned | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| life insurance | — | — | 219 | N/A | (100 | ) | % | — | 219 | (100 | ) | % | ||||||||||||||
| Other | 541 | 409 | 379 | 32 | % | 43 | % | 950 | 750 | 27 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Total noninterest income | 2,977 | 2,696 | 2,864 | 10 | % | 4 | % | 5,673 | 5,501 | 3 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Noninterest expense: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Salaries and employee benefits | 16,227 | 16,575 | 15,794 | (2 | ) | % | 3 | % | 32,802 | 31,303 | 5 | % | ||||||||||||||
| Occupancy and equipment | 2,525 | 2,534 | 2,689 | 0 | % | (6 | ) | % | 5,059 | 5,132 | (1 | ) | % | |||||||||||||
| Professional fees | 1,819 | 1,580 | 1,072 | 15 | % | 70 | % | 3,399 | 2,399 | 42 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Other | 17,764 | 8,767 | 8,633 | 103 | % | 106 | % | 26,531 | 16,890 | 57 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Total noninterest expense | 38,335 | 29,456 | 28,188 | 30 | % | 36 | % | 67,791 | 55,724 | 22 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Income before income taxes | 8,931 | 16,326 | 13,072 | (45 | ) | % | (32 | ) | % | 25,257 | 27,492 | (8 | ) | % | ||||||||||||
| Income tax expense | 2,542 | 4,700 | 3,838 | (46 | ) | % | (34 | ) | % | 7,242 | 8,092 | (11 | ) | % | ||||||||||||
| Net income | $ | 6,389 | $ | 11,626 | $ | 9,234 | (45 | ) | % | (31 | ) | % | $ | 18,015 | $ | 19,400 | (7 | ) | % | |||||||
| PER COMMON SHARE DATA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Basic earnings per share | $ | 0.10 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.15 | (47 | ) | % | (33 | ) | % | $ | 0.29 | $ | 0.32 | (9 | ) | % | |||||||
| Diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.10 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.15 | (47 | ) | % | (33 | ) | % | $ | 0.29 | $ | 0.32 | (9 | ) | % | |||||||
| Weighted average shares outstanding – basic | 61,508,180 | 61,479,579 | 61,279,914 | 0 | % | 0 | % | 61,493,880 | 61,233,269 | 0 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted | 61,624,600 | 61,708,361 | 61,438,088 | 0 | % | 0 | % | 61,664,942 | 61,446,484 | 0 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Common shares outstanding at period-end | 61,446,763 | 61,611,121 | 61,292,094 | 0 | % | 0 | % | 61,446,763 | 61,292,094 | 0 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Dividend per share | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.13 | 0 | % | 0 | % | $ | 0.26 | $ | 0.26 | 0 | % | ||||||||||
| Book value per share | $ | 11.31 | $ | 11.30 | $ | 11.08 | 0 | % | 2 | % | $ | 11.31 | $ | 11.08 | 2 | % | ||||||||||
| Tangible book value per share(1) | $ | 8.49 | $ | 8.48 | $ | 8.22 | 0 | % | 3 | % | $ | 8.49 | $ | 8.22 | 3 | % | ||||||||||
| KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annualized return on average equity | 3.68 | % | 6.81 | % | 5.50 | % | (46 | ) | % | (33 | ) | % | 5.23 | % | 5.79 | % | (10 | ) | % | |||||||
| Annualized return on average tangible | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| common equity(1) | 4.89 | % | 9.09 | % | 7.43 | % | (46 | ) | % | (34 | ) | % | 6.97 | % | 7.84 | % | (11 | ) | % | |||||||
| Annualized return on average assets | 0.47 | % | 0.85 | % | 0.71 | % | (45 | ) | % | (34 | ) | % | 0.66 | % | 0.75 | % | (12 | ) | % | |||||||
| Annualized return on average tangible assets(1) | 0.48 | % | 0.88 | % | 0.74 | % | (45 | ) | % | (35 | ) | % | 0.68 | % | 0.78 | % | (13 | ) | % | |||||||
| Net interest margin (FTE)(1) | 3.54 | % | 3.39 | % | 3.23 | % | 4 | % | 10 | % | 3.47 | % | 3.27 | % | 6 | % | ||||||||||
| Total revenue | $ | 47,782 | $ | 46,056 | $ | 41,731 | 4 | % | 15 | % | 93,838 | 83,871 | 12 | % | ||||||||||||
| Pre-provision net revenue(1) | $ | 9,447 | $ | 16,600 | $ | 13,543 | (43 | ) | % | (30 | ) | % | 26,047 | 28,147 | (7 | ) | % | |||||||||
| Efficiency ratio(1) | 80.23 | % | 63.96 | % | 67.55 | % | 25 | % | 19 | % | 72.24 | % | 66.44 | % | 9 | % | ||||||||||
| AVERAGE BALANCES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Average assets | $ | 5,458,420 | $ | 5,559,896 | $ | 5,213,171 | (2 | ) | % | 5 | % | $ | 5,508,878 | $ | 5,195,903 | 6 | % | |||||||||
| Average tangible assets(1) | $ | 5,284,972 | $ | 5,386,001 | $ | 5,037,673 | (2 | ) | % | 5 | % | $ | 5,335,207 | $ | 5,020,134 | 6 | % | |||||||||
| Average earning assets | $ | 5,087,089 | $ | 5,188,317 | $ | 4,840,670 | (2 | ) | % | 5 | % | $ | 5,137,424 | $ | 4,825,587 | 6 | % | |||||||||
| Average loans held-for-sale | $ | 2,250 | $ | 2,290 | $ | 1,503 | (2 | ) | % | 50 | % | $ | 2,270 | $ | 2,126 | 7 | % | |||||||||
| Average loans held-for-investment | $ | 3,504,518 | $ | 3,429,014 | $ | 3,328,358 | 2 | % | 5 | % | $ | 3,466,975 | $ | 3,312,799 | 5 | % | ||||||||||
| Average deposits | $ | 4,618,007 | $ | 4,717,517 | $ | 4,394,545 | (2 | ) | % | 5 | % | $ | 4,667,487 | $ | 4,377,347 | 7 | % | |||||||||
| Average demand deposits – noninterest-bearing | $ | 1,146,494 | $ | 1,167,330 | $ | 1,127,145 | (2 | ) | % | 2 | % | $ | 1,156,854 | $ | 1,152,111 | 0 | % | |||||||||
| Average interest-bearing deposits | $ | 3,471,513 | $ | 3,550,187 | $ | 3,267,400 | (2 | ) | % | 6 | % | $ | 3,510,633 | $ | 3,225,236 | 9 | % | |||||||||
| Average interest-bearing liabilities | $ | 3,511,237 | $ | 3,589,872 | $ | 3,306,972 | (2 | ) | % | 6 | % | $ | 3,550,338 | $ | 3,264,788 | 9 | % | |||||||||
| Average equity | $ | 697,016 | $ | 692,733 | $ | 675,108 | 1 | % | 3 | % | $ | 694,886 | $ | 673,700 | 3 | % | ||||||||||
| Average tangible common equity(1) | $ | 523,568 | $ | 518,838 | $ | 499,610 | 1 | % | 5 | % | $ | 521,215 | $ | 497,931 | 5 | % | ||||||||||
(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
| For the Quarter Ended: | ||||||||||||||||
| CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | |||||||||||
| Interest income | $ | 63,025 | $ | 61,832 | $ | 64,043 | $ | 60,852 | $ | 58,489 | ||||||
| Interest expense | 18,220 | 18,472 | 20,448 | 21,523 | 19,622 | |||||||||||
| Net interest income before provision | ||||||||||||||||
| for credit losses on loans | 44,805 | 43,360 | 43,595 | 39,329 | 38,867 | |||||||||||
| Provision for credit losses on loans | 516 | 274 | 1,331 | 153 | 471 | |||||||||||
| Net interest income after provision | ||||||||||||||||
| for credit losses on loans | 44,289 | 43,086 | 42,264 | 39,176 | 38,396 | |||||||||||
| Noninterest income: | ||||||||||||||||
| Service charges and fees on deposit | ||||||||||||||||
| accounts | 929 | 892 | 885 | 908 | 891 | |||||||||||
| FHLB and FRB stock dividends | 584 | 590 | 590 | 586 | 588 | |||||||||||
| Increase in cash surrender value of | ||||||||||||||||
| life insurance | 548 | 538 | 528 | 530 | 521 | |||||||||||
| Termination fees | 227 | 87 | 18 | 46 | 100 | |||||||||||
| Gain on sales of SBA loans | 87 | 98 | 125 | 94 | 76 | |||||||||||
| Servicing income | 61 | 82 | 77 | 108 | 90 | |||||||||||
| Gain on proceeds from company-owned | ||||||||||||||||
| life insurance | — | — | — | — | 219 | |||||||||||
| Other | 541 | 409 | 552 | 554 | 379 | |||||||||||
| Total noninterest income | 2,977 | 2,696 | 2,775 | 2,826 | 2,864 | |||||||||||
| Noninterest expense: | ||||||||||||||||
| Salaries and employee benefits | 16,227 | 16,575 | 16,976 | 15,673 | 15,794 | |||||||||||
| Occupancy and equipment | 2,525 | 2,534 | 2,495 | 2,599 | 2,689 | |||||||||||
| Professional fees | 1,819 | 1,580 | 1,711 | 1,306 | 1,072 | |||||||||||
| Other | 17,764 | 8,767 | 9,122 | 7,977 | 8,633 | |||||||||||
| Total noninterest expense | 38,335 | 29,456 | 30,304 | 27,555 | 28,188 | |||||||||||
| Income before income taxes | 8,931 | 16,326 | 14,735 | 14,447 | 13,072 | |||||||||||
| Income tax expense | 2,542 | 4,700 | 4,114 | 3,940 | 3,838 | |||||||||||
| Net income | $ | 6,389 | $ | 11,626 | $ | 10,621 | $ | 10,507 | $ | 9,234 | ||||||
| PER COMMON SHARE DATA | ||||||||||||||||
| (unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||
| Basic earnings per share | $ | 0.10 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.15 | ||||||
| Diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.10 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.15 | ||||||
| Weighted average shares outstanding – basic | 61,508,180 | 61,479,579 | 61,320,505 | 61,295,877 | 61,279,914 | |||||||||||
| Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted | 61,624,600 | 61,708,361 | 61,679,735 | 61,546,157 | 61,438,088 | |||||||||||
| Common shares outstanding at period-end | 61,446,763 | 61,611,121 | 61,348,095 | 61,297,344 | 61,292,094 | |||||||||||
| Dividend per share | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.13 | $ | 0.13 | ||||||
| Book value per share | $ | 11.31 | $ | 11.30 | $ | 11.24 | $ | 11.18 | $ | 11.08 | ||||||
| Tangible book value per share(1) | $ | 8.49 | $ | 8.48 | $ | 8.41 | $ | 8.33 | $ | 8.22 | ||||||
| KEY PERFORMANCE METRICS | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||
| Annualized return on average equity | 3.68 | % | 6.81 | % | 6.16 | % | 6.14 | % | 5.50 | % | ||||||
| Annualized return on average tangible | ||||||||||||||||
| common equity(1) | 4.89 | % | 9.09 | % | 8.25 | % | 8.27 | % | 7.43 | % | ||||||
| Annualized return on average assets | 0.47 | % | 0.85 | % | 0.75 | % | 0.78 | % | 0.71 | % | ||||||
| Annualized return on average tangible assets(1) | 0.48 | % | 0.88 | % | 0.78 | % | 0.81 | % | 0.74 | % | ||||||
| Net interest margin (FTE)(1) | 3.54 | % | 3.39 | % | 3.32 | % | 3.15 | % | 3.23 | % | ||||||
| Total revenue | $ | 47,782 | $ | 46,056 | $ | 46,370 | $ | 42,155 | $ | 41,731 | ||||||
| Pre-provision net revenue(1) | $ | 9,447 | $ | 16,600 | $ | 16,066 | $ | 14,600 | $ | 13,543 | ||||||
| Efficiency ratio(1) | 80.23 | % | 63.96 | % | 65.35 | % | 65.37 | % | 67.55 | % | ||||||
| AVERAGE BALANCES | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||
| Average assets | $ | 5,458,420 | $ | 5,559,896 | $ | 5,607,840 | $ | 5,352,067 | $ | 5,213,171 | ||||||
| Average tangible assets(1) | $ | 5,284,972 | $ | 5,386,001 | $ | 5,433,439 | $ | 5,177,114 | $ | 5,037,673 | ||||||
| Average earning assets | $ | 5,087,089 | $ | 5,188,317 | $ | 5,235,986 | $ | 4,980,082 | $ | 4,840,670 | ||||||
| Average loans held-for-sale | $ | 2,250 | $ | 2,290 | $ | 2,260 | $ | 1,493 | $ | 1,503 | ||||||
| Average loans held-for-investment | $ | 3,504,518 | $ | 3,429,014 | $ | 3,388,729 | $ | 3,359,647 | $ | 3,328,358 | ||||||
| Average deposits | $ | 4,618,007 | $ | 4,717,517 | $ | 4,771,491 | $ | 4,525,946 | $ | 4,394,545 | ||||||
| Average demand deposits – noninterest-bearing | $ | 1,146,494 | $ | 1,167,330 | $ | 1,222,393 | $ | 1,172,304 | $ | 1,127,145 | ||||||
| Average interest-bearing deposits | $ | 3,471,513 | $ | 3,550,187 | $ | 3,549,098 | $ | 3,353,642 | $ | 3,267,400 | ||||||
| Average interest-bearing liabilities | $ | 3,511,237 | $ | 3,589,872 | $ | 3,588,755 | $ | 3,393,264 | $ | 3,306,972 | ||||||
| Average equity | $ | 697,016 | $ | 692,733 | $ | 686,263 | $ | 680,404 | $ | 675,108 | ||||||
| Average tangible common equity(1) | $ | 523,568 | $ | 518,838 | $ | 511,862 | $ | 505,451 | $ | 499,610 | ||||||
(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
| End of Period: | Percent Change From: | ||||||||||||||||||
| CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS | June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | ||||||||||||||
| ASSETS | |||||||||||||||||||
| Cash and due from banks | $ | 55,360 | $ | 44,281 | $ | 37,497 | 25 | % | 48 | % | |||||||||
| Other investments and interest-bearing deposits | |||||||||||||||||||
| in other financial institutions | 666,432 | 700,769 | 610,763 | (5 | ) | % | 9 | % | |||||||||||
| Securities available-for-sale, at fair value | 307,035 | 370,976 | 273,043 | (17 | ) | % | 12 | % | |||||||||||
| Securities held-to-maturity, at amortized cost | 561,205 | 576,718 | 621,178 | (3 | ) | % | (10 | ) | % | ||||||||||
| Loans – held-for-sale – SBA, including deferred costs | 1,156 | 1,884 | 1,899 | (39 | ) | % | (39 | ) | % | ||||||||||
| Loans – held-for-investment: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Commercial | 492,231 | 489,241 | 477,929 | 1 | % | 3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Real estate: | |||||||||||||||||||
| CRE – owner occupied | 627,810 | 616,825 | 594,504 | 2 | % | 6 | % | ||||||||||||
| CRE – non-owner occupied | 1,390,419 | 1,363,275 | 1,283,323 | 2 | % | 8 | % | ||||||||||||
| Land and construction | 149,460 | 136,106 | 125,374 | 10 | % | 19 | % | ||||||||||||
| Home equity | 120,763 | 119,138 | 126,562 | 1 | % | (5 | ) | % | |||||||||||
| Multifamily | 285,016 | 284,510 | 268,968 | 0 | % | 6 | % | ||||||||||||
| Residential mortgages | 454,419 | 465,330 | 484,809 | (2 | ) | % | (6 | ) | % | ||||||||||
| Consumer and other | 14,661 | 12,741 | 18,758 | 15 | % | (22 | ) | % | |||||||||||
| Loans | 3,534,779 | 3,487,166 | 3,380,227 | 1 | % | 5 | % | ||||||||||||
| Deferred loan fees, net | (446 | ) | (268 | ) | (434 | ) | 66 | % | 3 | % | |||||||||
| Total loans – held-for-investment, net of deferred fees | 3,534,333 | 3,486,898 | 3,379,793 | 1 | % | 5 | % | ||||||||||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans | (48,633 | ) | (48,262 | ) | (47,954 | ) | 1 | % | 1 | % | |||||||||
| Loans, net | 3,485,700 | 3,438,636 | 3,331,839 | 1 | % | 5 | % | ||||||||||||
| Company-owned life insurance | 82,296 | 81,749 | 80,153 | 1 | % | 3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Premises and equipment, net | 9,765 | 9,772 | 10,310 | 0 | % | (5 | ) | % | |||||||||||
| Goodwill | 167,631 | 167,631 | 167,631 | 0 | % | 0 | % | ||||||||||||
| Other intangible assets | 5,532 | 5,986 | 7,521 | (8 | ) | % | (26 | ) | % | ||||||||||
| Accrued interest receivable and other assets | 125,125 | 115,853 | 121,190 | 8 | % | 3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 5,467,237 | $ | 5,514,255 | $ | 5,263,024 | (1 | ) | % | 4 | % | ||||||||
| LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY | |||||||||||||||||||
| Liabilities: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Demand, noninterest-bearing | $ | 1,151,242 | $ | 1,128,593 | $ | 1,187,320 | 2 | % | (3 | ) | % | ||||||||
| Demand, interest-bearing | 955,504 | 949,068 | 928,246 | 1 | % | 3 | % | ||||||||||||
| Savings and money market | 1,320,142 | 1,353,293 | 1,126,520 | (2 | ) | % | 17 | % | |||||||||||
| Time deposits – under $250 | 35,356 | 37,592 | 39,046 | (6 | ) | % | (9 | ) | % | ||||||||||
| Time deposits – $250 and over | 210,818 | 213,357 | 203,886 | (1 | ) | % | 3 | % | |||||||||||
| ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market | |||||||||||||||||||
| and time deposits | 954,272 | 1,001,365 | 959,592 | (5 | ) | % | (1 | ) | % | ||||||||||
| Total deposits | 4,627,334 | 4,683,268 | 4,444,610 | (1 | ) | % | 4 | % | |||||||||||
| Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs | 39,728 | 39,691 | 39,577 | 0 | % | 0 | % | ||||||||||||
| Accrued interest payable and other liabilities | 105,471 | 95,106 | 99,638 | 11 | % | 6 | % | ||||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 4,772,533 | 4,818,065 | 4,583,825 | (1 | ) | % | 4 | % | |||||||||||
| Shareholders’ Equity: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Common stock | 509,888 | 511,596 | 508,343 | 0 | % | 0 | % | ||||||||||||
| Retained earnings | 189,794 | 191,401 | 182,571 | (1 | ) | % | 4 | % | |||||||||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (4,978 | ) | (6,807 | ) | (11,715 | ) | (27 | ) | % | (58 | ) | % | |||||||
| Total shareholders’ equity | 694,704 | 696,190 | 679,199 | 0 | % | 2 | % | ||||||||||||
| Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 5,467,237 | $ | 5,514,255 | $ | 5,263,024 | (1 | ) | % | 4 | % | ||||||||
| End of Period: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | |||||||||||||||
| ASSETS | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cash and due from banks | $ | 55,360 | $ | 44,281 | $ | 29,864 | $ | 49,722 | $ | 37,497 | ||||||||||
| Other investments and interest-bearing deposits | ||||||||||||||||||||
| in other financial institutions | 666,432 | 700,769 | 938,259 | 906,588 | 610,763 | |||||||||||||||
| Securities available-for-sale, at fair value | 307,035 | 370,976 | 256,274 | 237,612 | 273,043 | |||||||||||||||
| Securities held-to-maturity, at amortized cost | 561,205 | 576,718 | 590,016 | 604,193 | 621,178 | |||||||||||||||
| Loans – held-for-sale – SBA, including deferred costs | 1,156 | 1,884 | 2,375 | 1,649 | 1,899 | |||||||||||||||
| Loans – held-for-investment: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Commercial | 492,231 | 489,241 | 531,350 | 481,266 | 477,929 | |||||||||||||||
| Real estate: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| CRE – owner occupied | 627,810 | 616,825 | 601,636 | 602,062 | 594,504 | |||||||||||||||
| CRE – non-owner occupied | 1,390,419 | 1,363,275 | 1,341,266 | 1,310,578 | 1,283,323 | |||||||||||||||
| Land and construction | 149,460 | 136,106 | 127,848 | 125,761 | 125,374 | |||||||||||||||
| Home equity | 120,763 | 119,138 | 127,963 | 124,090 | 126,562 | |||||||||||||||
| Multifamily | 285,016 | 284,510 | 275,490 | 273,103 | 268,968 | |||||||||||||||
| Residential mortgages | 454,419 | 465,330 | 471,730 | 479,524 | 484,809 | |||||||||||||||
| Consumer and other | 14,661 | 12,741 | 14,837 | 14,179 | 18,758 | |||||||||||||||
| Loans | 3,534,779 | 3,487,166 | 3,492,120 | 3,410,563 | 3,380,227 | |||||||||||||||
| Deferred loan fees, net | (446 | ) | (268 | ) | (183 | ) | (327 | ) | (434 | ) | ||||||||||
| Total loans – held-for-investment, net of deferred fees | 3,534,333 | 3,486,898 | 3,491,937 | 3,410,236 | 3,379,793 | |||||||||||||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans | (48,633 | ) | (48,262 | ) | (48,953 | ) | (47,819 | ) | (47,954 | ) | ||||||||||
| Loans, net | 3,485,700 | 3,438,636 | 3,442,984 | 3,362,417 | 3,331,839 | |||||||||||||||
| Company-owned life insurance | 82,296 | 81,749 | 81,211 | 80,682 | 80,153 | |||||||||||||||
| Premises and equipment, net | 9,765 | 9,772 | 10,140 | 10,398 | 10,310 | |||||||||||||||
| Goodwill | 167,631 | 167,631 | 167,631 | 167,631 | 167,631 | |||||||||||||||
| Other intangible assets | 5,532 | 5,986 | 6,439 | 6,966 | 7,521 | |||||||||||||||
| Accrued interest receivable and other assets | 125,125 | 115,853 | 119,813 | 123,738 | 121,190 | |||||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 5,467,237 | $ | 5,514,255 | $ | 5,645,006 | $ | 5,551,596 | $ | 5,263,024 | ||||||||||
| LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Liabilities: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Demand, noninterest-bearing | $ | 1,151,242 | $ | 1,128,593 | $ | 1,214,192 | $ | 1,272,139 | $ | 1,187,320 | ||||||||||
| Demand, interest-bearing | 955,504 | 949,068 | 936,587 | 913,910 | 928,246 | |||||||||||||||
| Savings and money market | 1,320,142 | 1,353,293 | 1,325,923 | 1,309,676 | 1,126,520 | |||||||||||||||
| Time deposits – under $250 | 35,356 | 37,592 | 38,988 | 39,060 | 39,046 | |||||||||||||||
| Time deposits – $250 and over | 210,818 | 213,357 | 206,755 | 196,945 | 203,886 | |||||||||||||||
| ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market | ||||||||||||||||||||
| and time deposits | 954,272 | 1,001,365 | 1,097,586 | 997,803 | 959,592 | |||||||||||||||
| Total deposits | 4,627,334 | 4,683,268 | 4,820,031 | 4,729,533 | 4,444,610 | |||||||||||||||
| Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs | 39,728 | 39,691 | 39,653 | 39,615 | 39,577 | |||||||||||||||
| Accrued interest payable and other liabilities | 105,471 | 95,106 | 95,595 | 97,096 | 99,638 | |||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 4,772,533 | 4,818,065 | 4,955,279 | 4,866,244 | 4,583,825 | |||||||||||||||
| Shareholders’ Equity: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Common stock | 509,888 | 511,596 | 510,070 | 509,134 | 508,343 | |||||||||||||||
| Retained earnings | 189,794 | 191,401 | 187,762 | 185,110 | 182,571 | |||||||||||||||
| Accumulated other comprehensive loss | (4,978 | ) | (6,807 | ) | (8,105 | ) | (8,892 | ) | (11,715 | ) | ||||||||||
| Total shareholders’ equity | 694,704 | 696,190 | 689,727 | 685,352 | 679,199 | |||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 5,467,237 | $ | 5,514,255 | $ | 5,645,006 | $ | 5,551,596 | $ | 5,263,024 | ||||||||||
| At or For the Quarter Ended: | Percent Change From: | |||||||||||||||
| CREDIT QUALITY DATA | June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | March 31, | June 30, | |||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | |||||||||||
| Nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment: | ||||||||||||||||
| Land and construction loans | $ | 4,198 | $ | 4,793 | $ | 4,774 | (12 | ) | % | (12 | ) | % | ||||
| Home equity and other loans | 728 | 927 | 108 | (21 | ) | % | 574 | % | ||||||||
| Residential mortgages | 607 | — | — | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||
| Commercial loans | 491 | 324 | 900 | 52 | % | (45 | ) | % | ||||||||
| CRE loans | 31 | — | — | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||
| Total nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment: | 6,055 | 6,044 | 5,782 | 0 | % | 5 | % | |||||||||
| Loans over 90 days past due | ||||||||||||||||
| and still accruing | 123 | 268 | 248 | (54 | ) | % | (50 | ) | % | |||||||
| Total nonperforming loans | 6,178 | 6,312 | 6,030 | (2 | ) | % | 2 | % | ||||||||
| Foreclosed assets | — | — | — | N/A | N/A | |||||||||||
| Total nonperforming assets | $ | 6,178 | $ | 6,312 | $ | 6,030 | (2 | ) | % | 2 | % | |||||
| Net charge-offs during the quarter | $ | 145 | $ | 965 | $ | 405 | (85 | ) | % | (64 | ) | % | ||||
| Provision for credit losses on loans during the quarter | $ | 516 | $ | 274 | $ | 471 | 88 | % | 10 | % | ||||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans | $ | 48,633 | $ | 48,262 | $ | 47,954 | 1 | % | 1 | % | ||||||
| Classified assets | $ | 37,525 | $ | 40,034 | $ | 33,605 | (6 | ) | % | 12 | % | |||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans to total loans | 1.38 | % | 1.38 | % | 1.42 | % | 0 | % | (3 | ) | % | |||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans to total nonperforming loans | 787.20 | % | 764.61 | % | 795.26 | % | 3 | % | (1 | ) | % | |||||
| Nonperforming assets to total assets | 0.11 | % | 0.11 | % | 0.11 | % | 0 | % | 0 | % | ||||||
| Nonperforming loans to total loans | 0.17 | % | 0.18 | % | 0.18 | % | (6 | ) | % | (6 | ) | % | ||||
| Classified assets to Heritage Commerce Corp | ||||||||||||||||
| Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans | 7 | % | 7 | % | 6 | % | 0 | % | 17 | % | ||||||
| Classified assets to Heritage Bank of Commerce | ||||||||||||||||
| Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans | 6 | % | 7 | % | 6 | % | (14 | ) | % | 0 | % | |||||
| OTHER PERIOD-END STATISTICS | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||
| Heritage Commerce Corp: | ||||||||||||||||
| Tangible common equity (1) | $ | 521,541 | $ | 522,573 | $ | 504,047 | 0 | % | 3 | % | ||||||
| Shareholders’ equity / total assets | 12.71 | % | 12.63 | % | 12.91 | % | 1 | % | (2 | ) | % | |||||
| Tangible common equity / tangible assets (1) | 9.85 | % | 9.78 | % | 9.91 | % | 1 | % | (1 | ) | % | |||||
| Loan to deposit ratio | 76.38 | % | 74.45 | % | 76.04 | % | 3 | % | 0 | % | ||||||
| Noninterest-bearing deposits / total deposits | 24.88 | % | 24.10 | % | 26.71 | % | 3 | % | (7 | ) | % | |||||
| Total capital ratio | 15.5 | % | 15.9 | % | 15.6 | % | (3 | ) | % | (1 | ) | % | ||||
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.3 | % | 13.6 | % | 13.4 | % | (2 | ) | % | (1 | ) | % | ||||
| Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.3 | % | 13.6 | % | 13.4 | % | (2 | ) | % | (1 | ) | % | ||||
| Tier 1 leverage ratio | 9.9 | % | 9.8 | % | 10.2 | % | 1 | % | (3 | ) | % | |||||
| Heritage Bank of Commerce: | ||||||||||||||||
| Tangible common equity / tangible assets (1) | 10.28 | % | 10.15 | % | 10.28 | % | 1 | % | 0 | % | ||||||
| Total capital ratio | 15.1 | % | 15.4 | % | 15.1 | % | (2 | ) | % | 0 | % | |||||
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.8 | % | 14.1 | % | 13.9 | % | (2 | ) | % | (1 | ) | % | ||||
| Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.8 | % | 14.1 | % | 13.9 | % | (2 | ) | % | (1 | ) | % | ||||
| Tier 1 leverage ratio | 10.4 | % | 10.2 | % | 10.6 | % | 2 | % | (2 | ) | % | |||||
(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
| At or For the Quarter Ended: | ||||||||||||||||
| CREDIT QUALITY DATA | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | |||||||||||
| Nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment: | ||||||||||||||||
| Land and construction loans | $ | 4,198 | $ | 4,793 | $ | 5,874 | $ | 5,862 | $ | 4,774 | ||||||
| Home equity and other loans | 728 | 927 | 290 | 84 | 108 | |||||||||||
| Residential mortgages | 607 | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Commercial loans | 491 | 324 | 1,014 | 752 | 900 | |||||||||||
| CRE loans | 31 | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Total nonaccrual loans – held-for-investment: | 6,055 | 6,044 | 7,178 | 6,698 | 5,782 | |||||||||||
| Loans over 90 days past due | ||||||||||||||||
| and still accruing | 123 | 268 | 489 | 460 | 248 | |||||||||||
| Total nonperforming loans | 6,178 | 6,312 | 7,667 | 7,158 | 6,030 | |||||||||||
| Foreclosed assets | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Total nonperforming assets | $ | 6,178 | $ | 6,312 | $ | 7,667 | $ | 7,158 | $ | 6,030 | ||||||
| Net charge-offs during the quarter | $ | 145 | $ | 965 | $ | 197 | $ | 288 | $ | 405 | ||||||
| Provision for credit losses on loans during the quarter | $ | 516 | $ | 274 | $ | 1,331 | $ | 153 | $ | 471 | ||||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans | $ | 48,633 | $ | 48,262 | $ | 48,953 | $ | 47,819 | $ | 47,954 | ||||||
| Classified assets | $ | 37,525 | $ | 40,034 | $ | 41,661 | $ | 32,609 | $ | 33,605 | ||||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans to total loans | 1.38 | % | 1.38 | % | 1.40 | % | 1.40 | % | 1.42 | % | ||||||
| Allowance for credit losses on loans to total nonperforming loans | 787.20 | % | 764.61 | % | 638.49 | % | 668.05 | % | 795.26 | % | ||||||
| Nonperforming assets to total assets | 0.11 | % | 0.11 | % | 0.14 | % | 0.13 | % | 0.11 | % | ||||||
| Nonperforming loans to total loans | 0.17 | % | 0.18 | % | 0.22 | % | 0.21 | % | 0.18 | % | ||||||
| Classified assets to Heritage Commerce Corp | ||||||||||||||||
| Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans | 7 | % | 7 | % | 7 | % | 6 | % | 6 | % | ||||||
| Classified assets to Heritage Bank of Commerce | ||||||||||||||||
| Tier 1 capital plus allowance for credit losses on loans | 6 | % | 7 | % | 7 | % | 6 | % | 6 | % | ||||||
| OTHER PERIOD-END STATISTICS | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | ||||||||||||||||
| Heritage Commerce Corp: | ||||||||||||||||
| Tangible common equity (1) | $ | 521,541 | $ | 522,573 | $ | 515,657 | $ | 510,755 | $ | 504,047 | ||||||
| Shareholders’ equity / total assets | 12.71 | % | 12.63 | % | 12.22 | % | 12.35 | % | 12.91 | % | ||||||
| Tangible common equity / tangible assets (1) | 9.85 | % | 9.78 | % | 9.43 | % | 9.50 | % | 9.91 | % | ||||||
| Loan to deposit ratio | 76.38 | % | 74.45 | % | 72.45 | % | 72.11 | % | 76.04 | % | ||||||
| Noninterest-bearing deposits / total deposits | 24.88 | % | 24.10 | % | 25.19 | % | 26.90 | % | 26.71 | % | ||||||
| Total capital ratio | 15.5 | % | 15.9 | % | 15.6 | % | 15.6 | % | 15.6 | % | ||||||
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.3 | % | 13.6 | % | 13.4 | % | 13.4 | % | 13.4 | % | ||||||
| Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.3 | % | 13.6 | % | 13.4 | % | 13.4 | % | 13.4 | % | ||||||
| Tier 1 leverage ratio | 9.9 | % | 9.8 | % | 9.6 | % | 10.0 | % | 10.2 | % | ||||||
| Heritage Bank of Commerce: | ||||||||||||||||
| Tangible common equity / tangible assets (1) | 10.28 | % | 10.15 | % | 9.79 | % | 9.86 | % | 10.28 | % | ||||||
| Total capital ratio | 15.1 | % | 15.4 | % | 15.1 | % | 15.1 | % | 15.1 | % | ||||||
| Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.8 | % | 14.1 | % | 13.9 | % | 13.9 | % | 13.9 | % | ||||||
| Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.8 | % | 14.1 | % | 13.9 | % | 13.9 | % | 13.9 | % | ||||||
| Tier 1 leverage ratio | 10.4 | % | 10.2 | % | 10.0 | % | 10.4 | % | 10.6 | % | ||||||
(1)This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
| For the Quarter Ended | For the Quarter Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||
| June 30, 2025 | March 31, 2025 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest | Average | Interest | Average | ||||||||||||||||||
| NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN | Average | Income/ | Yield/ | Average | Income/ | Yield/ | |||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | Balance | Expense | Rate | Balance | Expense | Rate | |||||||||||||||
| Assets: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans, core bank | $ | 3,020,534 | 41,738 | 5.54 | % | $ | 2,945,072 | $ | 39,758 | 5.47 | % | ||||||||||
| Prepayment fees | — | 473 | 0.06 | % | — | 224 | 0.03 | % | |||||||||||||
| Bay View Funding factored receivables | 67,756 | 3,347 | 19.81 | % | 60,250 | 2,942 | 19.80 | % | |||||||||||||
| Purchased residential mortgages | 420,280 | 3,548 | 3.39 | % | 427,963 | 3,597 | 3.41 | % | |||||||||||||
| Loan fair value mark / accretion | (1,802 | ) | 172 | 0.02 | % | (1,981 | ) | 181 | 0.02 | % | |||||||||||
| Loans, gross (1)(2) | 3,506,768 | 49,278 | 5.64 | % | 3,431,304 | 46,702 | 5.52 | % | |||||||||||||
| Securities – taxable | 902,642 | 6,346 | 2.82 | % | 876,092 | 5,559 | 2.57 | % | |||||||||||||
| Securities – exempt from Federal tax (3) | 30,259 | 272 | 3.61 | % | 30,480 | 275 | 3.66 | % | |||||||||||||
| Other investments and interest-bearing deposits | |||||||||||||||||||||
| in other financial institutions | 647,420 | 7,186 | 4.45 | % | 850,441 | 9,354 | 4.46 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest earning assets (3) | 5,087,089 | 63,082 | 4.97 | % | 5,188,317 | 61,890 | 4.84 | % | |||||||||||||
| Cash and due from banks | 31,044 | 31,869 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Premises and equipment, net | 9,958 | 10,007 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Goodwill and other intangible assets | 173,448 | 173,895 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Other assets | 156,881 | 155,808 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 5,458,420 | $ | 5,559,896 | |||||||||||||||||
| Liabilities and shareholders’ equity: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Demand, noninterest-bearing | $ | 1,146,494 | $ | 1,167,330 | |||||||||||||||||
| Demand, interest-bearing | 949,867 | 1,484 | 0.63 | % | 944,375 | 1,438 | 0.62 | % | |||||||||||||
| Savings and money market | 1,313,054 | 8,205 | 2.51 | % | 1,323,038 | 8,073 | 2.47 | % | |||||||||||||
| Time deposits – under $100 | 11,456 | 49 | 1.72 | % | 11,383 | 47 | 1.67 | % | |||||||||||||
| Time deposits – $100 and over | 231,644 | 1,995 | 3.45 | % | 234,421 | 2,129 | 3.68 | % | |||||||||||||
| ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market | |||||||||||||||||||||
| and time deposits | 965,492 | 5,949 | 2.47 | % | 1,036,970 | 6,248 | 2.44 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing deposits | 3,471,513 | 17,682 | 2.04 | % | 3,550,187 | 17,935 | 2.05 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total deposits | 4,618,007 | 17,682 | 1.54 | % | 4,717,517 | 17,935 | 1.54 | % | |||||||||||||
| Short-term borrowings | 19 | — | 0.00 | % | 18 | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||
| Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs | 39,705 | 538 | 5.43 | % | 39,667 | 537 | 5.49 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities | 3,511,237 | 18,220 | 2.08 | % | 3,589,872 | 18,472 | 2.09 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities and demand, | |||||||||||||||||||||
| noninterest-bearing / cost of funds | 4,657,731 | 18,220 | 1.57 | % | 4,757,202 | 18,472 | 1.57 | % | |||||||||||||
| Other liabilities | 103,673 | 109,961 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 4,761,404 | 4,867,163 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Shareholders’ equity | 697,016 | 692,733 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 5,458,420 | $ | 5,559,896 | |||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income / margin (3) | 44,862 | 3.54 | % | 43,418 | 3.39 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Less tax equivalent adjustment (3) | (57 | ) | (58 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income | $ | 44,805 | 3.53 | % | $ | 43,360 | 3.39 | % | |||||||||||||
(1)Includes loans held-for-sale. Nonaccrual loans are included in average balances.
(2)Yield amounts earned on loans include fees and costs. The accretion of net deferred loan fees into loan interest income was $253,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $214,000 for the first quarter of 2025. Prepayment fees totaled $473,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $224,000 for the first quarter of 2025.
(3)Reflects the FTE adjustment for Federal tax-exempt income based on a 21% tax rate. This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial
Measures” in this press release.
| For the Quarter Ended | For the Quarter Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||
| June 30, 2025 | June 30, 2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest | Average | Interest | Average | ||||||||||||||||||
| NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN | Average | Income/ | Yield/ | Average | Income/ | Yield/ | |||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | Balance | Expense | Rate | Balance | Expense | Rate | |||||||||||||||
| Assets: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans, core bank | $ | 3,020,534 | $ | 41,738 | 5.54 | % | $ | 2,830,260 | $ | 38,496 | 5.47 | % | |||||||||
| Prepayment fees | — | 473 | 0.06 | % | — | 54 | 0.01 | % | |||||||||||||
| Bay View Funding factored receivables | 67,756 | 3,347 | 19.81 | % | 54,777 | 2,914 | 21.40 | % | |||||||||||||
| Purchased residential mortgages | 420,280 | 3,548 | 3.39 | % | 447,687 | 3,739 | 3.36 | % | |||||||||||||
| Loan fair value mark / accretion | (1,802 | ) | 172 | 0.02 | % | (2,863 | ) | 267 | 0.04 | % | |||||||||||
| Loans, gross (1)(2) | 3,506,768 | 49,278 | 5.64 | % | 3,329,861 | 45,470 | 5.49 | % | |||||||||||||
| Securities – taxable | 902,642 | 6,346 | 2.82 | % | 942,532 | 5,483 | 2.34 | % | |||||||||||||
| Securities – exempt from Federal tax (3) | 30,259 | 272 | 3.61 | % | 31,803 | 285 | 3.60 | % | |||||||||||||
| Other investments and interest-bearing deposits | |||||||||||||||||||||
| in other financial institutions | 647,420 | 7,186 | 4.45 | % | 536,474 | 7,311 | 5.48 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest earning assets (3) | 5,087,089 | 63,082 | 4.97 | % | 4,840,670 | 58,549 | 4.86 | % | |||||||||||||
| Cash and due from banks | 31,044 | 33,419 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Premises and equipment, net | 9,958 | 10,216 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Goodwill and other intangible assets | 173,448 | 175,498 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Other assets | 156,881 | 153,368 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 5,458,420 | $ | 5,213,171 | |||||||||||||||||
| Liabilities and shareholders’ equity: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Demand, noninterest-bearing | $ | 1,146,494 | $ | 1,127,145 | |||||||||||||||||
| Demand, interest-bearing | 949,867 | 1,484 | 0.63 | % | 932,100 | 1,719 | 0.74 | % | |||||||||||||
| Savings and money market | 1,313,054 | 8,205 | 2.51 | % | 1,104,589 | 7,867 | 2.86 | % | |||||||||||||
| Time deposits – under $100 | 11,456 | 49 | 1.72 | % | 10,980 | 46 | 1.68 | % | |||||||||||||
| Time deposits – $100 and over | 231,644 | 1,995 | 3.45 | % | 228,248 | 2,245 | 3.96 | % | |||||||||||||
| ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market | |||||||||||||||||||||
| and time deposits | 965,492 | 5,949 | 2.47 | % | 991,483 | 7,207 | 2.92 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing deposits | 3,471,513 | 17,682 | 2.04 | % | 3,267,400 | 19,084 | 2.35 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total deposits | 4,618,007 | 17,682 | 1.54 | % | 4,394,545 | 19,084 | 1.75 | % | |||||||||||||
| Short-term borrowings | 19 | — | 0.00 | % | 19 | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||
| Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs | 39,705 | 538 | 5.43 | % | 39,553 | 538 | 5.47 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities | 3,511,237 | 18,220 | 2.08 | % | 3,306,972 | 19,622 | 2.39 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities and demand, | |||||||||||||||||||||
| noninterest-bearing / cost of funds | 4,657,731 | 18,220 | 1.57 | % | 4,434,117 | 19,622 | 1.78 | % | |||||||||||||
| Other liabilities | 103,673 | 103,946 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 4,761,404 | 4,538,063 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Shareholders’ equity | 697,016 | 675,108 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 5,458,420 | $ | 5,213,171 | |||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income / margin (3) | 44,862 | 3.54 | % | 38,927 | 3.23 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Less tax equivalent adjustment (3) | (57 | ) | (60 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income | $ | 44,805 | 3.53 | % | $ | 38,867 | 3.23 | % | |||||||||||||
(1)Includes loans held-for-sale. Nonaccrual loans are included in average balances.
(2)Yield amounts earned on loans include fees and costs. The accretion of net deferred loan fees into loan interest income was $253,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $117,000 for the second quarter of 2024. Prepayment fees totaled $473,000 for the second quarter of 2025, compared to $54,000 for the second quarter of 2024.
(3)Reflects the FTE adjustment for Federal tax-exempt income based on a 21% tax rate. This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” in this press release.
| For the Six Months Ended | For the Six Months Ended | ||||||||||||||||||||
| June 30, 2025 | June 30, 2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Interest | Average | Interest | Average | ||||||||||||||||||
| NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN | Average | Income/ | Yield/ | Average | Income/ | Yield/ | |||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | Balance | Expense | Rate | Balance | Expense | Rate | |||||||||||||||
| Assets: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Loans, core bank | $ | 2,983,011 | $ | 81,496 | 5.51 | % | $ | 2,812,805 | $ | 76,217 | 5.45 | % | |||||||||
| Prepayment fees | — | 697 | 0.05 | % | — | 78 | 0.01 | % | |||||||||||||
| Bay View Funding factored receivables | 64,024 | 6,289 | 19.81 | % | 54,144 | 5,752 | 21.36 | % | |||||||||||||
| Purchased residential mortgages | 424,101 | 7,145 | 3.40 | % | 450,964 | 7,527 | 3.36 | % | |||||||||||||
| Loan fair value mark / accretion | (1,891 | ) | 353 | 0.02 | % | (2,988 | ) | 496 | 0.04 | % | |||||||||||
| Loans, gross (1)(2) | 3,469,245 | 95,980 | 5.58 | % | 3,314,925 | 90,070 | 5.46 | % | |||||||||||||
| Securities – taxable | 889,440 | 11,905 | 2.70 | % | 992,508 | 11,666 | 2.36 | % | |||||||||||||
| Securities – exempt from Federal tax (3) | 30,369 | 547 | 3.63 | % | 31,871 | 571 | 3.60 | % | |||||||||||||
| Other investments, interest-bearing deposits in other | |||||||||||||||||||||
| financial institutions and Federal funds sold | 748,370 | 16,540 | 4.46 | % | 486,283 | 13,263 | 5.48 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest earning assets (3) | 5,137,424 | 124,972 | 4.91 | % | 4,825,587 | 115,570 | 4.82 | % | |||||||||||||
| Cash and due from banks | 31,454 | 33,316 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Premises and equipment, net | 9,982 | 10,115 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Goodwill and other intangible assets | 173,671 | 175,769 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Other assets | 156,347 | 151,116 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets | $ | 5,508,878 | $ | 5,195,903 | |||||||||||||||||
| Liabilities and shareholders’ equity: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Deposits: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Demand, noninterest-bearing | $ | 1,156,854 | $ | 1,152,111 | |||||||||||||||||
| Demand, interest-bearing | 947,137 | 2,922 | 0.62 | % | 926,074 | 3,273 | 0.71 | % | |||||||||||||
| Savings and money market | 1,318,018 | 16,278 | 2.49 | % | 1,086,085 | 14,516 | 2.69 | % | |||||||||||||
| Time deposits – under $100 | 11,420 | 96 | 1.70 | % | 10,962 | 88 | 1.61 | % | |||||||||||||
| Time deposits – $100 and over | 233,025 | 4,124 | 3.57 | % | 224,730 | 4,309 | 3.86 | % | |||||||||||||
| ICS/CDARS – interest-bearing demand, money market | |||||||||||||||||||||
| and time deposits | 1,001,033 | 12,197 | 2.46 | % | 977,385 | 13,818 | 2.84 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing deposits | 3,510,633 | 35,617 | 2.05 | % | 3,225,236 | 36,004 | 2.24 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total deposits | 4,667,487 | 35,617 | 1.54 | % | 4,377,347 | 36,004 | 1.65 | % | |||||||||||||
| Short-term borrowings | 19 | — | 0.00 | % | 17 | — | 0.00 | % | |||||||||||||
| Subordinated debt, net of issuance costs | 39,686 | 1,075 | 5.46 | % | 39,535 | 1,076 | 5.47 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities | 3,550,338 | 36,692 | 2.08 | % | 3,264,788 | 37,080 | 2.28 | % | |||||||||||||
| Total interest-bearing liabilities and demand, | |||||||||||||||||||||
| noninterest-bearing / cost of funds | 4,707,192 | 36,692 | 1.57 | % | 4,416,899 | 37,080 | 1.69 | % | |||||||||||||
| Other liabilities | 106,800 | 105,304 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities | 4,813,992 | 4,522,203 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Shareholders’ equity | 694,886 | 673,700 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 5,508,878 | $ | 5,195,903 | |||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income / margin (3) | 88,280 | 3.47 | % | 78,490 | 3.27 | % | |||||||||||||||
| Less tax equivalent adjustment (3) | (115 | ) | (120 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
| Net interest income | $ | 88,165 | 3.46 | % | $ | 78,370 | 3.27 | % | |||||||||||||
(1)Includes loans held-for-sale. Nonaccrual loans are included in average balances.
(2)Yield amounts earned on loans include fees and costs. The accretion of net deferred loan fees into loan interest income was $467,000 for the first six months of 2025, compared to $277,000 for the six months of 2024. Prepayment fees totaled $697,000 for the first six months of 2025, compared to $78,000 for the first six months of 2024.
(3)Reflects the FTE adjustment for Federal tax-exempt income based on a 21% tax rate. This is a non-GAAP financial measure as defined and discussed under “Non-GAAP Financial
Measures” in this press release.
RECONCILIATION OF NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
Management considers net income and earnings per share adjusted to exclude the $9.2 million of charges primarily related to a legal settlement in the second quarter and first six months of 2025 as a useful measurement of the Company’s profitability compared to prior periods.
The following table summarizes components of net income and diluted earnings per share for the periods indicated:
| NET INCOME AND | For the Quarter Ended: | |||||||||||||||
| DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||
| (in $000’s, except per share amounts, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | |||||||||||
| Reported net income (GAAP) | $ | 6,389 | $ | 11,626 | $ | 10,621 | $ | 10,507 | $ | 9,234 | ||||||
| Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | 9,184 | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Less: related income taxes | (2,618 | ) | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||
| Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) | $ | 12,955 | $ | 11,626 | $ | 10,621 | $ | 10,507 | $ | 9,234 | ||||||
| Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted | 61,624,600 | 61,708,361 | 61,679,735 | 61,546,157 | 61,438,088 | |||||||||||
| Reported diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.10 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.15 | ||||||
| Adjusted diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.21 | $ | 0.19 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.17 | $ | 0.15 | ||||||
| NET INCOME AND | For the Six Months Ended: | ||||||
| DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE | June 30, | June 30, | |||||
| (in $000’s, except per share amounts, unaudited) | 2025 | 2024 | |||||
| Reported net income (GAAP) | $ | 18,015 | $ | 19,400 | |||
| Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | 9,184 | — | |||||
| Less: related income taxes | (2,618 | ) | — | ||||
| Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) | $ | 24,581 | $ | 19,400 | |||
| Weighted average shares outstanding – diluted | 61,664,942 | 61,446,484 | |||||
| Reported diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.29 | $ | 0.32 | |||
| Adjusted diluted earnings per share | $ | 0.40 | $ | 0.32 | |||
Management considers tangible book value per share as a useful measurement of the Company’s equity. The Company references the return on average tangible common equity and the return on average tangible assets as measurements of profitability.
The following table summarizes components of the tangible book value per share at the dates indicated:
| TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | ||||||||||||||||
| Capital components: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total equity (GAAP) | $ | 694,704 | $ | 696,190 | $ | 689,727 | $ | 685,352 | $ | 679,199 | |||||||||||
| Less: preferred stock | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Total common equity | 694,704 | 696,190 | 689,727 | 685,352 | 679,199 | ||||||||||||||||
| Less: goodwill | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | |||||||||||
| Less: other intangible assets | (5,532 | ) | (5,986 | ) | (6,439 | ) | (6,966 | ) | (7,521 | ) | |||||||||||
| Reported tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | 521,541 | 522,573 | 515,657 | 510,755 | 504,047 | ||||||||||||||||
| Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | 9,184 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Less: related income taxes | (2,618 | ) | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
| Adjusted tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | $ | 528,107 | $ | 522,573 | $ | 515,657 | $ | 510,755 | $ | 504,047 | |||||||||||
| Common shares outstanding at period-end | 61,446,763 | 61,611,121 | 61,348,095 | 61,297,344 | 61,292,094 | ||||||||||||||||
| Reported tangible book value per share (non-GAAP) | $ | 8.49 | $ | 8.48 | $ | 8.41 | $ | 8.33 | $ | 8.22 | |||||||||||
| Adjusted tangible book value per share (non-GAAP) | $ | 8.59 | $ | 8.48 | $ | 8.41 | $ | 8.33 | $ | 8.22 | |||||||||||
The following tables summarize components of the annualized return on average equity, annualized return on average tangible common equity and the annualized return on average assets for the periods indicated:
| RETURN ON AVERAGE TANGIBLE COMMON | For the Quarter Ended: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| EQUITY AND AVERAGE ASSETS | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | ||||||||||||||||
| Reported net income (GAAP) | $ | 6,389 | $ | 11,626 | $ | 10,621 | $ | 10,507 | $ | 9,234 | |||||||||||
| Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | 9,184 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Less: related income taxes | (2,618 | ) | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
| Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) | $ | 12,955 | $ | 11,626 | $ | 10,621 | $ | 10,507 | $ | 9,234 | |||||||||||
| Average tangible common equity components: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Average equity (GAAP) | $ | 697,016 | $ | 692,733 | $ | 686,263 | $ | 680,404 | $ | 675,108 | |||||||||||
| Less: goodwill | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | |||||||||||
| Less: other intangible assets | (5,817 | ) | (6,264 | ) | (6,770 | ) | (7,322 | ) | (7,867 | ) | |||||||||||
| Total average tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | $ | 523,568 | $ | 518,838 | $ | 511,862 | $ | 505,451 | $ | 499,610 | |||||||||||
| Annualized return on average equity (GAAP) | 3.68 | % | 6.81 | % | 6.16 | % | 6.14 | % | 5.50 | % | |||||||||||
| Reported annualized return on average | |||||||||||||||||||||
| tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | 4.89 | % | 9.09 | % | 8.25 | % | 8.27 | % | 7.43 | % | |||||||||||
| Adjusted annualized return on average | |||||||||||||||||||||
| tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | 9.92 | % | 9.09 | % | 8.25 | % | 8.27 | % | 7.43 | % | |||||||||||
| Average assets (GAAP) | $ | 5,458,420 | $ | 5,559,896 | $ | 5,607,840 | $ | 5,352,067 | $ | 5,213,171 | |||||||||||
| Reported annualized return on average assets (GAAP) | 0.47 | % | 0.85 | % | 0.75 | % | 0.78 | % | 0.71 | % | |||||||||||
| Adjusted annualized return on average assets (non-GAAP) | 0.95 | % | 0.85 | % | 0.75 | % | 0.78 | % | 0.71 | % | |||||||||||
| RETURN ON AVERAGE TANGIBLE COMMON | For the Six Months Ended: | ||||||||
| EQUITY AND AVERAGE ASSETS | June 30, | June 30, | |||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2024 | |||||||
| Reported net income (GAAP) | $ | 18,015 | $ | 19,400 | |||||
| Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | 9,184 | — | |||||||
| Less: related income taxes | (2,618 | ) | — | ||||||
| Adjusted net income (non-GAAP) | $ | 24,581 | $ | 19,400 | |||||
| Average tangible common equity components: | |||||||||
| Average equity (GAAP) | $ | 694,886 | $ | 673,700 | |||||
| Less: goodwill | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | |||||
| Less: other intangible assets | (6,040 | ) | (8,138 | ) | |||||
| Total average tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | $ | 521,215 | $ | 497,931 | |||||
| Annualized return on average equity (GAAP) | 5.23 | % | 5.79 | % | |||||
| Reported annualized return on average | |||||||||
| tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | 6.97 | % | 7.84 | % | |||||
| Adjusted annualized return on average | |||||||||
| tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | 9.51 | % | 7.84 | % | |||||
| Average assets (GAAP) | $ | 5,508,878 | $ | 5,195,903 | |||||
| Reported annualized return on average assets (GAAP) | 0.66 | % | 0.75 | % | |||||
| Adjusted annualized return on average assets (non-GAAP) | 0.90 | % | 0.75 | % | |||||
Management reviews yields on certain asset categories and the net interest margin of the Company on an FTE basis. In this non-GAAP presentation, net interest income is adjusted to reflect tax-exempt interest income on an equivalent before-tax basis using tax rates effective as of the end of the period. This measure ensures comparability of net interest income arising from both taxable and tax-exempt sources. The following tables summarize components of FTE net interest income of the Company for the periods indicated:
| For the Quarter Ended: | ||||||||||||||||
| NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | |||||||||||
| Net interest income before | ||||||||||||||||
| credit losses on loans (GAAP) | $ | 44,805 | $ | 43,360 | $ | 43,595 | $ | 39,329 | $ | 38,867 | ||||||
| Tax-equivalent adjustment on securities – | ||||||||||||||||
| exempt from Federal tax | 57 | 58 | 58 | 59 | 60 | |||||||||||
| Net interest income, FTE (non-GAAP) | $ | 44,862 | $ | 43,418 | $ | 43,653 | $ | 39,388 | $ | 38,927 | ||||||
| Average balance of total interest earning assets | $ | 5,087,089 | $ | 5,188,317 | $ | 5,235,986 | $ | 4,980,082 | $ | 4,840,670 | ||||||
| Net interest margin (annualized net interest income divided by the | ||||||||||||||||
| average balance of total interest earnings assets) (GAAP) | 3.53 | % | 3.39 | % | 3.31 | % | 3.14 | % | 3.23 | % | ||||||
| Net interest margin, FTE (annualized net interest income, FTE, | ||||||||||||||||
| divided by the average balance of total | ||||||||||||||||
| earnings assets) (non-GAAP) | 3.54 | % | 3.39 | % | 3.32 | % | 3.15 | % | 3.23 | % | ||||||
| For the Six Months Ended: | |||||||
| NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN | June 30, | June 30, | |||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2024 | |||||
| Net interest income before | |||||||
| credit losses on loans (GAAP) | $ | 88,165 | $ | 78,370 | |||
| Tax-equivalent adjustment on securities – exempt from Federal tax | 115 | 120 | |||||
| Net interest income, FTE (non-GAAP) | $ | 88,280 | $ | 78,490 | |||
| Average balance of total interest earning assets | $ | 5,137,424 | $ | 4,825,587 | |||
| Net interest margin (annualized net interest income divided by the | |||||||
| average balance of total interest earnings assets) (GAAP) | 3.46 | % | 3.27 | % | |||
| Net interest margin, FTE (annualized net interest income, FTE, divided by the | |||||||
| average balance of total interest earnings assets) (non-GAAP) | 3.47 | % | 3.27 | % | |||
Management views its non-GAAP PPNR as a key metric for assessing the Company’s earnings power. The following table summarizes the components of PPNR for the periods indicated:
| For the Quarter Ended: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| PRE-PROVISION NET REVENUE | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | |||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2025 | 2024 | |||||||||||||||
| Net interest income before credit losses on loans | $ | 44,805 | $ | 43,360 | $ | 43,595 | $ | 39,329 | $ | 38,867 | ||||||||||
| Noninterest income | 2,977 | 2,696 | 2,775 | 2,826 | 2,864 | |||||||||||||||
| Total revenue | 47,782 | 46,056 | 46,370 | $ | 42,155 | $ | 41,731 | |||||||||||||
| Less: Noninterest expense | (38,335 | ) | (29,456 | ) | (30,304 | ) | (27,555 | ) | (28,188 | ) | ||||||||||
| Reported PPNR (non-GAAP) | 9,447 | 16,600 | 16,066 | $ | 14,600 | $ | 13,543 | |||||||||||||
| Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | 9,184 | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
| Adjusted PPNR (non-GAAP) | $ | 18,631 | $ | 16,600 | $ | 16,066 | $ | 14,600 | $ | 13,543 | ||||||||||
| For the Six Months Ended: | ||||||||
| PRE-PROVISION NET REVENUE | June 30, | June 30, | ||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2024 | ||||||
| Net interest income before credit losses on loans | $ | 88,165 | $ | 78,370 | ||||
| Noninterest income | 5,673 | 5,501 | ||||||
| Total revenue | 93,838 | 83,871 | ||||||
| Less: Noninterest expense | (67,791 | ) | (55,724 | ) | ||||
| Reported PPNR (non-GAAP) | 26,047 | 28,147 | ||||||
| Add: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | 9,184 | — | ||||||
| Adjusted PPNR (non-GAAP) | $ | 35,231 | $ | 28,147 | ||||
The efficiency ratio is a non-GAAP financial measure, which is calculated by dividing noninterest expense by total revenue (net interest income plus noninterest income), and measures how much it costs to produce one dollar of revenue. The following tables summarize components of noninterest expense and the efficiency ratio of the Company for the periods indicated:
| For the Quarter Ended: | |||||||||||||||||
| NONINTEREST EXPENSE AND EFFICIENCY RATIO | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | ||||||||||||
| Reported noninterest expense (GAAP) | $ | 38,335 | $ | 29,456 | $ | 30,304 | $ | 27,555 | $ | 28,188 | |||||||
| Less: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | (9,184 | ) | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Adjusted noninterest expense (non-GAAP) | $ | 29,151 | $ | 29,456 | $ | 30,304 | $ | 27,555 | $ | 28,188 | |||||||
| Net interest income before credit losses on loans | $ | 44,805 | $ | 43,360 | $ | 43,595 | $ | 39,329 | $ | 38,867 | |||||||
| Noninterest income | 2,977 | 2,696 | 2,775 | 2,826 | 2,864 | ||||||||||||
| Total revenue | $ | 47,782 | $ | 46,056 | $ | 46,370 | $ | 42,155 | $ | 41,731 | |||||||
| Reported efficiency ratio (noninterest expense divided | |||||||||||||||||
| by total revenue) (non-GAAP) | 80.23 | % | 63.96 | % | 65.35 | % | 65.37 | % | 67.55 | % | |||||||
| Adjusted efficiency ratio (adjusted noninterest expense | |||||||||||||||||
| divided by total revenue) (non-GAAP) | 61.01 | % | 63.96 | % | 65.35 | % | 65.37 | % | 67.55 | % | |||||||
| For the Six Months Ended: | ||||||||
| NONINTEREST EXPENSE AND EFFICIENCY RATIO | June 30, | June 30, | ||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2024 | ||||||
| Reported noninterest expense (GAAP) | $ | 67,791 | $ | 55,724 | ||||
| Less: pre-tax legal settlement and other charges | (9,184 | ) | — | |||||
| Adjusted noninterest expense (non-GAAP) | $ | 58,607 | $ | 55,724 | ||||
| Net interest income before credit losses on loans | $ | 88,165 | $ | 79,548 | ||||
| Noninterest income | 5,673 | 4,323 | ||||||
| Total revenue | $ | 93,838 | $ | 83,871 | ||||
| Reported efficiency ratio (noninterest expense divided | ||||||||
| by total revenue) (non-GAAP) | 72.24 | % | 66.44 | % | ||||
| Adjusted efficiency ratio (adjusted noninterest expense | ||||||||
| divided by total revenue) (non-GAAP) | 62.46 | % | 66.44 | % | ||||
Management considers the tangible common equity ratio as a useful measurement of the Company’s and the Bank’s equity. The following table summarizes components of the tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio of the Company at the dates indicated:
| TANGIBLE COMMON EQUITY TO TANGIBLE ASSETS | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | ||||||||||||||||
| Capital components: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total equity (GAAP) | $ | 694,704 | $ | 696,190 | $ | 689,727 | $ | 685,352 | $ | 679,199 | |||||||||||
| Less: preferred stock | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Total common equity | 694,704 | 696,190 | 689,727 | 685,352 | 679,199 | ||||||||||||||||
| Less: goodwill | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | |||||||||||
| Less: other intangible assets | (5,532 | ) | (5,986 | ) | (6,439 | ) | (6,966 | ) | (7,521 | ) | |||||||||||
| Total tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | $ | 521,541 | $ | 522,573 | $ | 515,657 | $ | 510,755 | $ | 504,047 | |||||||||||
| Asset components: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets (GAAP) | $ | 5,467,237 | $ | 5,514,255 | $ | 5,645,006 | $ | 5,551,596 | $ | 5,263,024 | |||||||||||
| Less: goodwill | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | |||||||||||
| Less: other intangible assets | (5,532 | ) | (5,986 | ) | (6,439 | ) | (6,966 | ) | (7,521 | ) | |||||||||||
| Total tangible assets (non-GAAP) | $ | 5,294,074 | $ | 5,340,638 | $ | 5,470,936 | $ | 5,376,999 | $ | 5,087,872 | |||||||||||
| Tangible common equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP) | 9.85 | % | 9.78 | % | 9.43 | % | 9.50 | % | 9.91 | % | |||||||||||
The following table summarizes components of the tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio of the Bank at the dates indicated:
| TANGIBLE COMMON EQUITY TO TANGIBLE ASSETS | June 30, | March 31, | December 31, | September 30, | June 30, | ||||||||||||||||
| (in $000’s, unaudited) | 2025 | 2025 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | ||||||||||||||||
| Capital components: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total equity (GAAP) | $ | 717,103 | $ | 715,605 | $ | 709,379 | $ | 704,585 | $ | 697,964 | |||||||||||
| Less: preferred stock | — | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
| Total common equity | 717,103 | 715,605 | 709,379 | 704,585 | 697,964 | ||||||||||||||||
| Less: goodwill | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | |||||||||||
| Less: other intangible assets | (5,532 | ) | (5,986 | ) | (6,439 | ) | (6,966 | ) | (7,521 | ) | |||||||||||
| Total tangible common equity (non-GAAP) | $ | 543,940 | $ | 541,988 | $ | 535,309 | $ | 529,988 | $ | 522,812 | |||||||||||
| Asset components: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total assets (GAAP) | $ | 5,464,618 | $ | 5,512,160 | $ | 5,641,646 | $ | 5,548,576 | $ | 5,260,500 | |||||||||||
| Less: goodwill | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | (167,631 | ) | |||||||||||
| Less: other intangible assets | (5,532 | ) | (5,986 | ) | (6,439 | ) | (6,966 | ) | (7,521 | ) | |||||||||||
| Total tangible assets (non-GAAP) | $ | 5,291,455 | $ | 5,338,543 | $ | 5,467,576 | $ | 5,373,979 | $ | 5,085,348 | |||||||||||
| Tangible common equity / tangible assets (non-GAAP) | 10.28 | % | 10.15 | % | 9.79 | % | 9.86 | % | 10.28 | % | |||||||||||
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
SAN JOSE, Calif., July 24, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Heritage Commerce Corp (NASDAQ: HTBK) (the “Company”), parent company of Heritage Bank of Commerce (the “Bank”), today announced the appointment of Seth Fonti as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and the Bank, effective July 24, 2025.
Mr. Fonti brings more than two decades of financial and strategic leadership experience across global and domestic banking institutions. Most recently, he served as Managing Director and Head of Strategy, Corporate Development, and Strategic Finance for MUFG Americas Holding Corporation (“MUFG Americas”), the regional arm of one of the world’s top ten global banks. In this role, he developed and led transformative initiatives across strategy, enterprise-wide financial planning, organizational effectiveness, balance sheet optimization, risk management, and capital planning, positioning him well to add immediate value to the Heritage team.
“Seth is a forward-thinking and trusted financial leader with an impressive record of driving growth, increasing efficiency, and leading through complex transformations,” said Clay Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Bank of Commerce. “His depth of experience and integrity-based approach make him an excellent fit for Heritage as we continue our focus on sustainable growth and strong financial performance.”
“I’m thrilled to be joining Heritage Bank of Commerce during such a dynamic time for the organization,” said Mr. Fonti. “I look forward to working with the talented leadership team to build on the bank’s legacy of client-centered service and strong financial stewardship.”
During his tenure at MUFG Americas, Mr. Fonti established proven agility in setting and executing enterprise strategy, driving enhanced financial performance via growth and efficiency initiatives, enhanced core business profitability, and shaping a simplified, technology-oriented operating model, enabling improved client service and execution. He was hand-selected for MUFG Americas’ Global Leaders Forum as a top 0.1% manager and is widely recognized for his collaborative leadership with a focus on building and developing high performing teams and culture. Prior to MUFG Americas, Mr. Fonti was a financial institutions investment banker with Macquarie Capital, Fox-Pitt Kelton, and JP Morgan, advising on significant M&A, capital markets, and strategic transactions. He holds an M.B.A. in Finance from Georgetown University and a B.A. from Rollins College.
Heritage Commerce Corp, a bank holding company established in October 1997, is the parent company of Heritage Bank of Commerce, established in 1994 and headquartered in San Jose, CA with full-service branches in Danville, Fremont, Gilroy, Hollister, Livermore, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Oakland, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Redwood City, San Francisco, San Jose, San Mateo, San Rafael, and Walnut Creek. Heritage Bank of Commerce is an SBA Preferred Lender. Bay View Funding, a subsidiary of Heritage Bank of Commerce, is based in San Jose, CA and provides business-essential working capital factoring financing to various industries throughout the United States. For more information, please visit www.heritagecommercecorp.com.
Member FDIC
For additional information, email:
InvestorRelations@herbank.com
A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/c6dd78d1-7632-4aef-b82e-0e2217a1c1da
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE), along with Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), introduced the Streamlining Rural Housing Act. The bill directs the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a memorandum of understanding to evaluate the feasibility of joint environmental review and inspection processes. By streamlining the review and inspection processes between HUD and USDA, this bill would make rural housing development more efficient for home builders, affordable housing non-profits, and state housing finance agencies.
“Duplicative red tape and burdensome regulations create additional costs and deter much-needed investments in rural affordable housing,” said Ricketts. “The Streamlining Rural Housing Act is the first step to enhance efficiency and eliminate conflicting requirements that delay approvals so that we can build more housing in rural Nebraska. When I was Governor of Nebraska, our state created a rural workforce housing fund to help administer support to communities for rural housing needs, like construction costs, down payment assistance, and technical assistance.”
“Across Kansas, the demand for rural housing has been on the rise, and it’s important that we find innovative solutions to address this issue,” said Moran. “Streamlining rural housing regulations between HUD and USDA will simplify the regulatory process for developers, allowing them to more efficiently address the growing housing needs in Kansas and across the country.”
“To address the shortage of quality, affordable housing in rural areas, federal regulations need to work for communities rather than against them,” said Senator Shaheen. “I’m glad to join my colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation that would improve and streamline environmental reviews and housing unit inspections so that we can build more homes and lower costs where it’s needed most.”
“Americans are facing an affordable housing crisis. We need to build more housing and build it fast to bring down costs and get more people into homes,” said Gallego. “Government should be part of the solution, but right now it’s part of the problem. By reducing red tape and streamlining redundant processes, this bipartisan bill will accelerate construction, lower costs, and get more desperately needed homes on the market.”
The Streamlining Rural Housing Act would direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to:
“The Council for Affordable and Rural Housing (CARH) applauds the efforts of Senators Moran, Ricketts, Shaheen, and Gallego in introducing this important legislation which will help streamline program requirements at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development (RD) programs,” said Colleen Fisher, Executive Director of the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing (CARH). “Many times when housing developers and owners are operating a property here is a need to have multiple sources of funding so that the property can cash flow and rents are at levels that low-income residents can afford. When this occurs, the agencies require separate if not identical inspections, somewhat negating the purpose of having the multiple layers of funding, thus increasing regulatory costs. By requiring one inspection, operating costs will be reduced or redirected toward services on properties. The approach envisioned in the bill has been supported by several different Administrations, with the goal of reducing regulatory burdens and improving the delivery of affordable housing programs.”
BACKGROUND
Often, when a housing project draws federal funding from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development, one has to follow separate processes for environmental review and housing inspections for both agencies. This can incur more costs, lead to delays in project completion, and present challenges in getting over excessive bureaucratic procedures. This is burdensome especially at a time when housing needs in rural America are growing and existing housing supply is aging. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) are an effective way to address duplicative compliance requirements and regulatory misalignment across different federal, state, and local agencies.
Full text of the legislation can be found here.
Source: United States Airforce
PACAF participated in Cope Thunder 25-2, a unique platform that integrates U.S. and Philippine Air Forces and enhances interoperability through bilateral fighter training, subject matter expert exchanges and key leadership
engagements.CLARK AIR BASE, Philippines (AFNS) —
U.S. Pacific Air Forces and Philippine Air Force members participated in Cope Thunder 25-2, a bilateral training conducted across multiple locations in the Philippines. The exercise aimed to strengthen partnerships and support the Philippine Air Force’s modernization efforts, promoting regional and global stability.
Established in the Philippines in 1976, Cope Thunder provides a unique platform to integrate U.S. and Philippine Air Forces and enhance interoperability through bilateral fighter training, subject matter expert exchanges and key leadership engagements. Cope Thunder 25-2 also marked the first time a U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II squadron has deployed to the Philippines.
“It’s obvious that this isn’t a relationship that’s simply on paper,” said Lt. Col. Bryan Mussler, 421st Mission Generation Force Element commander. “We’ve been integrating with them for a long time, and their mentality and approach to operations is very similar to ours.”
Subject matter expert exchanges during the exercise enabled U.S. and Philippine Airmen in similar career fields to share best practices and effective techniques aimed at improving day-to-day operations for both forces. These exchanges included maintenance, firefighting, airfield operations, electromagnetic warfare and basic fighter maneuvers, with U.S. and Philippine pilots flying side by side.
“We worked closely with the PAF pilots, and it was clear they are professional and highly capable aviators that employ their weapon systems with skill and precision,” said Capt. Tobey Fisher, 421st Mission Generation Force Element F-35A instructor pilot. “Additionally, this exercise afforded the 421st MGFE the opportunity to operate at a remote airfield with minimal support.”
The F-35A maintenance team supported Cope Thunder 25-2 with a lean, agile team, operating with roughly one-third of the personnel they typically have at their home station.
“It’s really cool to see such a small team come here and execute the mission,” said Maj. Clinton Bialcak, 421st Fighter Generation Squadron commander, referring to executing the F-35 maintenance mission. “I think everyone in the region, in the world and in the Department of Defense sees that we can do it and they can rely on us.”
The U.S. Air Force’s participation reflects ongoing efforts to strengthen coordination with regional allies and partners.
Source: United States Airforce
The Department of the Air Force has created a new AF/A6 Deputy Chief of Staff office dedicated to warfighter communications and cyber systems.ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) —
This structure is designed to address operational communications and cyber needs effectively throughout the force.
The creation of the AF/A6 office separates the responsibilities for communications and cyber systems from the previous A2/6 framework, marking one of the most significant reorganizations of the Air Staff in over 30 years.
According to Air Force leaders, the change is designed to improve readiness, resilience and operational effectiveness by aligning resources and risk management with mission requirements.
“We created the A6 to ensure communications and cyber systems are available, secure and aligned with warfighter priorities,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin. “This office will help us focus resources and oversight where it matters most — supporting the mission in contested environments.”
Lt. Gen. Leah Lauderback, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Cyber Effects Operations, said the A6 will serve as a critical link between operational feedback and strategic planning.
“Standing up the A6 allows us to manage risk, prioritize limited resources and advocate for warfighter needs using data from across the enterprise,” Lauderback said. “It’s a necessary step to treat communications and cyber as the operational enablers they are.”
Maj. Gen. Michelle Edmondson has been appointed to serve as the first standalone Deputy Chief of Staff for AF/A6. Her experience in operations, training and strategic planning is expected to help the office’s focus on delivering integrated, resilient communications capabilities across domains.
“Our mission is to ensure warfighters have the reliable, secure communications they need to succeed in a complex and contested environment,” Edmondson said. “We’re building an enterprise that connects people, systems and decisions at the speed required by today’s operational demands.”
The office will coordinate with various stakeholders, including the department’s chief information officer, the principal cyber advisor, major command A6 offices, acquisition program offices and other operational and functional communities.
Officials emphasized the AF/A6 will be organized around a warfighter-centric model, designed to support current capabilities while informing future investment decisions and force design initiatives.
Source: United States Airforce
The IRT program is a unique U.S. DoD initiative that enhances military readiness through hands-on, real-world training while delivering critical services to communities in need.
“This is a great opportunity to not only get services that the community may not be able to afford but they can see what the military provides”, said Cathy Swafford, Rhea County community lead. “You can tell that [the military members] just really want to serve their community and give back.”
Operation Healthy Tennessee brought together service members across the joint force, fostering an environment to strengthen readiness while offering services such as medical, dental, optometry, nutrition counseling and veterinary care, all provided at no cost by credentialed professionals.
“We are providing a great level of service,” stated Maj. Ralph Garcia, Bledsoe County officer in charge. “It’s a collaborative joint effort to bring resources to underserved communities.”
The mission proved to be a powerful example of the program’s impact, making a strong contribution towards the IRT Program.
In just 10 days, two medical clinic locations served 2,000 patients and completed more than 15,000 medical, dental and optometry procedures. The veterinary team treated 677 pets, delivering services valued at $314,465. A specialized optometry team, assigned to the mission as part of a Naval Ophthalmic Readiness Activity, built and distributed more than 770 pairs of glasses for those in need.
The fair market value of all medical and veterinary services provided is totaled at $1.9 million.
“Training is such an important part of an IRT,” said Lt. Danielle Lloyd, Operation Healthy Tennessee officer in charge. “Although we are providing much needed medical care to this community, at the same time, we are training to make sure we are staying mission ready.”
The operation logged more than 25,000 training hours across categories including readiness, certification, clinic skills, ad-hoc tasks and hands-on training.
IRT missions, like Operation Healthy Tennessee, often represent a once-in-a-career opportunity, and participants are encouraged to fully embrace the collaborative environment, network with fellow service members and connect with the public to which we are caring for to maximize the experience.
“Now that we’ve had our last day of clinical care and we’re able to see the final numbers, it’s such a good feeling to see that we’ve helped so many community members,” Lloyd said. “There’s no better feeling than seeing someone who desperately needed care and being able to provide it at no cost.”
Source: United States Navy
The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) returned to Naval Station Mayport July 23, concluding a five-month deployment across multiple geographic theaters, including the U.S. 4th and 6th Fleet areas of operations.
The crew departed Feb. 18, 2025, with their mission focused on strengthening international maritime security and relations with partner nations in the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility. Shortly after arrival on station, Thomas Hudner welcomed the Honorable Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, who recognized Thomas Hudner’s high-performing Sailors during his tour of Naval Support Activity (NSA) Guantanamo Bay facilities.
Upon departing NSA Guantanamo Bay, Thomas Hudner conducted trilateral operations in the Caribbean Sea with the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60), the United Kingdom Royal Navy River-class offshore patrol vessel HMS Medway (P 223) and the Royal Netherlands Navy Holland-class offshore patrol vessel HNLMS Groningen (P843), enhancing interoperability among Allied naval forces. Thomas Hudner also conducted freedom of navigation operations off the coast of Cuba, reinforcing the U.S. Navy’s commitment to unity, security, and stability in the Caribbean, Central and South American maritime regions.
“The crew of Thomas Hudner has consistently proven their unwavering commitment in safeguarding America’s national security interests and maintaining the U.S. Navy’s maritime dominance worldwide,” said Cmdr. Cameron Ingram, commanding officer of Thomas Hudner. “I could not be more proud of my team!”
Throughout their deployment in the U.S. European Command area of responsibility, Thomas Hudner’s crew trained and engaged in a variety of activities, from maritime security operations to joint exercises with Allied and partner navies in the European theater.
Thomas Hudner participated in several notable exercises, including Formidable Shield 2025, executed alongside 11 NATO Allies in the North and Norwegian Seas and North Atlantic Ocean. During Formidable Shield 2025, Thomas Hudner executed joint, live-fire Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) training utilizing NATO command and control reporting structures to enhance interoperability among Allied naval forces.
Thomas Hudner also conducted several port visits and collaborative operations with Norway, the United Kingdom, Spain and Greece, reinforcing the U.S. Navy’s commitment to unity, security and stability in the region. During the 81st anniversary of D-Day landings in Normandy, Thomas Hudner also had the honor of representing the U.S. Navy and hosting a reception with Adm. Stuart B. Munsch, commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, and various other distinguished government and military leaders in the European theater.
Following operations in U.S. 6th Fleet’s northern flank, Thomas Hudner was assigned to conduct national tasking in the Eastern Mediterranean supporting Operation Cobalt Shield. Through this mission, Thomas Hudner successfully conducted maritime security operations and promoted regional stability while executing ballistic missile defense operations.
Thomas Hudner served as the flagship for multiple distinguished visitors throughout her deployment, including the Honorable Pete Hegseth, U.S. Defense Secretary; Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Adm. Christopher Grady, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Adm. Alvin Holsey, commander, U.S. Southern Command; Adm. Stuart B. Munsch, commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa; and members of the German, French and Royal navies.
“Over the course of a five-month deployment, USS Thomas Hudner and her exceptional crew exemplified the strength of American naval power and international cooperation,” said Capt. Aaron Anderson, Commander, Naval Surface Group Southeast. “Their efforts reflect the strength of our commitment to maritime security and cooperation with our Allies.”
Thomas Hudner is a multi-mission air warfare, undersea warfare, naval surface fire support, surface warfare and ballistic missile defense surface combatant capable of supporting carrier battle groups and amphibious forces, operating independently, or operating as the flagship of a surface action group.
U.S. 2nd Fleet, reestablished in 2018 in response to the changing global security environment, develops and employs maritime ready forces to fight across multiple domains in the Atlantic and Arctic in order to ensure access, deter aggression and defend U.S., Allied, and partner interests.
For more U.S. 2nd Fleet news and photos, visit facebook.com/US2ndFleet, https://www.c2f.usff.navy.mil/, X – @US2ndFleet, and https://www.linkedin.com/company/commander-u-s-2nd-fleet.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ben Cline (VA-06)
Washington, D.C. – With the national debt topping $36 trillion and interest payments now exceeding spending on Medicare and national defense, Congressman Ben Cline (VA-06) has introduced the Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act with Reps. Jared Golden (ME-02), Jack Bergman (MI-01) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03). This bipartisan bill would require the federal government to assess and report its ability to respond to major national emergencies like economic downturns, energy crises, and national security threats.
The legislation directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to produce an annual report measuring the government’s fiscal strength and readiness. After this report is released, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would conduct its own independent review and publish its findings to ensure accuracy and transparency.
“With our debt piling up and interest payments skyrocketing, we cannot afford to be caught flat-footed when the next emergency hits,” said Rep Ben Cline. Just like households plan ahead for tough times, the federal government must do the same. Americans deserve a clear picture of how much room we actually have to respond to future crises. Congress must face the facts and make responsible decisions now, before an emergency strikes.”
“One of the many lessons the Marine Corps taught me was to have a plan for the worst-case scenario,” Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02) said. “This bipartisan bill would force Washington to be clear-eyed about our fiscal outlook in potential national emergencies, which is the necessary first step for responsible planning to keep America stable and secure.”
“We know that when a crisis hits, preparation makes all the difference. The Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act is a commonsense step to ensure we’re ready to respond to whatever comes our way – whether it’s an economic downturn, a natural disaster, or a national security threat. If we’re serious about keeping our Nation strong and secure, we need to start planning ahead and making our decisions based on reality – not scrambling to prepare after the fact.” Rep. Jack Bergman added.
“As a small business owner, I know how important it is to plan for a rainy day – and hardworking families in Southwest Washington know it too,” said Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez. “Our federal government should hold itself to the same standard and be ready to weather any crisis that comes its way. Our bipartisan legislation would require annual assessments of our national fiscal strength when faced with different crises – so we can better prepare our economy to work for the American people under any circumstances.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest payments on the national debt will permanently exceed defense spending. By 2050, interest costs are expected to double the size of the defense budget. Gross federal debt is projected to hit 123% of GDP by September 2025, surpassing the previous World War II-era high of 119%.
“Our national debt is not just a number. It is a real and rising threat to our way of life. It impacts our economy, our national security, and our ability to respond in times of crisis. I am proud to see Representatives Cline and Golden take up the Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act. This is a commonsense measure. Just like American families must prepare for emergencies, so should our government.” said Former Senator Joe Manchin.
“Policymakers and the public need access to the best available analysis on how a severe economic shock may impact the federal government’s finances. While our nation’s largest banks are required to undergo regular stress tests to prepare for an unexpected shock, the federal government lacks an equivalent playbook. It is essential that the federal government be prepared for a possible fiscal emergency, and we commend Representatives Cline and Golden for introducing this bipartisan, commonsense proposal to strengthen our fiscal resilience.” said President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Maya MacGuineas.
Rep Ben Cline concluded “The best way to protect the American people is to be prepared. This legislation gives Congress the tools it needs to manage taxpayer dollars responsibly, respond to national emergencies, and chart a stable financial future for generations to come.”
Congressman Ben Cline represents the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia. He previously was an attorney in private practice and served both as an assistant prosecutor and a Member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Cline and his wife, Elizabeth, live in Botetourt County with their two children.
###
Source: US State of California
A federal grand jury in Indianapolis, Indiana, returned a two-count indictment, unsealed today, charging former Kokomo Police Department officer Sinmi Asomuyide with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl and with lying to state investigators to try to cover up the assault.
The first count of the indictment charges Asomuyide, who was 31 years old, with willfully depriving Minor #1, who was 14 years old, of her constitutional rights by sexually assaulting her. The first count also charges that the defendant’s conduct included kidnapping.
The second count of the indictment charges Asomuyide with lying to the Indiana State Police to try to cover up the assault by, among other things, denying having sexual contact with Minor #1 and denying that there would be any reason for the presence of his semen in his squad car when, in fact, he ejaculated inside his squad car after causing Minor #1’s hand to touch his exposed penis.
If convicted, Asomuyide faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Interim U.S. Attorney Thomas E. Wheeler for the Southern District of Indiana, and Special Agent in Charge Timothy O’Malley of the FBI Indianapolis Field Office made the announcement.
The FBI Indianapolis Field Office is investigating the case, with the cooperation of the Kokomo Police Department; Bloomington Police Department; and Indiana State Police.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Blackett for the Southern District of Indiana and Senior Sex Crimes Counsel Tara Allison of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division are prosecuting the case.
This investigation is ongoing. Anyone with additional information is encouraged to call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI.
An indictment is merely an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: US State of North Carolina
Headline: Governor Josh Stein Announces 2025 North Carolina Awards to be Held in Western North Carolina
Governor Josh Stein Announces 2025 North Carolina Awards to be Held in Western North Carolina
lsaito
Governor Josh Stein today announced that the North Carolina Awards, the state’s highest civilian honor, will be presented on November 13 at a ceremony in Asheville. All net proceeds will go to a fund to help communities recovering from Hurricane Helene.
“I am proud that this year’s North Carolina Awards will be held in western North Carolina to help shine a light on the fact that the area is open for folks to enjoy,” said Governor Josh Stein. “This year, we will honor the very best of North Carolina while encouraging tourism and helping support the ongoing recovery out west.”
“For more than 60 years, the North Carolina Awards have celebrated the outstanding people who make North Carolina a great place to live, learn, and work,” said NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Secretary Pamela B. Cashwell. “We are excited to host one of our state’s most prestigious events in Asheville this year and to dedicate proceeds from the event to western North Carolina recovery efforts.”
Governor Stein and Visit NC recently teamed up to encourage people to “Rediscover the Unforgettable” in western North Carolina as the region reopens to visitors after Hurricane Helene. Governor Stein announced the initiative in June at the reopening of Chimney Rock State Park. The initiative seeks to bring people from all over to western North Carolina to boost tourism, support local businesses, and highlight outdoor recreation opportunities.
The North Carolina Awards event will be held at the historic Grove Park Inn. Tickets will go on sale soon.
Created by the General Assembly in 1961 and administered by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, the award recognizes “notable accomplishments by North Carolina citizens” in the fields of literature, science, fine arts, and public service.
Past award recipients include some of the country’s most distinguished artists, poets, writers, performers, journalists, scientists, and public servants. Since the awards’ inception, more than 300 notable men and women have been honored by the state of North Carolina, including William Friday, James Taylor, Etta Baker, Maya Angelou, Lee Smith, Eric Church, Selma Burke, and Branford Marsalis.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harriette Richards, Senior Lecturer, School of Fashion and Textiles, RMIT University
Last week, the ultrafast fashion brand Princess Polly received B Corp certification. This certification is designed to accredit for-profit businesses that provide social impact and environmental benefit.
Established on the Gold Coast in 2010, a 50% stake in Princess Polly was acquired by United States-based A.K.A. Brands in 2018.
Since then, it has grown its global reach as a low-cost, high-turnover online retailer.
So can ultrafast fashion ever be sustainable?
Princess Polly distinguishes itself from other fast fashion retailers through a mission to “make on-trend, sustainable fashion accessible to everyone”.
As part of this mission, Princess Polly is a participant of the United Nations Global Compact, which commits them to sustainable procurement. The 2024 Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report placed them in the top 20% of 460 global brands assessed.
Yet, on the sustainability rating website Good On You, Princess Polly receives a “Not Good Enough” grade, due to their lack of action on reducing plastic and textile waste or protecting biodiversity in their supply chains, and the absence of evidence that they pay their workers a living wage.
Regardless of how they make their clothes, Princess Polly produces a lot. At the time of writing, the brand has 3,920 different styles available on their website (excluding shoes and accessories).
Of those, 34% (1,355 styles) are listed as “lower impact,” which means items are made using materials such as organic cotton and linen, recycled polyester and cellulose fabrics. There are also 720 items on the website currently listed as “new”: their daily new arrivals means they are constantly adding fresh items for sale.
Overproduction, no matter what the garments are made from, is inherently wasteful. Even when clothes are purchased (and 10–40% of the clothing produced each year is not sold), the poor quality of fast fashion items means that they end up in landfill faster and stay there for longer, contributing to the ongoing environmental disaster.
In Australia, 1,096 companies are accredited with B Corp status, including 152 fashion businesses.
B Corp assesses the practices of a company as a whole, rather than focusing on one single social or environmental issue. Businesses must score at least 80 out of a possible 250+ points in the B Impact Assessment to achieve accreditation.
Organisations are assessed in five key areas – community, customers, environment, governance and workers – and must meet high standards of social and environmental performance, transparency and accountability.
Third-party accreditations such as B Corp, Fairtrade and Global Organic Textile Standard are often used by brands as a marketing tool.
These certifications can enhance consumer trust without the need for detailed explanations. For fashion brands, accreditation can help them stand out in a crowded market. They can provide legitimacy, attract ethical fashion consumers and reduce consumer scepticism.
While B Corp aims to provide assurance to consumers, activists have accused it of greenwashing. In 2022, the organisation came under fire for accrediting Nespresso, a brand owned by Nestlé, which has a reputation for poor worker rights and sourcing policies.
B Corp is now facing renewed condemnation for issuing certification to Princess Polly.
Other B Corp certified Australian fashion brands such as Clothing the Gaps and Outland Denim have built their reputations on their ethical credentials. For values-driven fashion-based social enterprises such as these, accreditations can provide valuable guarantees regarding ethical processes.
According to our research, however, there are several barriers fashion-based social enterprises face when pursuing ethical accreditation.
The cost of accreditation, both financial and in terms of time, skills and resourcing, is a significant challenge. And there is no certification that covers all aspects of environmental sustainability and ethical production. As a result, fashion-based social enterprises often require multiple accreditations to fully communicate the breadth of their ethical commitments.
Despite the costs involved, if fashion-based social enterprises don’t acquire certain certifications they risk being ineligible for government grants and tenders, such as social procurement contracts.
Differences between fashion-based social enterprises and fast fashion brands are stark. While Clothing the Gaps, Outland Denim and Princess Polly now all hold B Corp certification, the former score much more highly on the B Impact Assessment.
The value and credibility of the certification is diminished when it extends to unsustainable ultrafast fashion.
The question of whether fast fashion can ever be sustainable has become increasingly heated since the advent of ultrafast fashion, where brands produce on demand and sell directly online.
Fast fashion took seasonal trends from high fashion runways and made them available to consumers at low costs within weeks. Ultrafast fashion takes trends from social media and reproduces them extremely cheaply for mass consumption within days.
Both fast and ultrafast fashion’s low-cost, high-volume models encourage consumers to value quantity over quality. Using permanent sales and discounts, these brands incentivise multiple purchases of items that may never actually be worn. Online “micro trends” and “haul” videos further spur this overconsumption.
Princess Polly may be using more sustainable textiles and engaging in more ethical forms of production than some of its ultrafast fashion counterparts. But this is not enough when the business model itself is unsustainable. Accreditations such as B Corp are unable to account for this nuance.
Princess Polly claims to make sustainable fashion, yet it is also proudly trend driven. As an ultrafast fashion brand, it relies on overproduction and overconsumption. The idea that this can ever be “sustainable” is simply an oxymoron.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Ultrafast fashion brand Princess Polly has been certified as ‘sustainable’. Is that an oxymoron? – https://theconversation.com/ultrafast-fashion-brand-princess-polly-has-been-certified-as-sustainable-is-that-an-oxymoron-261561
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau, Research Fellow, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University
Conspiracy theories are a widespread occurrence in today’s hyper connected and polarised world.
Events such as Brexit, the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, and the COVID pandemic serve as potent reminders of how easily these narratives can infiltrate public discourse.
The consequences for society are significant, given a devotion to conspiracy theories can undermine key democratic norms and weaken citizens’ trust in critical institutions. As we know from the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, it can also motivate political violence.
But who is most likely to believe these conspiracies?
My new study with Daniel Stockemer of the University of Ottawa provides a clear and perhaps surprising answer. Published in Political Psychology, our research shows age is one of the most significant predictors of conspiracy beliefs, but not in the way many might assume.
People under 35 are consistently more likely to endorse conspiratorial ideas.
This conclusion is built on a solid foundation of evidence. First, we conducted a meta analysis, a “study of studies”, which synthesised the results of 191 peer-reviewed articles published between 2014 and 2024.
This massive dataset, which included over 374,000 participants, revealed a robust association between young age and belief in conspiracies.
To confirm this, we ran our own original multinational survey of more than 6,000 people across six diverse countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, the US and South Africa.
The results were the same. In fact, age proved to be a more powerful predictor of conspiracy beliefs than any other demographic factor we measured, including a person’s gender, income, or level of education.
Having established conspiracy beliefs are more prevalent among younger people, we set out to understand why.
Our project tested several potential factors and found three key reasons why younger generations are more susceptible to conspiracy theories.
1. Political alienation
One of the most powerful drivers we identified is a deep sense of political disaffection among young people.
A majority of young people feel alienated from political systems run by politicians who are two or three generations older than them.
This under representation can lead to frustration and the feeling democracy isn’t working for them. In this context, conspiracy theories provide a simple, compelling explanation for this disconnect: the system isn’t just failing, it’s being secretly controlled and manipulated by nefarious actors.
2. Activist style of participation
The way young people choose to take part in politics also plays a significant role.
While they may be less likely to engage in traditional practices such as voting, they are often highly engaged in unconventional forms of participation, such as protests, boycotts and online campaigns.
These activist environments, particularly online, can become fertile ground for conspiracy theories to germinate and spread. They often rely on similar “us versus them” narratives that pit a “righteous” in-group against a “corrupt” establishment.
3. Low self-esteem
Finally, our research confirmed a crucial psychological link to self-esteem.
For individuals with lower perceptions of self worth, believing in a conspiracy theory – blaming external, hidden forces for their problems – can be a way of coping with feelings of powerlessness.
This is particularly relevant for young people. Research has long shown self esteem tends to be lower in youth, before steadily increasing with age.
Understanding these root causes is essential because it shows simply debunking false claims is not a sufficient solution.
To truly address the rise of conspiracy theories and limit their consequences, we must tackle the underlying issues that make these narratives so appealing in the first place.
Given the role played by political alienation, a critical step forward is to make our democracies more representative. This is best illustrated by the recent election of Labor Senator Charlotte Walker, who is barely 21.
By actively working to increase the presence of young people in our political institutions, we can help give them faith that the system can work for them, reducing the appeal of theories which claim it is hopelessly corrupt.
This does not mean discouraging the passion of youth activism. Rather, it is about empowering young people with the tools to navigate today’s complex information landscape.
Promoting robust media and digital literacy education could help individuals critically evaluate the information they encounter in all circles, including online activist spaces.
The link to self-esteem also points to a broader societal responsibility.
By investing in the mental health and wellbeing of young people, we can help boost the psychological resilience and sense of agency that makes them less vulnerable to the simplistic blame games offered by conspiracy theories.
Ultimately, building a society that is resistant to misinformation is not about finding fault with a particular generation.
It is about creating a stronger, more inclusive democracy where all citizens, especially the young, feel represented, empowered, and secure.
Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
– ref. 3 reasons young people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories – and how we can help them discover the truth – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-young-people-are-more-likely-to-believe-conspiracy-theories-and-how-we-can-help-them-discover-the-truth-261074
US Senate News:
Source: US Whitehouse
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions. The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.
Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.
Sec. 2. Restoring Civil Commitment. (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall take appropriate action to:
(i) seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time; and
(ii) provide assistance to State and local governments, through technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.
Sec. 3. Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:
(i) enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;
(ii) enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;
(iii) enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;
(iv) enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or
(v) substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.
(b) The Attorney General shall:
(i) ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;
(ii) take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;
(iii) assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and
(iv) enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.
Sec. 4. Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:
(i) ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;
(ii) provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and
(iii) ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.
(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.
Sec. 5. Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions to increase accountability in their provision of, and grants awarded for, homelessness assistance and transitional living programs. These actions shall include, to the extent permitted by law, ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency; increasing competition among grantees through broadening the applicant pool; and holding grantees to higher standards of effectiveness in reducing homelessness and increasing public safety.
(b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.
(c) With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:
(i) the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases; and
(ii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.
(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children.
(e) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:
(i) allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development identifies as necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the funding program from all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and
(ii) require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities in circumstances permitted by law and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 24, 2025.
US Senate News:
Source: US Whitehouse
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe. The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both. Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions. The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.
Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order. Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens. My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.
Sec. 2. Restoring Civil Commitment. (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall take appropriate action to:
(i) seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time; and
(ii) provide assistance to State and local governments, through technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.
Sec. 3. Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:
(i) enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;
(ii) enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;
(iii) enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;
(iv) enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or
(v) substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.
(b) The Attorney General shall:
(i) ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;
(ii) take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;
(iii) assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and
(iv) enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.
Sec. 4. Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:
(i) ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;
(ii) provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and
(iii) ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.
(b) The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.
Sec. 5. Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs. (a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions to increase accountability in their provision of, and grants awarded for, homelessness assistance and transitional living programs. These actions shall include, to the extent permitted by law, ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency; increasing competition among grantees through broadening the applicant pool; and holding grantees to higher standards of effectiveness in reducing homelessness and increasing public safety.
(b) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.
(c) With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:
(i) the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases; and
(ii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.
(d) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children.
(e) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:
(i) allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development identifies as necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the funding program from all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and
(ii) require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities in circumstances permitted by law and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 24, 2025.
US Senate News:
Source: US Whitehouse
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. College sports are a uniquely American institution that provide life-changing educational and leadership-development opportunities to more than 500,000 student-athletes through almost $4 billion in scholarships each year. College athletics also provide substantial support to local economies and form an indelible part of family activities, pastimes, and culture in many communities.
While major college football games can draw tens of millions of television viewers and attendees, they feature only a very small sample of the many athletes who benefit from the transformational opportunities that college athletics provide. Sixty-five percent of the 2024 United States Olympic Team members were current or former National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) varsity athletes, and approximately seventy-five percent were collegiate athletes. The 2024 United States Olympic Team earned 126 total medals, leading the overall medal count for the eighth consecutive Summer Olympic Games.
Beyond driving our unrivaled success in international competition, college athletes are more likely to report better outcomes in important respects during college and after graduation. A substantial majority of female executives at the largest American companies participated in sports during adolescence, many at the high school or collegiate level, and examples of business leaders and former Presidents who played college sports are legion. It is no exaggeration to say that America’s system of collegiate athletics plays an integral role in forging the leaders that drive our Nation’s success.
Yet the future of college sports is under unprecedented threat. Waves of recent litigation against collegiate athletics governing rules have eliminated limits on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements, and transfers between universities, unleashing a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports. While changes providing some increased benefits and flexibility to student-athletes were overdue and should be maintained, the inability to maintain reasonable rules and guardrails is a mortal threat to most college sports.
To illustrate, following a 2021 antitrust ruling from the United States Supreme Court striking down NCAA restrictions, the NCAA changed its rules to permit players to receive compensation for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) from third parties. But guardrails designed to ensure that these were legitimate, market-value NIL payments for endorsements or similar services, rather than simply pay-for-play inducements, were eliminated through litigation. Other limits on player transfers among schools were also taken down through litigation.
This has created an out-of-control, rudderless system in which competing university donors engage in bidding wars for the best players, who can change teams each season. Meanwhile, more than 30 States have passed their own NIL laws in a chaotic race to the bottom, sometimes to gain temporary competitive advantages for their major collegiate teams. As a result, players at some universities will receive more than $50 million per year, mostly for the revenue-generating sports like football. Entering the 2024 season, players on the eventual college football national champion team were being paid around $20 million annually. By the 2025 season, football players at one university will reportedly be paid $35-40 million, with revenue-sharing included.
This not only reduces competition and parity by creating an oligarchy of teams that can simply buy the best players — including the best players from less-wealthy programs at the end of each season — but the imperative that university donors must devote ever-escalating resources to compete in the revenue-generating sports like football and basketball siphons away the resources necessary to support the panoply of non-revenue sports. Absent guardrails to stop the madness and ensure a reasonable, balanced use of resources across collegiate athletic programs that preserves their educational and developmental benefits, many college sports will soon cease to exist.
A national solution is urgently needed to prevent this situation from deteriorating beyond repair and to protect non-revenue sports, including many women’s sports, that comprise the backbone of intercollegiate athletics, drive American superiority at the Olympics and other international competitions, and catalyze hundreds of thousands of student-athletes to fuel American success in myriad ways.
Attempting to create some guardrails and shelter from litigation, colleges have adopted a new regime, deciding to pay athletes directly and simultaneously limit the total number of athletes on their campuses. Given that the new roster limits, by exceeding the scholarship limits they replace, will increase the potential number of scholarships available in many sports, this opportunity must be utilized to strengthen and expand non-revenue sports. Simultaneously, the third-party market of pay-for-play inducements must be eliminated before its insatiable demand for resources dries up support for non-revenue sports. Otherwise, a crucial American asset will be lost.
It is the policy of my Administration that all college sports should be preserved and, where possible, expanded. My Administration will therefore provide the stability, fairness, and balance necessary to protect student-athletes, collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities, and the special American institution of college sports. It is common sense that college sports are not, and should not be, professional sports, and my Administration will take action accordingly.
Sec. 2. Protecting and Expanding Women’s and Non-Revenue Sports and Prohibiting Third-Party Pay-for-Play Payments. (a) It is the policy of the executive branch that opportunities for scholarships and collegiate athletic competition in women’s and non-revenue sports must be preserved and, where possible, expanded, including specifically as follows with respect to the 2025-2026 athletic season and future athletic seasons:
(i) collegiate athletic departments with greater than $125,000,000 in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season should provide more scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports than during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules;
(ii) college athletic departments with greater than $50,000,000 in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season should provide at least as many scholarship opportunities in non-revenue sports as provided during the 2024-2025 athletic season and should provide the maximum number of roster spots for non-revenue sports permitted under the applicable collegiate athletic rules; and
(iii) college athletic departments with $50,000,000 or less in revenue during the 2024-2025 athletic season or that do not have any revenue-generating sports should not disproportionately reduce scholarship opportunities or roster spots for sports based on the revenue that the sport generates.
(b) It is the policy of the executive branch that any revenue-sharing permitted between universities and collegiate athletes should be designed and implemented in a manner that preserves or expands scholarships and collegiate athletic opportunities in women’s and non-revenue sports.
(c) To preserve the critical educational and developmental benefits of collegiate athletics for our Nation, it is the policy of the executive branch that third-party, pay-for-play payments to collegiate athletes are improper and should not be permitted by universities. This policy does not apply to compensation provided to an athlete for the fair market value that the athlete provides to a third party, such as for a brand endorsement.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall develop a plan to advance the policies set forth in subsections (a)-(c) of this section through all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms, including Federal funding decisions, enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, prohibiting unconstitutional actions by States to regulate interstate commerce, and enforcement of other constitutional and statutory protections, and by working with the Congress and State governments, as appropriate.
Sec. 3. Student-Athlete Status. The Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board shall determine and implement the appropriate measures with respect to clarifying the status of collegiate athletes, including through guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions, that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.
Sec. 4. Legal Protections for College Athletics from Lawsuits. (a) The Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall work to stabilize and preserve college athletics through litigation, guidelines, policies, or other actions, as appropriate, by protecting the rights and interests of student-athletes and the long-term availability of collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities when such elements are unreasonably challenged under antitrust or other legal theories.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, to advance the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall:
(i) review, and as necessary revise, litigation positions, guidelines, policies, or other actions; and
(ii) develop a plan to implement appropriate future litigation positions, guidelines, policies, or other actions.
Sec. 5. Protecting Development of the United States Olympic Team. The Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison shall consult the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and other appropriate organizations of American athletes about safeguarding the integral role and competitive advantage that American collegiate athletics provide in developing athletes to represent our Nation in international athletic competitions.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Education.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 24, 2025.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Forty-five years ago, at the Lake Placid Olympic Games, a team of young American hockey players took the ice and achieved the impossible, winning against the seemingly unbeatable Soviet Union National Team. The Soviets were four-time defending Olympic gold medalists, stacked with seasoned professionals. Team USA, both the youngest-ever U.S. national team and the youngest in the tournament, stunned the world with a 4-3 victory in what became known as the “Miracle on Ice.”
Now, a congressional effort is underway to recognize these players with a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress. U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) introduced and U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) cosponsored legislation to award the Congressional Gold Medal earlier this year. In April, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the legislation, with over 300 cosponsors.
Together, Senators Cramer and Klobuchar penned an op-ed in The Hill urging their Senate colleagues to pass the legislation to honor this historic team.
Let’s Honor the 1980 ‘Miracle on Ice’ US Olympic Team with Congressional Gold Medals
The Hill – July 24, 2025
In 1980, the world was fraught with political division, economic shifts, and global conflict. The Cold War loomed large, American hostages were being held in Iran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had stoked international anxiety, and the United States was in the midst of a painful recession at home.
Yet at this time of uncertainty, a single hockey game brought us together as Americans. On February 22, 1980, a team of young athletes, mostly college students, took the ice in Lake Placid and achieved the impossible against the seemingly unbeatable Soviet Union National Team.
The Soviets were four-time defending Olympic gold medalists, stacked with seasoned professionals. Team USA, both the youngest-ever U.S. national team and the youngest in the tournament, stunned the world with a 4-3 victory in what became known as the “Miracle on Ice.”
Two days later, the team secured the gold medal with a third period comeback win against Finland. Their improbable run gave Americans a renewed sense of pride and unity during a time of deep division and uncertainty.
To commemorate the 45th anniversary of this iconic moment, we introduced the Miracle on Ice Congressional Gold Medal Act to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the members of the 1980 U.S. Olympic Men’s Hockey Team.
It is only fitting that we honor this team’s achievement. It had a lasting impact on American history and the game of hockey in the United States. Once enacted, three medals will be displayed at the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Museum in Colorado, the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in Eveleth, Minnesota, and the Lake Placid Olympic Center in New York, commemorating this greatest sports moment of the 20th century.
As National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman once said, “The most special moments in sports actually transcend the playing surface.” In 1980, the Miracle on Ice was one such moment—when, for one night, there were no partisan divides or regional differences, only a shared celebration of what Americans can achieve together. That night, the Lake Placid Olympic hockey games transcended the sheet of ice where the 20 amateur hockey players battled for victory.
The House of Representatives has already passed this bipartisan legislation unanimously, with the support of nearly 300 cosponsors. We now ask our colleagues in the Senate to join us in honoring this historic team and the spirit of unity that the 1980 U.S. Men’s Hockey Team inspired at the Olympics in Lake Placid. We urge swift, bipartisan passage of the Miracle on Ice Congressional Gold Medal Act.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the Spend Plan for the over $280 million in overdue FY 2025 U.S. Forest Service State, Private and Tribal Forestry (SPTF) funding, including approximately $20 million for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to use for firefighting training and equipment, forest management, and landscape restoration.
“The State of Washington is in the middle of an active and dangerous wildfire season. After questioning the Chief of the Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture, I am pleased that Washington — and all states — are finally receiving the funding they need to prepare for and respond to wildfires this summer and in the future,” said U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), senior member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
“Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for your leadership in securing the release of fiscal year (FY) 2025 Forest Service funding for the State, Private, and Tribal Forestry programs,” said George Geissler, State Forester for Washington. “This critical funding was at risk of being included in a recission by the Trump Administration, but because of your efforts will now be put to work in support of forest health protection, private forest landowners, urban and community forests, and wildfire preparedness and response efforts across the State of Washington. On behalf of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), we thank you for your tireless advocacy in support of our work.”
SPTF funding is typically released to states months prior to the start of wildfire season to be used to train and equip state, local, and volunteer emergency responders and firefighters. This includes funding for fire academies, personal protection equipment, fire pumps, hoses, nozzles, and other safety gear. Delays risked the funding being rescinded by the Trump Administration and could degrade state and local efforts to prepare for and respond to wildfires this summer and in the future.
On July 10, Sen. Cantwell questioned U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz about why the Trump Administration was withholding the SPTF funding.
“It’s a budget that’s already been approved. So why aren’t we releasing the funds that go to the community so that they can best prepare for this fire season?” Sen. Cantwell asked during the July 10 Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.
“We have not made a determination yet, but that’s something that is being evaluated,” Schultz responded. “We can’t commit that that’s for sure going to go out yet.”
Video of Sen. Cantwell’s questioning of Schultz is HERE; a transcript is HERE.
On July 16, Sen. Cantwell participated in a virtual briefing hosted by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins outlining the current wildfire situation and outlook across the western United States. During the briefing, she questioned Rollins on why OMB continued to withhold $280 million in SPTF funds.
Nationally, state, local, and volunteer fire departments respond to roughly 80% of all wildfires each year. Last year DNR, along with local first responders, successfully kept over 93% of fires in Washington state at 10 acres or less. Funds from the SPTF can also be used for hazardous fuels work on non-federal land in the wildland urban interface (WUI), to recover land that has been burned, and for forest health management.
The National Interagency Fire Center outlook predicts high wildfire risk across the entirety of Washington state from July through September 2025, and a high risk in Eastern and Central Washington in October. Six wildfires are currently burning in the state, and as of July 22, more than 37,000 acres have burned in the State of Washington this year.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington Maria Cantwell
07.24.25
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Representative Dan Newhouse (R, WA-04) and Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, WA-03) introduced the Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act of 2025. The legislation would help tribal police departments hire and retain tribal law enforcement officers by providing access to federal retirement, pension, death, and injury benefits on par with law enforcement officers from non-tribal jurisdictions.
“Tribes need more law enforcement officers to fight both the fentanyl and murdered and missing indigenous people epidemics and to respond to emergencies in their communities,” said Sen. Cantwell. “The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act will help tribal communities get the law enforcement resources they need to keep their communities safe.”
“Tribal police departments work tirelessly to protect and serve our communities in Oklahoma and around the nation,” said Sen. Mullin. “Tribal police should receive equal treatment and resources needed for the safety of their communities without going through excessive red tape. I’m proud to join with my colleagues on this and support our Tribal law enforcement.”
“As the missing and murdered indigenous women crisis continues to plague tribal communities across the country, tribal law enforcement agencies are facing serious challenges with recruiting and retaining officers and resources,” said Rep. Newhouse. “This bipartisan legislation empowers tribal law enforcement to build and maintain strong, well-trained forces who will be far better equipped to address the MMIW crisis, counter illicit drug flow, and protect tribal communities in Central Washington. I thank members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle who understand the scale of these challenges and are helping to lead towards a solution.”
According to the Department of Interior, public safety and justice at the Bureau of Indian Affairs is funded at just 13% of need and over 25,600 personnel are needed to adequately serve Indian Country. This includes at least 13,000 more tribal law enforcement officers to meet FBI Community Safety Standards.
“The Colville Tribes strongly supports the ‘Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act.’ The bill would implement long overdue reforms and remove administrative barriers to tribal law officers enforcing federal laws on their reservation lands. It will also assist the Colville Tribes and other tribes in recruiting and retaining officers, which is critical for rural tribes that have large land bases and not enough officers to adequately patrol.” – Jarred-Michael Erickson, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
“Bolstering support for Tribal law enforcement recruitment and retention is crucial to addressing the many serious and systemic public safety issues in Indian Country. The issue is particularly pressing for the Yakama Nation and other tribes with large-land bases and a severe lack of resources to adequately patrol such a vast area. At Yakama we are facing an overwhelming confluence of public safety crises. We have experienced a surge in violent and property crimes, the highest rate of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women/People in the region, and a terrifying rise in outside gang and cartel-related drug activity coming onto our lands, including the pervasive and deadly fentanyl epidemic. The recent coordinated, multi-agency drug trafficking interdiction “Operation Overdrive” that dismantled a large drug distribution network operating on the Yakama Reservation shows what is possible when all levels of government work together to make our communities safer. The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act will help give the Yakama Nation and other tribes the tools and funding necessary to protect our communities and people who live, work, and raise their families on our lands. The Yakama Nation appreciates Senator Cantwell and Congressman Newhouse’s partnership with us and their continued work to address long-standing impediments to Tribal sovereignty and our public safety efforts.” – Jeremy Takala, Law & Order Committee Chairman, Yakama Nation Tribal Council
“The Chehalis Tribe strongly supports the bill. Our Tribe is fortunate in that we are able to pay our law enforcement officers competitive salaries but competitive retirement benefits are currently out of reach for Chehalis and most other tribes around the country. If enacted, this will allow Chehalis and other tribes to take care of the officers that patrol and keep our communities safe.” – Dustin Klatush, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
“Many tribal police departments are chronically understaffed and massively underfunded. The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act would level the playing field for tribal police benefits, retirement, and pension, allowing tribes to improve retention and recruitment of officers on tribal lands. Ultimately, passage of the act would help improve overall safety in tribal communities. We are grateful to Senator Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, Congresswoman, Gluesenkamp Perez, and their colleagues for championing this act and hope the overwhelming tribal support will ensure its approval.” – Chairman Glen Nenema, Kalispel Tribe of Indians
“As a tribal law enforcement officer and an elected tribal leader, I know firsthand how hard it is to recruit and retain law enforcement officers. This bill will make it so much easier to achieve that objective by ensuring tribal law enforcement officers have access to proper retirement benefits. This bill will make our community safer.” – Vice-President Everett Ekdahl, Jr. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
“The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act will provide tribal nations with the tools necessary to recruit and retain law enforcements officers. It shows Congress’s commitment to public safety on tribal lands and the fair treatment of tribal law enforcement officers. We are grateful for Senator Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, and Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez for their leadership on this important issue.” – Chairman Leonard Forsman, Suquamish Tribe
“The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act represents a crucial advancement in ensuring that tribal law enforcement agencies, such as Hopi Law Enforcement Services, have the support they need to protect those that live and work on the Hopi Reservation. The Hopi Tribe is grateful to Senator Cantwell, Congressman Newhouse, Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez, and their colleagues for their leadership strengthening recruitment, retention, and public safety across tribal nations.” – Chairman Timothy Nuvangyaoma, Hopi Tribe
“Access to resources is critical to improving the recruitment and retention tribal law enforcement officers. The Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act removes administrative barriers and provides the necessary reforms to protect our community. The Nisqually Tribe thanks Senator Cantwell and Representative Newhouse for their leadership in strengthening safety and security across tribal communities.” – Chairman Ken Choke, Nisqually Tribe
“Jurisdictional gaps in Indian Country have allowed far too many criminals to fall through the cracks. We appreciate Senator Cantwell’s leadership in taking meaningful action to close these gaps. By allowing qualified Tribal officers operating under 638 contracts to enforce federal law and receive federal protections, this bill strengthens our ability to respond to serious criminal activity on our reservation.” Chairman Anthony Hillaire, Lummi Nation
Combatting the Fentanyl Epidemic
Sen. Cantwell is a strong advocate for increasing the presence of tribal law enforcement officers on reservations to help combat the fentanyl epidemic and Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and People (MMIWP) crisis among Native communities.
Sen. Cantwell first introduced the Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act in July 2023. The bipartisan bill was first considered at a U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on May 1, 2024. During a hearing on the fentanyl crisis in Indian Country later that month, Sen. Cantwell pressed federal officials about the need to help tribes hire and keep more tribal law enforcement officers and highlighted several tribes in Washington state that urgently need more resources to improve chronic understaffing issues.
In October 2023, Sen. Cantwell sent a letter to the leaders of the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee requesting that the committee hold an oversight hearing on how to address the fentanyl crisis in Indian Country. Soon after, the committee announced two hearings on the topic. At the November 2023 hearing titled: “Fentanyl in Native Communities: Native Perspectives on Addressing the Growing Crisis,” Sen. Cantwell invited Lummi Nation Chairman Anthony Hillarie to testify.
In December 2023, Vanessa Waldref, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, and Glen Melville, Deputy Bureau Director at the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Office of Justice Services and member of the Makah Tribe, participated in the second hearing titled: “Fentanyl in Native Communities: Examining the Federal Response to the Growing Crisis.” At the hearing, both Waldref and Melville commented that fentanyl traffickers often target tribal lands due to lack of tribal law enforcement.
A background document on Sen. Cantwell’s legislative track record and advocacy to combat the fentanyl crisis is available HERE.
Fighting Against MMIWP Crisis
In 2020, Sen. Cantwell’s Savanna’s Act was signed into law to help federal, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies better respond to cases of missing and murdered indigenous women and people by improving coordination among all levels of law enforcement, increasing data collection and information sharing, and providing tribal governments with vital resources.
In May 2023, Sen. Cantwell announced she sent a letter to the Biden Administration urging them to prioritize funding to assist Tribes and organizations working to combat the MMIWP crisis.
Following Sen. Cantwell’s urging, in June 2023 the U.S. Department of Justice announced the creation of the Missing or Murdered Indigenous Persons Regional Outreach Program, which dedicated five Assistant U.S. Attorneys and five coordinators to the task of resolving the cases of missing and murdered indigenous people. This included dedicated personnel based in Eastern Washington.
In October 2024, Sen. Cantwell announced $6.9 million in federal funding for state and municipal law enforcement agencies, tribal justice departments and programs, and medical examiner offices to help fight the fentanyl crisis, gun violence, and violence against women and children.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) last week introduced the bipartisan Head Start Education and Development Workforce Advancement and Yield (HEADWAY) Act. The legislation would address early child care workforce shortages by allowing Early Head Start classroom teachers to teach and earn their Child Development Associate (CDA) credential simultaneously. As of February 2023, nearly 20% of Head Start and Early Head Start staff positions remained vacant nationwide.
The HEADWAY Act would also help pave the way for greater hiring flexibility, attract more qualified candidates to the profession of early childhood education, and ensure that Early Head Start classrooms are fully staffed.
“Workforce shortages in child care centers, including in Head Start and Early Head Start, can be particularly challenging for families and communities because so many parents rely on consistent childcare to be able to work. I am proud to help introduce the HEADWAY Act, which will add staff to Early Head Start classrooms, and give early-career child care workers the skills, mentorship, and experience they need to thrive,” Senator Capito said.
“I’m where I am today because of programs like Head Start,” Senator Warnock said. “Ensuring our nation’s children have access to quality child care and excellent teachers is crucial, which is why I am so pleased to work across the aisle with Senator Capito on this effort. As the father of two young kids, I know how crucial education is during those formative years to their continued growth.”
The HEADWAY Act will allow Head Start to fulfill its commitment to providing high-quality, early childhood education for children from vulnerable families, laying the foundation for their future success. The HEADWAY Act will support Early Head Start professionals and give program directors the flexibility they need to respond to employment trends, while still maintaining the high standards and professionalization of the field.
A copy of the bill text can be found here.
The one-pager can be found here.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353
July 24, 2025
Cotton, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Increase Hospital Transparency for New and Expecting Parents
Washington, DC — Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), and Rick Scott (R-Florida) today introduced the Neonatal Care Transparency Act, legislation that would require hospitals to publicly disclose at what life-saving care will be provided to an infant.
“When faced with an early birth parents should be able to ensure that the delivery hospital is equipped and prepared to provide care for their child. This bill will provide parents with the information needed to welcome their child into the world safely,” said Senator Cotton.
“Children are God’s greatest gift to the world, and expecting parents deserve peace of mind knowing their delivery hospital is fully prepared to care for their newborn. I am proud to join my colleagues in ensuring hospitals are transparent on how life-saving care will be provided to premature infants,” said Senator Lummis.
“Families shouldn’t face uncertainty during early labor about whether their premature baby will receive life-saving care from a hospital or not. When a baby’s survival is on the line, parents deserve clear information. I’m proud to support this legislation that requires hospitals to be transparent about their policies. It’s a commonsense measure that protects vulnerable infants and supports families in critical moments,” said Senator Hyde-Smith.
“Becoming a parent is one of the great things in this life, and parents deserve complete transparency throughout the process. This bill will ensure hospitals are upfront about the care they can provide so they’re giving families all the information they need to make the most informed decisions to protect their child,” said Senator Scott.
Bill text is here.
The Neonatal Care Transparency Act would:
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353
July 24, 2025
Cotton, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Increase Hospital Transparency for New and Expecting Parents
Washington, DC — Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), and Rick Scott (R-Florida) today introduced the Neonatal Care Transparency Act, legislation that would require hospitals to publicly disclose at what life-saving care will be provided to an infant.
“When faced with an early birth parents should be able to ensure that the delivery hospital is equipped and prepared to provide care for their child. This bill will provide parents with the information needed to welcome their child into the world safely,” said Senator Cotton.
“Children are God’s greatest gift to the world, and expecting parents deserve peace of mind knowing their delivery hospital is fully prepared to care for their newborn. I am proud to join my colleagues in ensuring hospitals are transparent on how life-saving care will be provided to premature infants,” said Senator Lummis.
“Families shouldn’t face uncertainty during early labor about whether their premature baby will receive life-saving care from a hospital or not. When a baby’s survival is on the line, parents deserve clear information. I’m proud to support this legislation that requires hospitals to be transparent about their policies. It’s a commonsense measure that protects vulnerable infants and supports families in critical moments,” said Senator Hyde-Smith.
“Becoming a parent is one of the great things in this life, and parents deserve complete transparency throughout the process. This bill will ensure hospitals are upfront about the care they can provide so they’re giving families all the information they need to make the most informed decisions to protect their child,” said Senator Scott.
Bill text is here.
The Neonatal Care Transparency Act would:
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a top member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, joined U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-VT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Ed Markey (D-MA) in introducing the Creating Access to Necessary American-Canadian Duty Adjustments (CANADA) Act, bipartisan legislation that would exempt United States-owned small businesses from the sweeping tariffs imposed on Canadian products.
“President Trump’s tariffs are increasing prices on everyday goods and making it harder for businesses and working families to get by,” said Senator Shaheen. “Canada is New Hampshire’s northern neighbor and largest trading partner, meaning Granite State small businesses are especially hard hit by these blanket tariffs. By shielding small businesses from rising costs incurred by the President’s trade war, our legislation would give Main Street some much-needed relief and certainty to plan for the future and keep their businesses afloat.”
The Trump administration has made more than 60 different tariff announcements already this term. These tariffs have been difficult to navigate for small businesses across the United States—especially in New Hampshire, where Canada is the state’s largest trading partner. Tariffs lead to supply chain disruptions, increased costs of goods and materials, smaller profits and higher costs for consumers.
You can find the full bill text here.
Senator Shaheen is helping lead efforts in Congress to mitigate the harmful impacts of President Trump’s tariffs. Last month, Shaheen led 30 Senators in filing an amicus brief in a key case, Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security, challenging the Trump Administration’s abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs. In January, Shaheen introduced the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act which would limit the president’s ability to leverage sweeping tariffs that increase costs for American consumers and families. Her effort to pass this bill by unanimous consent was blocked by Senate Republicans.
In recent months, Shaheen has traveled across the Granite State to discuss the impact of tariffs on New Hampshire’s tourism industry and to visit businesses impacted by President Trump’s trade war including Colby Footwear, Chatila’s Bakery, C&J, DCI Furniture, Mount Cabot Maple, American Calan Inc. and NH Ball Bearings. In May, Shaheen led U.S. Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Peter Welch (D-VT) on a bipartisan delegation visit to Ottawa, Canada where they met with Prime Minister Mark Carney, members of his cabinet, the Business Council of Canada and other leading Canadian companies and business groups to reaffirm the strong U.S.-Canada partnership and support for our bilateral relationship among Congress and the American people.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen
(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) joined Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Pete Ricketts (R-NE) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) in introducing bipartisan legislation to streamline rural housing regulations between the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) by requiring the two agencies to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to align housing standards. The Streamlining Rural Housing Act would simplify the process to build housing, lowering the cost and shortening project timelines for developers.
“To address the shortage of quality, affordable housing in rural areas, federal regulations need to work for communities rather than against them,” said Senator Shaheen. “I’m glad to join my colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation that would improve and streamline environmental reviews and housing unit inspections so that we can build more homes and lower costs where it’s needed most.”
“The Council for Affordable and Rural Housing (CARH) applauds the efforts of Senators Moran, Ricketts, Shaheen, and Gallego in introducing this important legislation which will help streamline program requirements at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development (RD) programs,” said Colleen Fisher, Executive Director of CARH. “Many times when housing developers and owners are operating a property here is a need to have multiple sources of funding so that the property can cash flow and rents are at levels that low-income residents can afford. When this occurs, the agencies require separate if not identical inspections, somewhat negating the purpose of having the multiple layers of funding, thus increasing regulatory costs. By requiring one inspection, operating costs will be reduced or redirected toward services on properties. The approach envisioned in the bill has been supported by several different Administrations, with the goal of reducing regulatory burdens and improving the delivery of affordable housing programs.”
Specifically, the Streamlining Rural Housing Act would:
The full text of the legislation can be found here.
As a senior member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies (Ag-FDA) Subcommittee, Shaheen has continually worked to ensure rural communities have the federal funding needed to tackle the housing affordability crisis. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Ag-FDA Appropriations bill, Shaheen fought to fully fund the Rental Assistance program so that participating families can remain housed, provides funding to preserve the existing affordable housing portfolio and makes $1 billion in financing available for very low-income homebuyers, many of whom are first-time homeowners. In the FY24 Ag-FDA bill, Shaheen two Shaheen-led provisions were signed into law to help to preserve existing rural housing, build new housing in rural areas and protect low-income renters in rural areas from losing their homes.
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) along with U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) reintroduced the bicameral Access to Fertility Treatment and Care Act, legislation that would require more health insurers to provide coverage for infertility treatment, as well as fertility preservation services for individuals who undergo medically necessary procedures that may cause infertility, such as chemotherapy.
“Infertility is a painful struggle for millions of people in America, and the steep cost of infertility treatment like IVF prevents many of them from growing their families—that’s just wrong. The Access to Fertility Treatment and Services Act would require more insurance plans, including TRICARE and the VA coverage our veterans and their families rely on, to cover infertility treatment without raising insurance costs or copays. We should be doing everything we can to support families and make it easier to have and raise children in America, and our legislation is one important step in that direction,” said Senator Murray.
“Everyone’s path to parenthood is different, and the decision to pursue fertility treatments is deeply personal,” said Senator Booker. “Nobody should have to choose between financial stability and the opportunity to have a family. On top of that, people who find themselves at the daunting intersection of a cancer diagnosis and fertility challenges should have access to affordable fertility services. This legislation would require more insurance plans to cover fertility treatments so that Americans no longer face barriers to care when deciding to start a family.”
“While Republicans have tried to brand themselves as the pro-family party, Senate Democrats are putting forward actual solutions to help the millions of Americans grappling with the financial and medical realities of safely growing their families,” said Leader Schumer. “Infertility can – and does – affect so many in our communities, and while Republicans continue their relentless attacks on reproductive rights, I will keep fighting to protect access to affordable health care and am proud to support this legislation which offers hope and opportunity to many with this deeply personal decision.”
“Millions of Americans depend on IVF to build a family—and yet, this treatment is too often out of reach for so many because of exorbitant, out-of-pocket costs,” said Senator Duckworth. “If Donald Trump really wants to deliver on his campaign promise to ensure IVF is covered for those who rely on it, he’d call on Republicans to support our bill that would expand coverage for so many more Americans. Otherwise, all the pro-IVF talking points are just more empty promises from people who have proven time and again they have no interest in actually taking any meaningful action to protect IVF access.”
“When people don’t have insurance coverage for fertility care, they are forced to make impossible choices between paying for treatment or affording essentials,” said Congresswoman DeLauro. “The emotional and physical toll of trying to build a family is already heavy. We should not add a crushing financial burden on top of it. This bill ensures that all families have the insurance coverage they deserve. Americans should have the opportunity to grow their families without sacrificing their basic needs.”
“Every day providers encounter patients who need medical treatments like IVF to build their families, but have to forego, delay, or stop treatment because they cannot afford it,” said Sean Tipton, ASRM Chief Advocacy & Policy Officer. “While ASRM has championed progress on state-level IVF mandates, we firmly believe that access to health care should not depend on your zip code. For this reason, we remain grateful to Sen. Booker and Rep. DeLauro for their tireless leadership on the Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act. It is well past time for Congress to pass this critical legislation and achieve access to family building care for all Americans.”
“Every day, millions of Americans face heartbreaking and unnecessary barriers to building their families, simply because they can’t afford the out-of-pocket medical costs. Access to fertility treatment should not depend on your income, your zip code, or your employer. The ‘Access to Fertility Treatment and Care Act’ is a critical step toward ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to pursue their dream of having a family. On behalf of RESOLVE and the family-building community, I thank Senator Cory Booker and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for their steadfast leadership in championing equitable access to care,” said Danielle Melfi, President & CEO, RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association.
Despite the prevalence of infertility – a reported one in six couples have challenges conceiving – coverage for treatment options is limited. In 2024, nearly half of large employers voluntarily offered fertility benefits and 97% of those offering benefits reported no significant increase in costs to their medical plans.
Specifically, the Access to Fertility Treatment and Care Act would:
The bill is endorsed by the following organizations: Alliance for Fertility Preservation, Endocrine Society, Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, National Women’s Political Caucus, American Society for Reductive Medicine, Resolve, MomsRising, In Our Own Voice: National Black, Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, National partnership for Women and Families, Invisible Project, Human Rights Campaign, Families USA, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, Service Women’s Action Network, Guttmacher, ACOG, and AllPaths Family Building.
The bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
The full text of the bill can be found HERE.
Senators Murray has been leading the charge to protect IVF for the millions of Americans who rely on it nationwide. Last Congress, Murray introduced the Right to IVF Act in the Senate—which would establish a nationwide right to IVF and other assisted reproductive technology (ART) and lower the costs of IVF treatment for middle-class families. The Right to IVF Act also includes Senator Murray’s longtime bill—the Veteran Families Health Services Act—to help veterans and servicemembers, who experience higher rates of infertility and encounter restrictive laws and policies before they can access IVF services.
Despite many Republicans publicly claiming to support IVF, nearly every Senate Republican voted against the bill in June twice last year. Overall, Republicans blocked legislation that would protect IVF nationwide three separate times last year.
Senator Murray has been fighting for over a decade to expand access to IVF care for veterans and servicemembers, and protect servicemembers’ and veterans’ access to the reproductive care they deserve. She has introduced multiple pieces of legislation to address the challenges veterans face when starting a family after their service, and in 2012, Senator Murray secured Senate passage of a provision to end the ban on IVF services at VA.