Category: Pandemic

  • MIL-OSI Security: Suburban Chicago Man Sentenced to More Than Five Years in Prison for $1.5 Million COVID-Relief Fraud

    Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (b)

    CHICAGO — A federal judge has sentenced a suburban Chicago man to more than five years in prison for fraudulently obtaining more than $1.5 million in small business loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

    Over a five-month period in 2021, FEROZ JALAL participated in a scheme to defraud banks and the U.S. Small Business Administration.  The SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program allowed qualifying small businesses to receive low-interest, government-backed loans to cover a temporary loss of revenue during the Covid pandemic.  As part of the scheme, Jalal submitted to lenders and the SBA at least a dozen applications for PPP loans on behalf of businesses that he and others purportedly owned.  The applications contained false statements and misrepresentations concerning the purported entities’ employees, revenues, costs, and statuses of operations.  In support of his applications, Jalal provided, among other things, fake IRS tax filings and bogus spreadsheets that purported to document the companies’ payroll expenses.

    Jalal and co-schemers submitted fraudulent applications for PPP loans in amounts totaling $1.792 million, causing $1.644 million to be disbursed by lenders.

    Jalal, 51, of Niles, Ill., pleaded guilty last year to bank fraud and money laundering charges.  On Feb. 11, 2025, U.S. District Judge John F. Kness sentenced Jalal to five years and two months in federal prison and ordered him to pay more than $1.5 million in restitution to the SBA.

    The sentence was announced by Morris Pasqual, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Douglas S. DePodesta, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the FBI, and Sean Fitzgerald, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago office of Homeland Security Investigations.  Substantial assistance was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).  The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Hayes.

    Anyone with information about attempted Covid-relief fraud can report it to the Department of Justice by calling the National Center for Disaster Fraud at (866) 720-5721, or by filing an online complaint at https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

    MIL Security OSI

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

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

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

    About NorthEast Community Bancorp

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

    Forward Looking Statement

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

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

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Boosting online education in the European Union – E-000651/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000651/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Loucas Fourlas (PPE)

    The pandemic highlighted the importance of online education. Nonetheless, significant challenges remain, such as inequalities in access to digital infrastructure, the need for quality digital educational content and training teachers in new technologies.

    In view of the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027:

    • 1.How does the Commission assess progress in the implementation of the EU’s online education strategies and what key challenges have been identified?
    • 2.Are there any initiatives aiming to close the digital divide between Member States, so that all pupils and students have equal access to online education?
    • 3.How does it plan to support teacher training in modern digital skills and teaching methods using technology?

    Submitted: 12.2.2025

    Last updated: 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Is there really a plan to merge the European Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA)? – E-000664/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000664/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Dimitris Tsiodras (PPE)

    Report 12/2024[1] of the European Court of Auditors assessing the preparedness for and policies to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic shows that the EU cannot yet be considered fully prepared to manage serious cross-border threats and public health emergencies, underlining the importance of coordinated action.

    However, in the last few days, there has been an increase in the number of publications talking about the possibility of a merger of the European Authority for Preparedness and Response to Emergency Health Situations with the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations. To date, 11 Member States, including Greece, have expressed grave concerns regarding the above possibility, pointing out the risk of undermining the EU’s ability to respond adequately to health emergencies.

    In light of this:

    • 1.Does the Commission really intend to proceed with the aforementioned merger plan?
    • 2.If so, what will be the implications for the provision of financial support for actions aimed at strengthening the EU’s health security framework?
    • 3.How does the Commission intend to ensure that there are adequate coordination mechanisms to help the EU respond quickly and effectively to future major public health emergencies?

    Submitted: 12.2.2025

    • [1] https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/SR-2024-12/SR-2024-12_en.pdf
    Last updated: 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Plans to centralise health policy powers at EU level – E-000666/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000666/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Gerald Hauser (PfE)

    The Commission has set up a new emergency committee, which will further increase the centralisation of powers at EU level. What’s particularly alarming is that the Commission will now be able to carry out public procurement on behalf of the Member States – let us not forget the billions of euros of taxpayers’ money splurged on jointly procuring vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic… One problem with this centralised procurement is the exclusivity clause, which prevents Member States from acquiring products from other sources once it has been decided that they should be procured jointly. This rule could significantly restrict their freedom of action in crisis situations. The increasing centralisation of decision-making powers risks rendering the Member States less flexible and unable to respond quickly to national needs. Yet we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic how important it is to have decentralised structures and national room for manoeuvre in times of crisis. The question remains whether, with this increased centralisation, the Commission is really offering the best solution to the many challenges faced by the Member States.

    • 1.Why is the Commission undermining national competence in the health sector by centralising procurement?
    • 2.In the past five years, which matters have been decentralised and re-delegated to the Member States?
    • 3.In the past five years, which matters have been centralised and delegated to the EU?

    Submitted: 12.2.2025

    Last updated: 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

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

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

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

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

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth Demands More Detailed Explanation of Mass FAA Layoffs in the Wake of Multiple Deadly Crashes

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth

    February 19, 2025

    [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (CST) and Ranking Member of the CST Aviation, Space and Innovation Subcommittee—is demanding a more detailed explanation from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Acting Administrator Chris Rocheleau on why the FAA abruptly fired hundreds of employees in the wake of multiple deadly airplane crashes. In her letter, Duckworth is requesting multiple answers from the FAA by this Friday, February 21, regarding the reasoning behind these firings and the impact these firings will have on passenger safety and our ongoing aviation safety crisis.

    In the letter, Duckworth wrote: “I am alarmed about the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) abrupt firing of hundreds of FAA employees. In the wake of multiple deadly airplane crashes, Congress and the flying public need a more detailed explanation. At a minimum, we need to know why this sudden reduction was necessary, what type of work these employees were doing, and what kind of analysis FAA conducted – if any – to ensure this would not adversely impact safety, increase flight delays or harm FAA operations.”

    This letter comes after the Trump Administration assured that no air traffic controllers and no critical safety personnel were fired. Duckworth’s letter, however, raises her concerns that air traffic controllers and critical safety personnel cannot effectively do their jobs without certain systems and resources—many of which require maintenance by workers who may have been fired. Duckworth urges the FAA to remain focused on implementing the bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act—which the Senator helped co-author—to help address the air traffic controller shortage and boost other critical parts of the aviation workforce, and questions whether firing hundreds of employes will help the FAA meet these goals.

    In her letter, Duckworth is requesting responses to the following questions:

    1. Why did FAA find it necessary to fire nearly 400 probationary employees?
    2. How does firing these nearly 400 probationary employees improve safety for the flying public?
    3. Please provide a breakdown of the types of positions the fired probationary employees held, including how many were fired from each type of position.
    4. How many of these terminations were performance-based?
    5. Did FAA conduct an analysis of the impact these firings would have on passenger safety, flight delays and FAA operations? If so, please provide the result of that analysis. If FAA did not conduct any such impact analysis, please so state.

    A copy of the letter is available on the Senator’s website and below:

    Dear Acting Administrator Rocheleau:

    I am alarmed about the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) abrupt firing of hundreds of FAA employees. In the wake of multiple deadly airplane crashes, Congress and the flying public need a more detailed explanation.

    At a minimum, we need to know why this sudden reduction was necessary, what type of work these employees were doing, and what kind of analysis FAA conducted – if any – to ensure this would not adversely impact safety, increase flight delays or harm FAA operations.

    A broad assurance that no air traffic controllers or critical safety personnel were terminated does not answer these questions. FAA’s mission is safety, and its critical safety personnel cannot do their jobs without proper resources. For example, air traffic controllers rely on systems to manage communications, monitor weather and conduct surveillance and navigation.  Maintaining these systems is essential. Yet, according to a press report impacted FAA employees include individuals hired to work on, “FAA radar, landing and navigational aid maintenance.”[1]

    Our Nation’s aviation system has struggled since the pandemic, when so much experience left our workforce. We saw a spike in close calls, in response to which FAA held a safety summit to try to figure out ways to build back our safety margin.

    Congress held hearings and passed a bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act to help address the air traffic controller shortage and boost other critical parts of the aviation workforce. The law also provides safety enhancements like airport surface situational awareness technologies.

    FAA should be laser focused on implementing this law, restoring our aviation system’s safety margin and preventing more tragic crashes. I do not understand how terminating these employees furthers this goal, and FAA has yet to provide an explanation.

    Please provide responses to the following by 12pm E.T. on Friday February 21, 2025:

    1. Why did FAA find it necessary to fire nearly 400 probationary employees?
    2. How does firing these nearly 400 probationary employees improve safety for the flying public?
    3. Please provide a breakdown of the types of positions the fired probationary employees held, including how many were fired from each type of position.
    4. How many of these terminations were performance-based?
    5. Did FAA conduct an analysis of the impact these firings would have on passenger safety, flight delays and FAA operations? If so, please provide the result of that analysis. If FAA did not conduct any such impact analysis, please so state.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Jennie Lee lecture – Arts for Everyone

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We have lost the ability to understand one another. 

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

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

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

    There is that future. 

    Or there is us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And they reached for the stars.

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

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

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

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

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

    Yes it took visionary political leaders. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And yet she held firm.

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

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

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

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

    George Bernard Shaw once wrote:

     “Imagination is the beginning of creation. 

    “you imagine what you desire,

    “you will what you imagine – 

    “and at last you create what you will.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Where they belong. 

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

     We believe in them. And we will back them.

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

    Jennie Lee lived by this mantra. So will we. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ….

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

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

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

    [political content removed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And this is personal for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To let hope and history rhyme.

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

    Updates to this page

    Published 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Security: 29 Plead Guilty to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in $5M COVID Fraud Investigation

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    COLUMBIA, S.C. —Twenty-Nine out of 31 indicted defendants have pleaded guilty in a five-year investigation into a scheme to fraudulently obtain COVID-19 unemployment benefits led by SCDC inmates along with family members and friends outside the prison system.

    Evidence presented in court revealed that incarcerated inmates harvested personal information, such as social security numbers and dates of birth, from other inmates and used the information to apply for COVID unemployment benefits in the names of those inmates as well as themselves. Some inmates provided their details willingly to the named defendants in exchange for a portion of the proceeds derived from the unemployment benefits. Other inmates had no knowledge that unemployment benefits were being applied for on their behalf. The incarcerated defendants also obtained the information of unwitting individuals outside of the Department of Corrections using various extortion schemes.

    One of the primary schemes utilized by the defendants was known as “Johning.” Using contraband cellphones within the Department of Corrections, inmates posed as younger males or females and lured individuals to send them nude or compromising photos. After obtaining the photos, the inmates used a second line feature on their contraband cell phones and contacted the victim posing as law enforcement. The inmates then extorted the victims into sending them money and/or photos of their social security cards and driver’s license.

    After the defendants applied for unemployment benefits in the names of the extortion victims and Department of Corrections inmates, the benefits were diverted to the incarcerated defendants with the assistances of the non-incarcerated defendants. The non-incarcerated defendants received government checks and prepaid Visa debit cards in the mail. The non-incarcerated defendants then utilized ATM withdrawals, wire transfers, and mobile banking applications such as Zelle, Venmo, Green Dot, and Cash App to make the proceeds available to the incarcerated defendants.

    The indictment alleges the named defendants submitted COVID-19 unemployment applications in multiple states. Fraudulent benefit applications were filed in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, New Jersey, Missouri, Arizona, and California. In total, the fraudulent scheme resulted in a loss of approximately $4,996,673.00 to the United States Government. 

    “This extensive fraud scheme exploited and misused individuals’ personal information, some unknowingly, for financial gain at the expense of American taxpayers,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Brook B. Andrews for the District of South Carolina. “The individuals involved showed a complete disregard for the law and used deception, manipulation, and extortion to unlawfully obtain nearly $5 million in unemployment benefits. Our agencies remain committed to holding those responsible accountable and ensuring that such fraudulent schemes do not undermine public trust in vital government programs.”

    “Inmates using this brazen scheme stole millions of dollars from an effort to help everyday Americans survive the COVID-19 pandemic,” SCDC Director Bryan Stirling said. “It is shameful, and the taxpayers deserve better. I am grateful to everyone involved in bringing these defendants to justice.”

    Each defendant faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, restitution, and three years of supervision to follow the term of imprisonment.  United States District Sherri A. Lydon has accepted 29 guilty pleas and handed down sentences for 14 of the defendants thus far. The remaining defendants will be sentenced after the court receives and reviews a sentencing report prepared by the U.S. Probation Office. One defendant, Jessica Ann Howell, passed away and another defendant, Christine Hankins, remains at large as a fugitive.

    On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by, among other methods, augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the Department’s response to the pandemic, please visit https://www.justice.gov/coronavirus.

    Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.

    This case was investigated by the United States Secret Service, the South Carolina Department of Corrections, and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Winston Holliday and Scott Matthews are prosecuting the case.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Sues Nation’s Largest Vape Distributors for Fueling the Youth Vaping Epidemic

    Source: US State of New York

    NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced a lawsuit against 13 major e-cigarette, or “vape,” manufacturers, distributors, and retailers for their role in fueling the youth vaping epidemic. These companies are responsible for illegally distributing, marketing, and selling flavored disposable vapes – including popular brands such as Puff Bar, Elf Bar, Geek Bar, Breeze, MYLE, and more – which have become extraordinarily popular among minors. An Office of the Attorney General (OAG) investigation found that these companies market highly addictive, candy- and fruit-flavored nicotine products to underage consumers, mislead customers about the safety and legality of their products, illegally ship products to New York, and violate health regulations designed to curb youth vaping.  

    With this action, Attorney General James is holding the nation’s leading vape distributors accountable for their role in this public health crisis. The landmark lawsuit seeks hundreds of millions of dollars, including financial penalties for wide-ranging violations of local, state, and federal laws; damages and restitution for the public health impact of the companies’ illegal actions; the recovery of all revenue made from unlawful activity; and the establishment of an abatement fund to address the youth vaping crisis in New York. 

    “The vaping industry is taking a page out of Big Tobacco’s playbook: they’re making nicotine seem cool, getting kids hooked, and creating a massive public health crisis in the process,” said Attorney General James. “For too long, these companies have disregarded our laws in order to profit off of our young people, but we will not risk the health and safety of our kids. Today, we are taking critical steps toward holding these companies accountable for the harm they have caused New Yorkers.” 

    The vaping industry has adopted deceptive, inescapable marketing strategies that are reminiscent of the tactics that made the tobacco industry infamous. Vaping companies directly target youth with bright, colorful packaging, candy and fruit flavors, social media and influencer campaigns, and unproven claims that their products are “safe” alternatives to cigarettes. The vape products the defendants often help develop, design, and even taste-test are intended to attract young people, with eye-catching, cartoonish packaging and flavors like “Blue Razz Slushy,” “Sour Watermelon Patch,” “Unicorn Cake,” “Fruity Bears Freeze,” “Cotton Candy,” “Rainbow Rapper,” “Sour Fruity Worms,” “Fruity Pebbles,” and “Strawberry Cereal Donut Milk,” to entice kids.

    Vape companies use bright, colorful packaging and candy and fruit flavors to entice children.

    The OAG investigation found that these companies often rely on social media in their marketing and ensure their vapes are abundantly available within walking distance of schools in an effort to reach young consumers. The companies also make use of celebrity or influencer endorsements, sponsor brand activations and social media photo opportunities at popular festivals and events, and promote dangerous vaping trends and challenges to drive engagement online. One company, Puff Bar, ran a social media advertisement during the early days of the pandemic lockdown that billed their vapes as “the perfect escape from back-to-back zoom calls [and] parental texts.”

    Vaping advertisements feature bright colors and candy, as well as illegal discounts and relatable language to attract kids.

    The investigation also revealed that vape companies have long been aware that their products pose health risks to users – and are particularly harmful to youth – but have continued to target young people with deceptive and misleading messages about the products’ safety. In particular, the companies’ advertisements often position vaping products as a safer, healthier alternative to cigarettes. One of the defendants has even advanced conspiracy theories in an attempt to brush away concerns over the safety of vaping, repeatedly pushing the idea that state governments were campaigning to crush vaping in an attempt to boost tobacco sales for financial gain. In addition, despite knowing that New York banned the sale of flavored vapor products in 2020, the companies have continued to sell these products while intentionally misleading customers about the legality of the sales.

    None of the companies named in the lawsuit have received authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for their fruit – or – candy flavored vapes, making their sale illegal under federal law. Attorney General James’ lawsuit alleges the companies have knowingly and intentionally ignored FDA warning letters and regulations, as well as the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act, which prohibits online sales of vaping products to consumers and unlicensed retailers. In addition to violating federal bans on shipping these products, the companies fail to register with the appropriate authorities, verify recipients’ ages, or follow any other shipping restrictions.

    Attorney General James also alleges that these vape companies have blatantly disregarded New York state public health laws, including several policies enacted in recent years to curb youth vaping. In 2020, New York banned the sale of flavored vapor products, restricted the shipment and transport of nicotine products, and raised the legal purchase age for all vapes to 21. The state also banned coupons and discounts on vapes, and began requiring certain companies to disclose dangerous ingredients in their vapes. The vape companies named in this lawsuit have repeatedly and knowingly violated these laws.

    The OAG investigation uncovered widespread evidence of this illegal conduct, including documents showing illegal shipments of flavored vapes to New York residential addresses, communications demonstrating companies’ knowledge of health and legal risks, and company advertisements and social media campaigns that misleadingly promoted vapes as safe and fun.

    The rise in youth vaping has reversed years of progress in reducing tobacco and nicotine use among adolescents. According to the New York State Department of Health (DOH), e-cigarette use among high school students has skyrocketed over the past decade, with flavored vapes being the most commonly used tobacco and nicotine product among youth. Attorney General James’ lawsuit highlights the severe health risks associated with vaping, including nicotine addiction, respiratory issues, and long-term cognitive impairments. According to the American Lung Association, some vape ingredients have been found to cause irreversible lung damage, while nicotine exposure during adolescence can permanently alter brain development. Kids who use nicotine products are also at increased risk for future addiction to other drugs. 

    The rapid rise popularity of vaping among teenagers reversed years of progress in reducing youth nicotine use. 

    For their illegal conduct and role in fueling the youth vaping crisis, Attorney General James is seeking broad relief from the companies, including a permanent ban on selling flavored vapes in New York, significant financial penalties and restitution for harm caused to New Yorkers, public corrective statements to inform consumers of the dangers of vaping, and the creation of an abatement fund to address and mitigate the effects of the public health crisis these companies helped create. In addition, OAG is pursuing total disgorgement of all revenues earned as a result of illegal activity. In total, Attorney General James is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in financial compensation for the havoc these companies’ products and marketing have wreaked on New York’s kids and their health and well-being.

    The manufacturers, distributors, and retailers named in the lawsuit are Puff Bar, MYLE Vape, Pod Juice, Mi-One Brands, Happy Distro, Demand Vape, EVO Brands, PVG2, Magellan Technology, Midwest Goods, Safa Goods, EVO Brands, and Price Point Distributors, as well as Price Point principals Weis Khwaja, Hamza Jalili, and Mohammad Jalili. 

    These predatory companies purposefully preyed on our classmates and peers, irreparably damaging our lives,” said Erin Kennedy, founder of anti-vaping advocacy group at East Hampton High School and a frontline witness to the second youth nicotine epidemic. “Therapeutic tools are the only useful actions to try to help the second wave of youth nicotine addiction. Money received from lawsuits with vaping companies must be funneled to therapeutic treatments to try and undo the harm, even death, created by these exploitative companies.”

    “I thank Attorney General James for her significant financial commitment to Suffolk County to hopefully invest in community-based therapeutic treatments for my friends and classmates who have been poisoned and now struggle with nicotine addiction,” said Samantha Price, founder of anti-vaping advocacy group at East Hampton High School and a frontline witness to the second youth nicotine epidemic.  

    “Vaping continues to be a public health issue for teens and young adults and has been exacerbated by irresponsible marketing strategies,” said Dr. Susan Gasparino, Medical Director of the Clinical and Community-Based Programs at the Center for Community Health & Prevention at the University of Rochester Medical Center. “I applaud and sincerely thank Attorney General Letitia James for, once again, taking action to hold these companies accountable. Her efforts, paired with the counseling and educational services like those we provide at our Center’s clinic, are what it takes to see change and advocate for the health of our young people.” 

    “Parents Against Vaping is enormously grateful to New York’s Attorney General Letitia James and her team for their ongoing commitment to and leadership in the fight to protect kids from a predatory industry that seeks to addict an entire generation to nicotine,” said Meredith Berkman, Co-Founder of Parents Against Vaping. “By going after those who deliberately market, promote, and peddle illegal flavored vapes to minors, causing serious negative health consequences that can impact young people for years to come, the Attorney General makes clear that she will not allow these bad actors to continue making enormous profits while harming New York’s children.” 

    “The vaping industry has taken advantage of youth as a vulnerable and profitable market through flavoring, advertising, and sales techniques, putting their health at risk,” said Melissa Safford, Program Director of Uplift Irondequoit. “Our coalition and community work hard to promote prevention amid a market that is flooded with false claims surrounding the safety and benefits of vaping. It is wonderful to see that Attorney General James is continuing to be a champion for youth’s health, protecting them from the vaping industry.” 

    “The Long Island Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (LICADD) offers our professional support to the continued leadership by our New York State Attorney General Letitia James in her unwavering efforts to keep New Yorkers safe from unscrupulous marketing strategies flagrantly targeting our youth and exposing them to dangerous and addictive nicotine products,” said Steve Chassman, Executive Director of LICADD. “Nicotine is a potent mind- and mood-altering drug that potentially develops into a physical and psychological dependence. The implications of nicotine intoxication and dependence for young people on their mental, physical, academic, and social well-being are far reaching when dangerous levels of nicotine are consumed at a vulnerable age. These dangerous products are being callously marketed as ‘candy-like’ materials, distorting the harmful effects the drug has on human development. LICADD commends Attorney General Letitia James for fighting for the health and wellness of our youth who are potentially falling prey to monetary greed and a total disregard of public health.” 

    This lawsuit builds on Attorney General James’ efforts to hold the vaping industry accountable. Last month, Attorney General James filed a lawsuit against a retailer in upstate New York for knowingly selling vapor products to underage customers. In April 2023, Attorney General James secured $462 million from Juul Manufacturers for its role in the youth vaping epidemic. In August 2021, Attorney General James co-led a bipartisan coalition calling on the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes and oral nicotine products. In December 2020, Attorney General James ordered dozens of retailers across the state to immediately stop selling e-cigarette products to underage customers and to stop selling flavored vaping products in violation of New York state law. Also in December 2020, Attorney General James held a roundtable with elected officials, students, and parents on the subject of vaping among young people in New York state. In July 2020, Attorney General James cracked down on three online retailers that were illegally selling e-cigarettes online to consumers in New York, including minors. In April 2019, Attorney General James led a coalition of seven states in urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take stronger action in addressing the scourge of e-cigarette use among youth by taking proposed measures such as strengthening guidance, beginning enforcement earlier, and banning online sales of e-cigarettes.   

    This matter is being handled by Special Counsel Monica Hanna with assistance from Health Care Deputy Bureau Chief Leslieann Cachola, Special Counsel for Complex Litigation Collen Faherty, Assistant Attorneys General Alex Finkelstein, Wil Handley, and Joy Mele, Legal Assistants Ketty Dautruche and Dana-Ann Henry, and Document Review Managers Carol Cheng and Kristin Petrella, under the supervision of Health Care Bureau Chief Darsana Srinivasan. Data analysis was provided by Data Scientist Blythe Davis under the supervision of Deputy Director Gautam Sisodia and Director Victoria Khan of the Research and Analytics Department. The Health Care Bureau is part of the Division of Social Justice which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General Meghan Faux and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.   

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Debt Vulnerabilities And Financing Challenges In Emerging Markets And Developing Economies—An Overview Of Key Data

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    Summary

    Many emerging markets and developing economies face elevated debt vulnerabilities and financing needs. Following the 2020-21 surge in debt levels associated with the COVID-19 shock, and the subsequent tightening in global financial conditions, many emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs)1 are grappling with rising debt service burdens that squeeze the space available for development spending. Pandemic-induced deficits have declined, and debt levels have stabilized and are projected to remain stable or slightly decline under staff’s baseline assumptions. However, many EMDEs are confronting high costs of financing, large external refinancing needs, and a decline in net external flows amid important investment and social spending needs. To help address these challenges, countries would benefit from actions, both at domestic and international level, to proactively expand their capacity to finance development spending. There are also important risks to the baseline that will require careful monitoring. This paper aims to help inform the international debate on these issues by providing factual data and insight on the debt vulnerabilities and financing pressures facing EMDEs.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Minister Burke, Minister Donohoe and Minister Chambers welcome latest figures showing further employment growth in fourth quarter of 2024

    Source: Government of Ireland – Department of Jobs Enterprise and Innovation

    The Q4 2024 Labour Force Survey and latest Monthly Unemployment Release show:

    • Employment continues to grow, with 71,400 jobs created in the year to Q4 2024
    • Total employment now stands at 2.78 million
    • Employment growth has been widespread throughout the regions – Employment outside of Dublin increased by 48,000 in the year to Q4 2024 (+2.5 percent)
    • Full time employment was up 82,900 (+3.9 percent) year on year in the fourth quarter, while part time employment was down 11,600 (-2.0 percent) year on year
    • In January 2025, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 4.0 percent, down from the revised rate of 4.5 in December 2024 and from a rate of 4.5 percent in January 2024

    Labour Force Survey (LFS) results published today by the Central Statistics Office show continued growth in Ireland’s labour market, with 71,400 jobs created in the year to Q4 2024.

    Employment now stands at 2.78 million, an increase of approximately 2.6 percent over Q4 2023. 

    This is reflective of the success of the Government’s focus on driving a labour market recovery in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, as set out in the Economic Recovery Plan. This commitment to continued employment growth has been renewed in the Government’s White Paper on Enterprise, published in December 2022, which sets out the strategic direction for job creation in the years ahead. 

    Commenting on the figures, the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Peter Burke, said:

    “The Irish labour market has shown outstanding progress in 2024, with key indicators reflecting a robust economy and increasing opportunities for workers across multiple industries. Ireland’s workforce continues to expand, driving the nation’s economic resilience and ensuring a brighter future for job seekers across the regions. It is vital that we continue to build on these successes, ensuring that Ireland remains an attractive and inclusive place for individuals to work, live, and prosper.

    “The new Small Business Unit, to be established in the coming weeks, will be one of the tools utilised to ensure the delivery of targeted support for small businesses and employers. These small businesses continue to be the backbone of our local and national economies.”

    The Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohoe, said:

    “2024 was another strong year for the Irish labour market, with the number of people employed reaching 2.78 million in the final quarter. Despite a slight moderation in annual employment growth in the final quarter, the number of people in work increased by 70,000 last year. As a result, employment has now increased by 400,000 compared to the pre-pandemic period, a truly remarkable achievement.  Encouragingly, the unemployment rate remains low at 4.2 per cent, broadly consistent with full employment.

    “Today’s results point to some modest easing in the tight conditions that have characterised the labour market over the past year. Looking ahead, the economic outlook is increasingly uncertain reflecting the challenging international environment. My Department will publish updated macroeconomic projections as part of its usual spring forecasts that will be published in April.”

    The Minister for Public Expenditure, Jack Chambers, said:

    “Our incredibly strong levels of employment continue to be a central component of our country’s robust economic performance. Increased growth in job rates – both in our cities and in the regions – underscores the confidence employers and investors have in the Irish economy. 

    “This is a direct result of the sensible management of our public finances and the economic policies which have been pursued in recent years. The positive figures released today also speak to the level of State investment to support both our small and medium enterprise sector as well as our education system which is producing high calibre, highly skilled workers across a broad range of areas and sectors throughout our economy. 

    “As an open, trading economy we know we face risks from changes to global trade. The best way to safeguard, protect and further advance our economic success is to enhance our national competitiveness. A key aspect of this is continuing to invest in our people and workers to upskill and diversify our talent pool which will equip us to unlock future economic opportunities and to fully harness the potential of the green and digital transitions.”

    Please also find here a link to the CSO release: Labour Force Survey (LFS) – CSO – Central Statistics Office

    ENDS

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Criticizes Trump And Musk For Dismantling Of USAID And Harming American Farmers In Senate Floor Speech

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    February 19, 2025

    In his remarks, Durbin also debunked Kremlin-fostered falsehoods about USAID that have been circulated by Trump, Musk, and foreign adversaries and called on Republicans to speak up

    WASHINGTON  In a speech on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) criticized President Trump and Elon Musk’s ill-advised mission to dismantle the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID)—the largest distributor of humanitarian aid in the world.  Consequently, programs that provide clean drinking water, treat debilitating disease, and advance human rights have been shut down, recklessly gutting American soft power and providing a huge strategic opening to China. 

    “This month, President Trump and Elon Musk attempted to dismantle USAID, the largest distributor of humanitarian aid on this earth.  Musk was gleeful when he said we are ‘feeding USAID to the wood chipper,’” Durbin began.

    Durbin then listed the critical programs housed under USAID, which have since shuttered.  USAID has provided clean water in Haiti and Jordan, helped fight malaria and tuberculosis in Kenya and Uganda, and supported human rights programs in countries such as Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan.  The agency has also provided economic assistance to Central America to address the root causes of migration and counter the flow of fentanyl in to the U.S., in addition to leading campaigns to counter disinformation from Russia and China to protect U.S. national security interests.

    Despite blatantly inaccurate claims from President Trump and Musk, USAID funding makes up only one percent of the federal budget and billions of those aid dollars flow back into the American economy.  Furthermore, these programs have a long history of broad bipartisan support in Congress.  In Illinois, these cuts have forced the closure of the Soybean Innovation Lab at the University of Illinois.  As a result, 30 experts will lose jobs that were dedicated to expanding international soybean markets, at a time when Illinois ranks number one in the U.S. for soybean production, and new markets are critical foraddressing low soybean prices.

    “Not only are these cuts to USAID a betrayal of American values to satisfy the narcissism of Elon Musk, but they hurt innocent people, and they hurt American farmers… who, for decades, have helped provide such critical and strategic food aid,” Durbin continued.  “Not only is this sweeping aid cut illegal and counterproductive, but it hurts American farmer in Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin, and many other states.   American farms supply more than 40 percent of the food aid that USAID distributes around the world.  And now, hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of such commodities are stranded in ports, rotting away at the direction of the new administration.”

    In addition to hurting the U.S. economy, halting foreign aid has endangered global programs that have helped stem pandemics and supported clean water and sanitation programs.

    “Programs like PEPFAR have been a key example of humanitarian success abroad.  It was started by President George W. Bush, a Republican president, who wanted to curtail the AIDS epidemic ravaging many parts of the world, including Africa.  PEPFAR and the Global Fund have saved more than 25 million lives so far,” Durbin said.  “But because of President Trump’s directive, it’s been halted… People will die as a result of this political decision.”

    “In the last decade, USAID clean water and sanitation programs have provided more than 70 million people with first-time sustainable access to clean water…  These programs that have a six-to-one return in dollars saved in health, economic, and education,” Durbin continued.  “But because of the President’s directive, innocent people across the world will suffer, and America’s reputation will be weakened, not made stronger.”

    Durbin concluded his remarks by debunking lies about foreign aid, including falsehoods amplified by Russia, China, and other adversaries.  Durbin referred to a fabricated video created by a private company with links to the Kremlin, which falsely claimed that celebrities were paid by USAID to visit Ukraine.

    “The Russian influence campaign was reposted on Twitter by Elon Musk, no surprise, and became a viral disinformation rallying cry against USAID.  But it was false—like so many of the allegations of supposed outrages by USAID,” Durbin said.  “And yet, this kind of nonsense is used by Mr. Musk to justify gutting entire congressionally-appropriated American soft power programs, while many of my Republican colleagues, virtually all of them, sit silently.”

    “This Senate, Republicans and Democrats, cannot afford to roll over, play dead, and hand over congressional authority on these bipartisan programs and on larger constitutionally-designated Congressional appropriations powers,” Durbin concluded.

    Video of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Audio of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Footage of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here for TV Stations.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: 20 February 2025 Departmental update Message by the Director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals at WHO – January/February 2025

    Source: World Health Organisation

    Safeguarding children and adolescents from deadly, yet preventable diseases, such as polio, measles, diphtheria, pertussis, human papillomavirus and tetanus, among others, is the foundation of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) – saving an estimated 154 million lives and adding over 10 billion years of healthy life. Through strong partnerships and countries’ commitments vaccines have reached every corner of the world and became the single greatest contribution of any health intervention to ensuring babies not only see their first birthdays but continue leading healthy lives into adulthood.

    2025 marks a significant turning point for immunization efforts worldwide.

    Last year, we celebrated the remarkable progress made by the global immunization community since 1974. Each year, new and under-utilized vaccines continue to be introduced in countries. In 2024, four new countries introduced HPV vaccines and 25 adopted the single-dose schedule. Additionally, Niger and Nigeria became the first countries to implement the Men5CV vaccine, a new and affordable meningococcal pentavalent conjugate vaccine, and more than 12 million doses of malaria vaccine reached 17 countries in Africa in 2024 – a pivotal moment in the fight to end malaria.

    The Big Catch-up Initiative, a major vaccine co-financing initiative in collaboration with Gavi and UNICEF, began reaching children left unvaccinated as a result the pandemic. By the end of 2024, an estimated 143 million vaccine doses had been delivered to 36 countries and 10.5 million catch-up doses had already been administered. This year, an additional 104 million doses will be delivered as part of the Big Catch-up, and a new WHO global monitoring dashboard is enabling real-time data tracking to continually strengthen countries strategies and our support to them. The midway point of the Immunization Agenda 2030 is upon us. As we look towards the next five years there are challenges ahead, but the goal is more relevant than ever.

    Five immunization priorities for 2025

    Equity: Reaching Zero-Dose Children

    Vaccine equity remains one of the most urgent global health challenges of our time. While immunization programs have made tremendous progress, millions of children worldwide remain unreached—many of whom are classified as zero-dose children, meaning they have not received a single vaccine. In 2023, 14.5 million children had received no vaccines at all, a sharp increase from 12.9 million in 2019. These children are disproportionately from marginalized communities, including those in conflict zones, remote areas, and urban slums. The gap in coverage not only fuels preventable disease outbreaks but also deepens existing inequalities in health outcomes. Closing this gap requires targeted strategies: improving supply chains, strengthening healthcare infrastructure, and addressing socioeconomic barriers that prevent families from accessing vaccination services. Achieving true equity means ensuring that no child is left behind.

    Outbreaks: The Resurgence of Measles and System Strengthening

    Vaccine-Preventable Disease surveillance is another pillar of global health security. From yellow fever to measles to pneumonia, early detection ensures vaccines reach those who need them most. The alarming rise in measles cases is a stark reminder of result when immunization networks are weakened. Once considered on the path to elimination in many regions, measles is resurging due to gaps in vaccine coverage. This increase is a warning signal that vaccination systems are at risk—delayed campaigns, supply chain disruptions, and weakened trust in health services have created the basis for outbreaks. Strengthening immunization programmes is not just about responding to crises but about intense work to build resilient health systems so those crises are averted in the first place. This means enhancing surveillance, ensuring robust stockpiles of vaccines, training health workers, assuring data systems are in place to drive impact and intensifying essential immunization services. A failure to act decisively now could see other vaccine-preventable diseases following the same dangerous trend.

    Vaccine Confidence: Strengthening Trust Among Communities and Health Workers

    Confidence in vaccines is the backbone of successful immunization efforts. The past few years have exposed both the strengths and vulnerabilities of public trust in vaccines. Misinformation, historical mistrust, and political instability threaten to erode hard-won gains. At the same time, frontline health workers—the trusted faces of vaccination—must be supported with training and resources to confidently engage with communities. Trust must be built through transparency, education, and engagement. Governments, civil society, and the private sector must work together to counter misinformation and misrepresentation, amplify accurate information, and ensure that communities feel empowered, not coerced, in vaccine decision-making.

    New Vaccines: Innovation, Hope, and the Need for Strong Support

    Innovation in vaccines brings immense opportunity for tackling some of the world’s deadliest diseases. The introduction of new vaccines—whether for malaria, RSV, or the next pandemic threat—represents a turning point in public health.  New vaccines are only as impactful as the systems that deliver them. The success of these vaccines hinges not just on their development but on their effective introduction and sustained delivery. This is where our role supporting countries is critical: ensuring that regulatory approvals, financing mechanisms, health system readiness, and community acceptance are in place. Investing in the introduction of these vaccines with the same urgency as their research and development will be key to translating scientific breakthroughs into real-world protection.

    Funding and political challengers

    In January, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order indicating the United States’ intent to withdraw from WHO. We remain hopeful that the US will reconsider. For decades, the partnership between the US and WHO has been instrumental in achieving historic public health milestones—from the eradication of smallpox to advancing global immunization efforts that have saved millions of lives in the US and around the world. This collaboration has protected Americans at home and abroad through disease surveillance, accelerating scientific progress, and ensuring that life-saving health interventions reach those who need them most, and shutting down outbreaks when they emerge, to limit their impact.

    Global health security is a shared responsibility. Infectious diseases do not respect borders, and the challenges we face—whether responding to outbreaks, developing new vaccines, or ensuring equitable access to healthcare—require international cooperation.

    WHO remains committed to its mission and will continue working with partners to strengthen global health systems. Strong leadership and sustained funding are critical to ensuring immunization programmes remain resilient. However, the political landscape for vaccines is increasingly unpredictable, putting decades of progress at risk.

    Moving Forward Together: A Moment for Global Health Cooperation

    Two upcoming meetings will be pivotal in providing critical guidance for future immunization policies and strategies.

    The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) will meet 10-13 March 2025, to advance global immunization policies and priorities. Key discussions will focus on IA2030 progress, pneumococcus vaccine schedules, varicella-zoster vaccination, new vaccine introductions, NITAG strengthening, and global polio eradication policy decisions and mpox updates. The Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forum (March 25-27, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) will convene experts from around the world to advance vaccine innovations, sustainable R&D investments, Artificial Intelligence applications to vaccine development, climate-related challenges to immunization, and equitable access to vaccines. Key discussions will highlight Latin American advancements, maternal and new TB vaccines, vaccine role to reduce antimicrobial resistance, and clinical trial innovations for immunization.

    In closing, I want to thank Member States, partners, and all those in the global health community for the resilient commitment and focus on immunization, driven always by high quality evidence, science and impact. Now is the time to remain committed and sharpen our focus so that immunization for all is a reality.

    The world has the tools, knowledge, and capacity to protect future generations through vaccines. Political will and global solidarity are more valuable than ever to make that happen.

    In the words of Dr. Albert Sabin, “A scientist who is also a human being cannot rest while knowledge which might be used to reduce suffering rests on the shelf.” Let’s ensure that decades of progress are not left behind, but are built upon. It is in our hands. It is Humanly Possible.

     —-

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Global: A fiscal crisis is looming for many US cities

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why cities struggle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Climate-driven disasters

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Underfunded pensions

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

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

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

    Struggling downtowns and less federal support

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

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

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

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

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

    Resistance to new taxes

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

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

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

    The crunch

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump order boosts school choice, but there’s little evidence vouchers lead to smarter students or better educational outcomes

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charles J. Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education and Research Professor of Law, University of Dayton

    Surveys suggest growing support for school choice, such as in Ohio, even as voters reject such policies in referendums. AP Photo/Samantha Hendrickson

    The school choice movement received a major boost on Jan. 29, 2025, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order supporting families who want to use public money to send their children to private schools.

    The far-reaching order aims to redirect federal funds to voucher-type programs. Vouchers typically afford parents the freedom to select nonpublic schools, including faith-based ones, using all or a portion of the public funds set aside to educate their children.

    But research shows that as a consequence, this typically drains funding from already cash-strapped public schools.

    We are professors who focus on education law, with special interests in educational equity and school choice programs. While proponents of school choice claim it leads to academic gains, we don’t see much evidence to support this view – but we do see the negative impact they sometimes have on public schools.

    The rise of school choice

    The vast majority of children in the U.S. attend traditional public schools. Their share, however, has steadily declined from 87% in 2011 to about 83% in 2021, at least in part due to the growth of school choice programs such as vouchers.

    Modern voucher programs expanded significantly during the late 1980s and early 1990s as states, cities and local school boards experimented with ways to allow parents to use public funds to send their kids to nonpublic schools, especially ones that are religiously affiliated.

    While some programs were struck down for violating the separation of church and state, others were upheld. Vouchers received a big shot in the arm in 2002, when the Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause permitted states to include faith-based schools in their voucher programs in Cleveland.

    Following Zelman, vouchers became a more realistic political option. Even so, access to school choice programs varied greatly by state and was not as dramatic as supporters may have wished. Because the Constitution is silent on education, states largely control school voucher programs.

    Currently, 13 states and Washington, D.C., offer one or several school choice programs targeting different types of students. Total U.S. enrollment in such programs surpassed 1 million for the first time in 2024, double what it was in 2020, according to EdChoice, which advocates for school-choice policies.

    Voters, however, have taken a dim view of voucher programs. By one count, they’ve turned down referendums on vouchers 17 times, according to the National Coalition for Public Education, a group that opposes the policy.

    Most recently, three states rejected school choice programs in the November 2024 elections. Kentucky voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to enshrine school choice into commonwealth law, while Nebraska voters chose to repeal its voucher program. Colorado also rejected a “right” to school choice, but more narrowly.

    In 2025, Tennessee became the 13th state to pass some sort of school choice program, despite opposition from public school supporters.
    AP Photo/George Walker IV

    Trump’s order

    At its heart, Trump’s executive order would offer discretionary grants and issue guidance to states over using federal funds within this K-12 scholarship program. It also directs the Department of Interior and Department of Defense to make vouchers available to Native American and military families.

    In addition, the order directs the Department of Education to provide guidance on how states can better support school choice – though it’s unclear exactly what that will mean. It’s a task that will be left for Linda McMahon, Trump’s nominee for secretary of Education, once she is confirmed.

    Trump promoted school choice in his first term as well but failed to win enough congressional support to include it in the federal budget.

    Research suggests few academic gains from vouchers

    The push to give parents more choice over where to send their children is based on the assumption that doing so will provide them with a better education.

    In the order, Trump specifically cites disappointing data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showing that 70% of eighth graders are below proficient in reading, while 72% are below proficient in mathematics.

    Voucher advocates point to research that school choice boosts test scores and improves educational attainment.

    But other data don’t always back up the notion that school choice policies meaningfully improve student outcomes. A 2023 review of the past decade of research on the topic by the Brookings Institution found that the introduction of a voucherlike program actually led to lower academic achievement – similar to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    A 2017 review by a Stanford economist Martin Carnoy published by the Economic Policy Institute similarly found little evidence vouchers improve school outcomes. While there were some modest gains in graduation rates, they were outweighed by the risks to funding public school systems.

    Indeed, vouchers have been shown to reduce funding to public schools, especially in rural areas, and hurt public education in other ways, such as by making it harder for schools to afford qualified teachers.

    Critics of voucher programs also fear that nonpublic schools may discriminate
    against some students
    , such as those who are members of the LGBTQ+ community. There are some reports of this already happening in Wisconsin. Unlike legislation governing traditional public schools, state laws regulating voucher programs often do not include comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions.

    School reform

    Criticisms of voucher programs aside, many parents who support them do so based on the hope that their children will have more affordable, high-quality educational options. This was especially true in Zelman, in which the Supreme Court upheld the rights of parents to remove their kids from Cleveland’s struggling public schools.

    There is little doubt in our minds that in some cases school choice affords some parents in low-performing districts additional options for their children’s education.

    But in general, the evidence shows that is the exception to vouchers, not the rule. Evidence also suggests most children – whether they’re using vouchers to attend nonpublic schools or remain in the public school system – may not always benefit from school choice programs. And when it takes money out of underfunded public school systems, school choice can make things worse for a lot more children than it benefits.

    While the poor reading and math scores cited in Trump’s executive order suggest that change is needed to help keep America’s school and students competitive, this order may not achieve that goal.

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

    ref. Trump order boosts school choice, but there’s little evidence vouchers lead to smarter students or better educational outcomes – https://theconversation.com/trump-order-boosts-school-choice-but-theres-little-evidence-vouchers-lead-to-smarter-students-or-better-educational-outcomes-249138

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: A fiscal crisis is looming for many US cities

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why cities struggle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Climate-driven disasters

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Underfunded pensions

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

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

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

    Struggling downtowns and less federal support

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

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

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

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

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

    Resistance to new taxes

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

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

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

    The crunch

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI: Growth in Originations Expected Across Multiple Credit Products in 2025

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    CHICAGO, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Despite recent data calling into question the possibility of interest rate cuts over this year, new account originations across several credit products are still expected to grow in 2025. These findings were released today in conjunction with TransUnion’s (NYSE: TRU) newly issued Q4 2024 Quarterly Credit Industry Insights Report (CIIR).

    Following multiple years of depressed origination growth, largely driven by stubbornly high inflation, rising interest rates and elevated home and vehicle prices, new auto, mortgage, and unsecured personal loans are expected to see gains in 2025. A myriad of factors, not the least of which is lenders’ continued caution in their underwriting strategies, will likely temper the overall rate of growth across these products.

    “The Federal Reserve has signaled that it will not rush into interest rate cuts, potentially keeping rates at a level that could give consumers pause,” said Jason Laky, executive vice president and head of financial services at TransUnion. “However, we still believe that many consumer credit products will have higher originations in 2025. This will range from modest growth in auto and unsecured personal loans to more significant increases in mortgage.”

    Originations are Expected to Grow YoY Across Many Credit Products in 2025

    Loan Product Percent Change in Origination Growth
    Auto +2.7%
    Mortgage (Purchase) +13.3%
    Unsecured Personal Loans +5.7%

    Changes in originations are also impacted by trends within these lending products. A deeper dive into the origination picture for each loan product can be found below:

    • One key driver of the forecasted growth in auto originations is new light vehicle sales, which have been forecasted to grow 2.8% in 2025. However, forecasted growth may be tempered as industry and consumers navigate potential policy shifts introduced by the new administration. In addition, relatively high interest rates, inflation remaining above 2%, and a still recovering used vehicle supply may also mitigate auto originations growth.
    • Mortgage originations are forecast to increase from approximately 4.6 million in 2024 to approximately 5.7 million in 2025, with most of those being purchase originations (~3.8 million).
    • Unsecured personal loan lenders are expected to continue expanding lending to riskier tiers in 2025 as the macro economy continues to moderate. Originations are expected to increase to approximately 20.8 million over the year.

    TransUnion’s Q4 2024 Credit Industry Insights Report sees continued signs of stabilization across consumer credit products

    A number of the signs of a more stable consumer credit environment that emerged in Q3 2024 have continued over the past quarter across the credit spectrum. Originations saw some measure of YoY growth in the most recent quarter for which data are available for auto, mortgage, and unsecured personal loans. In credit cards, originations saw a smaller YoY decline than in recent quarters. Delinquencies ticked down across some credit products, although others saw increases. Balances saw increases that were more in line with rates seen prior to 2020 than in the years since.

    “In Q4 2024, we saw several signals inching towards a return to more typical patterns within the consumer credit market,” said Michele Raneri, vice president and head of research at TransUnion. “Originations ticked up across mortgage and auto and saw more significant growth in unsecured personal loans. In contrast, delinquencies presented more of a mixed bag, seeing increases in auto and mortgage, while at the same time decreasing for unsecured personal loans and credit cards. We will be looking for additional signs of improved performance in these markets moving forward.”

    To learn more about the latest consumer credit trends, register for the Q4 2024 Quarterly Credit Industry Insights Report webinar. Read on for more specific insights about credit cards, personal loans, auto loans and mortgages.

    Serious consumer-level delinquencies decline year-over-year for first time since 2020 in card

    Q4 2024 CIIR Credit Card Summary

    More signs of a return to equilibrium were present in the credit card market in Q4 2024. Consumer-level 90+ days past due delinquencies ticked down by 3 basis points YoY to 2.56%, which marked the first annual decrease since 2020. Similarly, account-level delinquencies fell by 4 basis points YoY to 1.46%. This is likely in part due to the continuation of a more conservative origination strategy among lenders. Originations saw a 4.8% YoY decline in Q3 2024. This marks the sixth consecutive quarter of declining new account volumes on an annual basis. Despite that, the slowdown in originations is decelerating, with the latest quarter seeing the smallest YoY decline since Q2 2023. Super prime was the only risk tier to see originations growth in Q3 2024, at 1.2% YoY. While originations have slowed, balances continued to grow to record highs, increasing 5.7% to $1.1 trillion. This growth was seen across risk tiers, though the pace of balance growth has returned closer to pre-2020 levels.

    Instant Analysis

    “Prior predictions had anticipated a moderation in delinquency rates in Q1 2025. The peak was pulled forward by the effect of recalibrated risk strategies and disproportionate originations in prime and above segments. At the same time, there are signs that consumer demand for credit cards may be increasing, as year-over-year originations declines are getting smaller, and some risk tiers, such as super prime, are increasing for the first time in several quarters.”

    – Paul Siegfried, senior vice president and credit card business leader at TransUnion

    Q4 2024 Credit Card Trends

    Credit Card Lending Metric (Bankcard) Q4 2024 Q4 2023 Q4 2022 Q4 2021
    Number of Credit Cards (Bankcards) 561.5 million 542.6 million 518.4 million 483.7 million
    Borrower-Level Delinquency Rate (90+ DPD) 2.56% 2.59% 2.26% 1.48%
    Total Credit Card Balances $1.11 Trillion $1.05 Trillion $931 billion $785 billion
    Average Debt Per Borrower $6,580
    $6,360 $5,805 $5,139
    Number of Consumers Carrying a Balance 173.1 million 169.9 million 166.0 million 159.0 million
    Prior Quarter Originations* 19.1 million 20.1 million 21.6 million 19.8 million
    Average New Account Credit Lines* $5,702
    $5,673 $5,226 $4,468


    *Note: Originations are viewed one quarter in arrears to account for reporting lag.

    For more credit card industry information, click here for episodes of Extra Credit: A Card and Banking Podcast by TransUnion.

    Growth in unsecured personal loan originations leads to record volumes, total balances

    Q4 2024 CIIR Unsecured Personal Loan Summary

    The positive trend in unsecured personal loans continued for another quarter. Originations for Q3 2024, the most recent quarter of data available, stood at 5.8 million – an increase of 15% year-over-year. This marked the third consecutive quarter of YoY growth and the first quarter of double-digit growth in two years (since Q2 2022). All risk tiers contributed to this expansion, especially the super prime and the below prime tiers, which grew around 17% compared to the prior year. This growth drove records, per Q4 2024 data, in the volume of outstanding loans, in total balances, and in the number of consumers with a balance. Concurrently, average debt per borrower was lower year-over-year in Q4 2024, driven by the prime and below risk tiers. Finally, 60+ DPD borrower-level delinquencies fell year-over-year for Q4 2024 to 3.57% — 33 basis points below the same quarter last year. The decline was due to risk mix shift as lower risk super prime borrowers continued to grow as a share of total loans, as well as from delinquencies among subprime borrowers which fell 136 basis points year-over-year.

    Instant Analysis

    “The unsecured personal loan market continued its rebound with originations growing year-over-year across risk tiers, and with strong double-digit growth for most of them. Additionally, borrower-level delinquencies still saw declines year-over-year. This was due to loans being issued across the credit spectrum – especially super prime – and from the subprime delinquency rate continuing to fall even as lending has opened back up to this segment. With the growth to date and optimism from lenders, we expect to see this as the beginning of a period of expansion.”

    – Liz Pagel, senior vice president of consumer lending at TransUnion

    Q4 2024 Unsecured Personal Loan Trends

    Personal Loan Metric Q4 2024 Q4 2023 Q4 2022 Q4 2021
    Total Balances $251 billion $245 billion $222 billion $167 billion
    Number of Unsecured Personal Loans 29.6 million 28.1 million 27.0 million 22.8 million
    Number of Consumers with Unsecured Personal Loans 24.5 million 23.5 million 22.5 million 19.9 million
    Borrower-Level Delinquency Rate (60+ DPD) 3.57% 3.90% 4.14% 3.00%
    Average Debt Per Borrower $11,607 $11,773 $11,116 $9,622
    Average Account Balance $8,496 $8,704 $8,195 $7,328
    Prior Quarter Originations* 5.8 million 5.0 million 5.6 million 5.1 million


    *Note: Originations are viewed one quarter in arrears to account for reporting lag.
    Click here for additional unsecured personal loan industry metrics.

    Mortgage delinquencies up year-over-year, yet remain low by historical standards

    Q4 2024 CIIR Mortgage Loan Summary

    Originations grew 7% YoY in Q3 2024, the most recent quarter for which data are available. This represented the third consecutive quarter in which mortgage originations were either flat or showed growth. Purchase originations continued to drive this growth, accounting for 82% of all originations for the quarter. This compares to a 68% average Q3 purchase share in the five years pre-pandemic. Rate and term refinance originations also played a role in this growth, seeing significant YoY growth of 174% in Q3 2024. This doubled the counts from the prior quarter as homeowners who recently opened a mortgage took advantage of the lowest rates in two years. Account-level delinquencies of 60+ days past due stood at 1.38% for Q4 2024. This remains a trend worth monitoring in coming quarters, particularly as the non-mortgage debt of homeowners continues to grow, up 7% YoY in Q3 2024.

    Instant Analysis

    “Despite recent quarters of growth, origination volumes continue to be depressed by historical standards. Recent Federal Reserve indications that interest rate reductions may occur more slowly may result in decelerated growth in 2025. Year-over-year increases in delinquency continue to be worth monitoring closely. Yet, even despite a relatively steady series of year-over-year increases in recent quarters, the rate remains extremely low relative to historical standards.”

    – Satyan Merchant, senior vice president, automotive and mortgage business leader at TransUnion

    Q4 2024 Mortgage Trends

    Mortgage Lending Metric Q4 2024 Q4 2023 Q4 2022 Q4 2021
    Number of Mortgage Loans 53.1 million 52.9 million 52.6 million 51.2 million
    Consumer-Level Delinquency Rate (60+ DPD) 1.29% 1.03% 0.89% 0.75%
    Prior Quarter Originations* 1.2 million 1.2 million 1.5 million 3.4 million
    Average Loan Amounts
    of New Mortgage Loans*
    $354,943 $337,977 $334,339 $311,743
    Average Balance per Consumer $263,923 $258,167 $252,212 $237,539
    Total Balances of All Mortgage Loans $12.2 trillion $12.0 trillion $11.7 trillion $10.7 trillion


    * O
    riginations are viewed one quarter in arrears to account for reporting lag.
    Click here for additional mortgage industry metrics. Click here for a Q4 2024 mortgage industry infographic.

    Auto originations up year-over-year driven by growth in super prime

    Q4 2024 CIIR Auto Loan Summary

    Originations were up 1.5% YoY in Q3 2024, although they still lagged 14.8% below the pre-pandemic Q3 2019. Super prime borrower originations led the way, up 8.5% YoY for the quarter. This growth was likely driven in part by increasingly available new inventory and increases in incentives. Other risk tiers saw YoY declines in originations, and when compared to 2019 levels, originations remained down across all risk tiers, with subprime seeing the largest decline (down 27.6%). Likely also driven in part by incentives, leasing continued its rebound from its Q4 2022 low (17%), at 24% of new vehicle registrations in Q4 2024. Consumer-level delinquencies of 60+ days past due continued to tick up in Q4 2024 to 1.67%. This represented an increase of 6 basis points YoY. New vehicle vintages continued to show delinquency performance in Q4 2024 consistent with pre-pandemic periods of 2018/2019. Used vehicle vintage delinquencies were slightly improved as compared to the 2022 cohort but remained worse than 2018/2019.

    Instant Analysis

    “Super prime was the underlying driver of auto originations growth in Q4 2024, and will likely continue in 2025. Affordability continues to be an issue for the used vehicle market and for below prime consumers, impacted by higher rates and cross-wallet inflation. This is unlikely to materially improve until we have more certainty around used vehicle inventory and interest rates. Delinquencies have now inched past highs previously seen in 2009, primarily driven by increases among below-prime risk tiers, and we will be monitoring them moving forward.”

    – Satyan Merchant, senior vice president, automotive and mortgage business leader at TransUnion

    Q4 2024 Auto Loan Trends

    Auto Lending Metric Q4 2024 Q4 2023 Q4 2022 Q4 2021
    Total Auto Loan Accounts 80.4 million 80.4 million 80.2 million 81.4 million
    Prior Quarter Originations1 6.4 million 6.3 million 6.5 million 7.2 million
    Average Monthly Payment NEW2 $749 $751 $729 $655
    Average Monthly Payment USED2 $523 $531 $527 $494
    Average Balance per Consumer $24,373 $23,945 $22,998 $21,298
    Average Amount Financed on New Auto Loans2 $42,023 $41,054 $41,941 $40,489
    Average Amount Financed on Used Auto Loans2 $26,135 $26,380 $27,442 $27,346
    Consumer-Level Delinquency Rate (60+ DPD) 1.67% 1.61% 1.43% 1.05%


    1
    Note: Originations are viewed one quarter in arrears to account for reporting lag.
    2Data from S&P Global MobilityAutoCreditInsight, Q4 2024 data only for months of October & November.
    Click here for additional auto industry metrics. Click here for a Q4 2024 auto industry infographic.

    For more information about the report, please register for the Q4 2024 Credit Industry Insight Report webinar.

    About TransUnion (NYSE: TRU)

    TransUnion is a global information and insights company with over 13,000 associates operating in more than 30 countries. We make trust possible by ensuring each person is reliably represented in the marketplace. We do this with a Tru™ picture of each person: an actionable view of consumers, stewarded with care. Through our acquisitions and technology investments we have developed innovative solutions that extend beyond our strong foundation in core credit into areas such as marketing, fraud, risk and advanced analytics. As a result, consumers and businesses can transact with confidence and achieve great things. We call this Information for Good® — and it leads to economic opportunity, great experiences and personal empowerment for millions of people around the world.

    http://www.transunion.com/business

    Contact Dave Blumberg
      TransUnion
       
    E-mail dblumberg@transunion.com
       
    Telephone  312-972-6646

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: XBP Europe Selected for AGIRC-ARRCO’s Digital Transformation Framework

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    PARIS, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — XBP Europe Holdings, Inc. (“XBP Europe” or “the Company”) (NASDAQ: XBP), a pan-European integrator of bills, payments, and related solutions and services seeking to enable the digital transformation of its clients, announced today that its French subsidiary has been selected as a supplier on a large-scale framework for sourcing data processing and payments services. The AGIRC-ARRCO framework is estimated to be in excess of a cumulative total of €25 million for all suppliers.

    AGIRC-ARRCO manages a compulsory supplementary pension scheme for private-sector employees in France. This is achieved via a confederation structure involving multiple member pension funds. The fund collects contributions from 27 million employees and 1.8 million companies, paying out €90 billion each year, making AGIRC-ARRCO a crucial service provider in the French pension system.

    AGIRC-ARRCO has selected XBP Europe France, along with three other suppliers, to support pension applications and administrative services relating to pension contributions. XBP Europe intends to compete for multiple projects within the framework, aiming to deploy its state-of-the-art IDP/TTY, workflow solutions, and Digital Mailroom platforms.

    Our participation in the AGIRC-ARRCO framework reinforces XBP Europe’s position as a trusted partner for digital transformations. We are proud to support AGIRC-ARRCO and its members with our expertise in data digitisation and workflow automation, ensuring efficiency, accuracy, and operational excellence,” said Vitalie Robu, President at XBP Europe.

    About XBP Europe

    XBP Europe is a pan-European integrator of bills, payments and related solutions and services seeking to enable digital transformation of its more than 2,000 clients. The Company’s name – ‘XBP’ – stands for ‘exchange for bills and payments’ and reflects the Company’s strategy to connect buyers and suppliers, across industries, including banking, healthcare, insurance, utilities and the public sector, to optimize clients’ bills and payments and related digitization processes. The Company provides business process management solutions with proprietary software suites and deep domain expertise, serving as a technology and services partner for its clients. Its cloud-based structure enables it to deploy its solutions across the European market, along with the Middle East and Africa. The physical footprint of XBP Europe spans 15 countries and 32 locations and a team of approximately 1,500 individuals. XBP Europe believes its business ultimately advances digital transformation, improves market wide liquidity by expediting payments, and encourages sustainable business practices. For more information, please visit: www.xbpeurope.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements
    This press release contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Exchange Act, including certain financial forecasts and projections. All statements other than statements of historical fact contained in this press release, including statements as to future results of operations and financial position, revenue and other metrics planned products and services, business strategy and plans, objectives of management for future operations of XBP Europe, market size and growth opportunities, competitive position and technological and market trends, are forward-looking statements. Some of these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words, including “may,” “should,” “expect,” “intend,” “will,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “predict,” “plan,” “targets,” “projects,” “could,” “would,” “continue,” “forecast” or the negatives of these terms or variations of them or similar expressions. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements are based upon estimates, forecasts and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by XBP Europe and its management, as the case may be, are inherently uncertain and many factors may cause the actual results to differ materially from current expectations which include, but are not limited to: (1) the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against XBP Europe or others and any definitive agreements with respect thereto; (2) the inability to meet the continued listing standards of Nasdaq or another securities exchange; (3) the risk that the business combination disrupts current plans and operations of XBP Europe and its subsidiaries; (4) the inability to recognize the anticipated benefits of the business combination, which may be affected by, among other things, competition, the ability of XBP Europe and its subsidiaries to grow and manage growth profitably, maintain relationships with customers and suppliers and retain its management and key employees; (5) costs related to the business combination; (6) changes in applicable laws or regulations; (7) the possibility that XBP Europe or any of its subsidiaries may be adversely affected by other economic, business and/or competitive factors; (8) risks related to XBP Europe’s potential inability to achieve or maintain profitability and generate cash; (9) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including any mutations or variants thereof, and its effect on business and financial conditions; (10) volatility in the markets caused by geopolitical and economic factors; (11) the ability of XBP Europe to retain existing clients; (12) the potential inability of XBP Europe to manage growth effectively; (13) the ability to recruit, train and retain qualified personnel, and (14) other risks and uncertainties set forth in the sections entitled “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” in the Annual Reports on Form 10-K filed on April 1, 2024 and, our subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and our current reports on Form 8-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). These filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Nothing in this press release should be regarded as a representation by any person that the forward-looking statements set forth herein will be achieved or that any of the contemplated results of such forward-looking statements will be achieved. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. XBP Europe gives no assurance that either XBP Europe or any of its subsidiaries will achieve its expected results. XBP Europe undertakes no duty to update these forward-looking statements, except as otherwise required by law.

    For more XBP Europe news, commentary, and industry perspectives, visit: https://www.xbpeurope.com/
    And please follow us on social:
    X: https://X.com/XBPEurope
    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/xbp-europe/

    The information posted on XBP Europe’s website and/or via its social media accounts may be deemed material to investors. Accordingly, investors, media and others interested in XBP Europe should monitor XBP Europe’s website and its social media accounts in addition to XBP Europe’s press releases, SEC filings and public conference calls and webcasts.

    Investor and/or Media Contacts:
    investors@xbpeurope.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo begins at IICC,Yashobhoomi

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Posted On: 20 FEB 2025 11:59AM by PIB Delhi

    The Council for Leather Exports (CLE) is organising the 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo (DILEX) – Reverse Buyer Seller Meet (RBSM) during 20th and 21st February 2025 at the India International Convention & Expo Centre (IICC), Yashobhoomi, Dwarka, New Delhi, with funding support from the Government of India under the Market Access Initiative (MAI) Scheme. This landmark event is poised to strengthen India’s position in the global leather and footwear industry.

    The 6th edition boasts expanded participation with approximately 225 Indian exhibitors showcasing their latest collections across an 8,000-square-meter exhibition area, a significant increase from the previous edition. Its global reach has also grown, with over 200 foreign buyers from nearly 52 countries, including key markets in Europe and the U.S., compared to just 130+ last time. The event will take place in Hall 1B at IICC, offering a world-class venue, while robust domestic engagement is ensured with over 500 representatives from Indian buying houses, retailers, and trade buyers, fostering extensive networking opportunities.

    During the inauguration of the 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo (DILEX), organized by the Council for Leather Exports (CLE), Shri Vimal Anand, Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce, remarked that the event marked a significant milestone in India’s global trade journey. He noted that in the post-COVID recovery phase, India’s leather and footwear industry had demonstrated exceptional resilience by expanding exports and positioning the country to achieve its ambitious targets, including a goal of USD 7 billion for FY 2025-26.

    Shri Anand, also shared that with favorable policies, such as import duty exemptions on wet blue leather and enhanced credit guarantees for MSMEs, India is well-positioned to capitalize on emerging global shifts—particularly in light of geopolitical changes and new market access opportunities, including tariff adjustments and the “China Plus One” demand.

    Shri RK Jalan, Chairman, Council for Leather Exports at the inauguration of DILEX 2025 said, “The 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo (DILEX) 2025 opens doors for the global leather and footwear sector amidst an evolving geopolitical landscape. As the world recovers from the pandemic and contends with disruptions like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump Tariff era and China’s aggressive trade policies, India’s leather industry has shown resilience, achieving consecutive months of growth. With a positive trajectory, we aim to reach the Department of Commerce’s USD 7bn export target and position India among the top 5 global exporters by FY 2025-26.

    As India continues to expand its footprint in the global footwear and leather market, DILEX 2025 provides a critical platform for fostering international trade and collaboration. The event facilitates one-on-one business meetings, allowing manufacturers and exporters to engage directly with international buyers, thereby exploring viable sourcing alternatives. At a time when India is increasingly recognized as a “China Plus One” sourcing option, DILEX 2025 reaffirms the country’s commitment to innovation, sustainable growth, and excellence in the leather and footwear sectors.                                              

    ***

    Abhishek Dayal/Abhijith Narayanan

    (Release ID: 2104883) Visitor Counter : 63

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Financial statements of the ECB for 2024

    Source: European Central Bank

    20 February 2025

    • ECB reports loss of €7.9 billion (2023: loss of €1.3 billion)
    • Losses will be offset against future profits

    The European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) financial statements for 2024 show a loss of €7,944 million, which is comparable to the loss of €7,886 million reported in 2023 before the transfer from risk provisions. In 2023 the full release of the provision for financial risks of €6,620 million reduced the loss for that year to €1,266 million, while in 2024 no losses could be covered by this provision as its balance stood at zero. The 2024 loss, like the loss from the previous year, will remain on the ECB’s balance sheet to be offset against future profits. As a result of the loss, there will be no profit distribution to euro area national central banks for 2024.

    The losses come after many years of substantial profits and are the result of policy actions taken by the Eurosystem that were necessary to fulfil its primary mandate of maintaining price stability. These policies required the ECB to expand its balance sheet by purchasing financial assets, mostly with fixed interest rates and long maturities. This was accompanied by a corresponding increase in liabilities, on which the ECB pays interest at variable rates. Thus, increases in the ECB’s key interest rates in 2022 and 2023, which were aimed at combating high inflation in the euro area, resulted in immediate increases in interest expenses on these liabilities, while interest income on the ECB’s assets, in particular on securities purchased under the asset purchase programme (APP) and the pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP), did not increase to the same extent.

    The ECB may still incur losses in the coming years. Should this be the case, any such losses are expected to be lower than those incurred in 2023 and 2024. Thereafter, the ECB is expected to return to making profits. In any case, the ECB can operate effectively and fulfil its primary mandate of maintaining price stability regardless of any losses. Its financial strength is further underlined by its capital and its substantial revaluation accounts, which together amounted to €59 billion at the end of 2024, €13 billion higher than at the end of 2023.

    The ECB’s interest income and expenses in 2024 were as follows:

    In 2024, as in 2023, the fact that interest expenses were higher than interest income was mainly driven by the significant interest expense on the ECB’s net TARGET liability. Since this liability was remunerated at the interest rate on the main refinancing operations (MRO rate), the higher average MRO rate of 4.1% in 2024 (2023: 3.8%) resulted in an increase in this expense. The higher average MRO rate also led to increases in the interest income on claims related to the allocation of euro banknotes in circulation and the interest expense payable to the NCBs as remuneration of their claims in respect of foreign reserves transferred to the ECB. The interest income on securities held for monetary policy purposes also increased, mainly on government securities held under the PEPP. The interest income on foreign reserves was higher, largely coming from securities denominated in US dollars.

    Write-downs amounted to €269 million (2023: €38 million) and resulted mainly from the decline in the market value of a number of securities held in the US dollar portfolio and the depreciation of the Japanese yen, which led to a reduction in the value of the related currency holding.

    Total staff costs increased to €844 million (2023: €676 million), mainly owing to the higher costs of post-employment benefits arising from an amendment to the rules governing the ECB’s pension plans in 2024. Other administrative expenses increased to €626 million (2023: €596 million), mainly owing to higher IT spending in relation to the digital transformation, while also reflecting the impact of inflation.

    Supervisory fee income (fees charged to supervised banks to recover expenses incurred by the ECB in the performance of its supervisory tasks) amounted to €681 million (2023: €654 million).

    The total size of the ECB’s balance sheet decreased by €33 billion to €641 billion (2023: €673 billion), mainly reflecting the gradual decline in APP holdings owing to redemptions.

    Consolidated balance sheet of the Eurosystem

    At the end of 2024 the size of the balance sheet of the Eurosystem, which comprises assets and liabilities of the euro area NCBs and the ECB vis-à-vis third parties, stood at €6,428 billion (2023: €6,887 billion). The reduction compared to 2023 was due to the decline in securities held for monetary policy purposes to €4,283 billion (2023: €4,694 billion), mainly owing to redemptions. APP holdings decreased by €353 billion to €2,673 billion, as reinvestment of maturing assets ceased in July 2023, while PEPP holdings decreased by €57 billion to €1,609 billion, with maturing assets being only partially reinvested in the second half of 2024. Furthermore, Eurosystem lending operations decreased to €34 billion (2023: €410 billion), largely as a result of the maturing of the third series of targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTRO III). The resulting decline was partially offset by the increase in the euro-equivalent value of the Eurosystem’s holdings of gold to €872 billion (2023: €649 billion) owing to the rise in the market price of gold in euro terms.

    For media queries, please contact William Lelieveldt, tel.: +49 69 1344 7316.

    Notes

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: ARISE Japan Public Symposium 2025: breakthroughs via collaboration: how various forms of DRR partnerships address resilience challenges

    Source: UNISDR Disaster Risk Reduction

    Time

    10:00 a.m. – 12:20 p.m. (GMT+9)

    About

    This year marks ten years from the adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction on March 2015. While a certain amount of progress has been made, we chase an elusive and moving high bar that is a disaster resilient society, through pandemics, extreme weather, and a changing climate. With less than five years remaining until 2030, the target year, what more can be done to resolve difficult challenges?

    In this symposium, we will re-focus on “collaboration” as emphasized in “V. Roles of Stakeholders” of the Sendai Framework, and learn and discuss examples of collaboration across sectors, including business, government, and academia, and between businesses in different industries. Through such discussions we aim to accelerate and expand collaboration in the next five years to dramatically strengthen resilience and reach the goal of the Sendai Framework. 

    Tentative programme

    Note: The event will be in Japanese 

    10:00 Welcome Remarks 

    Mr. Masato Takamatsu, ARISE Japan Lead; President, Tourism Resilience Japan

    Ms. Yuki Matsuoka, Head, UNDRR Kobe Office

    10:20 Keynote 

    Importance of collaboration for DRR and resilience |Mr. Nishiguchi, CEO, Japan Innovation Network

    11:00 Panel discussion: the many forms of collaboration for disaster resilience 

    Moderator: Mr. Shigeki Honda, Adviser, Minerva Veritas Co., Ltd. 

    • Collaboration in the Philippines | Engr. Liza B. Silerio, Co-Chair, ARISE Philippines
    • Public-private-academia collaboration towards international standardization and better DRR | Dr. Takahiro Ono, General Manager Business Design, Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc.
    • Private-private collaboration and knowledge-sharing for realistic training materials| Ms. Yoshiko Abe, DRR Working Group, Global Compact Network Japan 
    • Collaboration towards better communication during disasters | Mr. Hirokazu Akiba, CEO, Sonae Co., Ltd. and Mr. Ryuta Taniguchi, CXCC Communication Director, Dentsu Inc.
    • Collaborations in satellite remote sensing | Ms. Yoriko Arai, Manager Business Strategy, Remote Sensing Technology Center of Japan (RESTEC) 

    12:20 Closing remarks

    Ms. Sandra Wu, Former ARISE Board member, Chairperson and CEO, Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd. 

    Event supported by

    Global Compact Network Japan (GCNJ)

    Association for Resilience Japan (ARJ)

    Japan Bosai Platform (JBP)

    Sponsored by

    Kokusai Kogyo Co., Ltd. 

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Financial statements of the ECB for 2024

    Source: European Central Bank

    20 February 2025

    • ECB reports loss of €7.9 billion (2023: loss of €1.3 billion)
    • Losses will be offset against future profits

    The European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) financial statements for 2024 show a loss of €7,944 million, which is comparable to the loss of €7,886 million reported in 2023 before the transfer from risk provisions. In 2023 the full release of the provision for financial risks of €6,620 million reduced the loss for that year to €1,266 million, while in 2024 no losses could be covered by this provision as its balance stood at zero. The 2024 loss, like the loss from the previous year, will remain on the ECB’s balance sheet to be offset against future profits. As a result of the loss, there will be no profit distribution to euro area national central banks for 2024.

    The losses come after many years of substantial profits and are the result of policy actions taken by the Eurosystem that were necessary to fulfil its primary mandate of maintaining price stability. These policies required the ECB to expand its balance sheet by purchasing financial assets, mostly with fixed interest rates and long maturities. This was accompanied by a corresponding increase in liabilities, on which the ECB pays interest at variable rates. Thus, increases in the ECB’s key interest rates in 2022 and 2023, which were aimed at combating high inflation in the euro area, resulted in immediate increases in interest expenses on these liabilities, while interest income on the ECB’s assets, in particular on securities purchased under the asset purchase programme (APP) and the pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP), did not increase to the same extent.

    The ECB may still incur losses in the coming years. Should this be the case, any such losses are expected to be lower than those incurred in 2023 and 2024. Thereafter, the ECB is expected to return to making profits. In any case, the ECB can operate effectively and fulfil its primary mandate of maintaining price stability regardless of any losses. Its financial strength is further underlined by its capital and its substantial revaluation accounts, which together amounted to €59 billion at the end of 2024, €13 billion higher than at the end of 2023.

    The ECB’s interest income and expenses in 2024 were as follows:

    In 2024, as in 2023, the fact that interest expenses were higher than interest income was mainly driven by the significant interest expense on the ECB’s net TARGET liability. Since this liability was remunerated at the interest rate on the main refinancing operations (MRO rate), the higher average MRO rate of 4.1% in 2024 (2023: 3.8%) resulted in an increase in this expense. The higher average MRO rate also led to increases in the interest income on claims related to the allocation of euro banknotes in circulation and the interest expense payable to the NCBs as remuneration of their claims in respect of foreign reserves transferred to the ECB. The interest income on securities held for monetary policy purposes also increased, mainly on government securities held under the PEPP. The interest income on foreign reserves was higher, largely coming from securities denominated in US dollars.

    Write-downs amounted to €269 million (2023: €38 million) and resulted mainly from the decline in the market value of a number of securities held in the US dollar portfolio and the depreciation of the Japanese yen, which led to a reduction in the value of the related currency holding.

    Total staff costs increased to €844 million (2023: €676 million), mainly owing to the higher costs of post-employment benefits arising from an amendment to the rules governing the ECB’s pension plans in 2024. Other administrative expenses increased to €626 million (2023: €596 million), mainly owing to higher IT spending in relation to the digital transformation, while also reflecting the impact of inflation.

    Supervisory fee income (fees charged to supervised banks to recover expenses incurred by the ECB in the performance of its supervisory tasks) amounted to €681 million (2023: €654 million).

    The total size of the ECB’s balance sheet decreased by €33 billion to €641 billion (2023: €673 billion), mainly reflecting the gradual decline in APP holdings owing to redemptions.

    Consolidated balance sheet of the Eurosystem

    At the end of 2024 the size of the balance sheet of the Eurosystem, which comprises assets and liabilities of the euro area NCBs and the ECB vis-à-vis third parties, stood at €6,428 billion (2023: €6,887 billion). The reduction compared to 2023 was due to the decline in securities held for monetary policy purposes to €4,283 billion (2023: €4,694 billion), mainly owing to redemptions. APP holdings decreased by €353 billion to €2,673 billion, as reinvestment of maturing assets ceased in July 2023, while PEPP holdings decreased by €57 billion to €1,609 billion, with maturing assets being only partially reinvested in the second half of 2024. Furthermore, Eurosystem lending operations decreased to €34 billion (2023: €410 billion), largely as a result of the maturing of the third series of targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTRO III). The resulting decline was partially offset by the increase in the euro-equivalent value of the Eurosystem’s holdings of gold to €872 billion (2023: €649 billion) owing to the rise in the market price of gold in euro terms.

    For media queries, please contact William Lelieveldt, tel.: +49 69 1344 7316.

    Notes

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Highlights – Negotiations on the Pandemic Accord & amendments to International Health Regulations – Committee on Public Health

    Source: European Parliament

    Public health © Image used under the license of Adobe Stock

    On 3 March, Americo B. Zampetti, Minister Counsellor for Global Health and SPS issues at the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, will present to SANT Members the progress of the negotiations on the Pandemic Accord as well as the proposal for a Council Decision authorising Member States to accept the amendments to the International Health Regulations.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI: Lantronix PoE++ Switches Help Power the World’s Largest DC-Powered Warehouse

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    IRVINE, Calif., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Lantronix Inc. (NASDAQ: LTRX), a global leader of compute and connectivity for IoT solutions enabling AI Edge intelligence, today announced its case study on Mouser Electronics’ new 413,000-square-foot, three-story Global Distribution Center, the world’s largest new Class 4 DC-powered installation. The Lantronix PoE++ switches (SM24TBT2DPB and SM24TBT2DPB-DE) are a vital part of the PoE lighting installation for which Mouser won an IBCon 2024 Digie Award for the Most Intelligent DC-Powered Building.

    “Using Lantronix PoE++ switches, we distributed power and controls throughout the Mouser warehouse by using low-voltage DC, which is the best way to create a sustainable building that reduces energy costs while providing a lower carbon footprint and a more comfortable work environment,” said Hannah Walker, chief operating officer of Sinclair Digital, the Authorized Lantronix Valued-Added Reseller that provided the DC digital solution.

    Mouser’s dedication to environmental responsibility and adoption of innovative technologies played a role in its decision to incorporate PoE technology, which delivers DC power to devices over copper Ethernet cabling without the need for separate power supplies or outlets, and
    fault managed power, a DC power infrastructure that eliminates losses associated with AC-to-DC conversion.

    Within enclosures at the ceiling of the new facility, power distribution modules transfer the fault managed power to high voltage DC power for the Lantronix SM24TBT2DPB-DE switches, in turn delivering up to 90W of PoE++ power per port to lighting fixtures, occupancy sensors and other PoE-enabled endpoints. The SM24TBT2DPB switches are also used in racks within the facility to connect more lighting, cameras and wireless access points.

    The PoE lighting system was designed by Baird, Hampton & Brown, a leading electrical engineering firm using Sinclair Digital’s DC digital solution package. Installed by TriCO Electric and Polarity Networks, the PoE lighting fixtures were provided by HE Williams using PoE lighting drivers from MHT Technologies with fault managed power from VoltServer. This DC power infrastructure reduces Mouser’s carbon footprint while improving lighting control and operational costs.

    Benefits of Mouser’s all DC-powered PoE lighting solution include:

    • Reduced energy consumption and related cost savings
    • Minimized environmental impact
    • Enhanced flexibility by improving lighting control
    • Reduced operational costs with fewer maintenance requirements
    • Improved lighting environment for warehouse employees
    • Ability to move and change lighting as warehouse needs change

    “Our Dallas-Fort Worth distribution center now operates on the world’s largest Class 4 power system, providing state-of-the-art lighting for our employees while helping us reduce our energy usage over the long term. Moreover, it provides scalability and flexibility to move or add devices as our needs change, further reducing our long-term costs,” said Pete Shopp, senior vice president of Business Operations at Mouser Electronics.

    Visit the complete Mouser case study here.

    About Lantronix

    Lantronix Inc. is a global leader of compute and connectivity IoT solutions that target high-growth markets, including Smart Cities, Enterprise and Transportation. Lantronix’s products and services empower companies to succeed in the growing IoT markets by delivering customizable solutions that enable AI Edge Intelligence. Lantronix’s advanced solutions include Intelligent Substations infrastructure, Infotainment systems and Video Surveillance, supplemented with advanced Out-of-Band Management (OOB) for Cloud and Edge Computing.

    For more information, visit the Lantronix website.

    “Safe Harbor” Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This news release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws, including, without limitation, statements related to Lantronix products or leadership team. These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and are subject to substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results, future business, financial condition, or performance to differ materially from our historical results or those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement contained in this news release. The potential risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, such factors as the effects of negative or worsening regional and worldwide economic conditions or market instability on our business, including effects on purchasing decisions by our customers; our ability to mitigate any disruption in our and our suppliers’ and vendors’ supply chains due to the COVID-19 pandemic or other outbreaks, wars and recent tensions in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, or other factors; future responses to and effects of public health crises; cybersecurity risks; changes in applicable U.S. and foreign government laws, regulations, and tariffs; our ability to successfully implement our acquisitions strategy or integrate acquired companies; difficulties and costs of protecting patents and other proprietary rights; the level of our indebtedness, our ability to service our indebtedness and the restrictions in our debt agreements; and any additional factors included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on Sept. 9, 2024, including in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I of that report, as well as in our other public filings with the SEC. Additional risk factors may be identified from time to time in our future filings. In addition, actual results may differ as a result of additional risks and uncertainties of which we are currently unaware or which we do not currently view as material to our business. For these reasons, investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements we make speak only as of the date on which they are made. We expressly disclaim any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statements after the date hereof to conform such statements to actual results or to changes in our opinions or expectations, except as required by applicable law or the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC. If we do update or correct any forward-looking statements, investors should not conclude that we will make additional updates or corrections.

    ©2025 Lantronix, Inc. All rights reserved. Lantronix is a registered trademark. Other trademarks and trade names are those of their respective owners.

    Lantronix Media Contact:        
    Gail Kathryn Miller
    Corporate Marketing &
    Communications Manager
    media@lantronix.com

    Lantronix Analyst and Investor Contact:        
    investors@lantronix.com

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Liverpool Remembers as Hall Hosts Covid-19 Reflection Event

    Source: City of Liverpool

    The civic heart of Liverpool – and one of Britain’s most beloved buildings – is to become the city’s focal point for remembering the Covid-19 pandemic.

    To commemorate five years since the pandemic began, a national Covid-19 Day of Reflection will take place on Sunday, 9 March.

    In Liverpool, the Great Hall in St George’s Hall will be transformed into a special space for people to visit, remember those we lost, acknowledge and celebrate all the acts of kindness that took place across our communities and reflect on the profound impact of the pandemic on our everyday lives.

    The stunning venue will be beautifully illuminated by paper lanterns, representing the challenges people lived with throughout the pandemic – whether that be the loss of a loved one, isolation, economic hardship or mental health struggles, but also acknowledging the tremendous resilience shown throughout.

    A gentle and poignant soundscape will play, creating an ambience for quiet contemplation, and a Book of Commemoration will allow people to leave a message of reflection if they wish to do so.

    Members of the public are invited to reflect on their experiences and memories within the Grade I listed neo-classical masterpiece, situated off Lime Street, which will be open from 10am-4pm for this unique event.

    The event has been organised by Liverpool City Council and the lanterns will be supplied by local arts organisation, the Lantern Company.

    For more information, visit St George’s Hall website.

    Leader of Liverpool City Council, Councillor Liam Robinson, said:
    “Five years ago the world changed and we’re still feeling that ripple-effect today.

    “It was an incredibly tough time for Liverpool – case rates and deaths were high, businesses were under huge pressure to stay afloat and people were lonely and fearful of what could happen – it was a chapter of history which we will never forget.

    “But throughout this extraordinary crisis, the true spirit of Liverpool shone through, communities came together to help and support one another. This city stepped forward, blazing a trail for others to follow when it came to mass testing and paving the way for large cultural events to start welcoming people once again – things we should all be proud of.

    “On Sunday March, St George’s Hall will be a hub to reflect on this time of so many mixed emotions, acknowledging our city’s resilience, strength, and solidarity, and looking ahead to the future with hope.”

    Director of Public Health for Liverpool City Council, Matthew Ashton, said:  
    “Every single one of us has been affected by Covid. The intensity of our shared experience should never be underestimated – along with the disease itself, we had to juggle not being able to see our family and friends, social distancing, wearing face coverings, working from home, home schooling – all of which have impacted on our individual  mental health and wellbeing, and on the health and economic prosperity of our city overall.

    “Thankfully we are well into our recovery journey, and one of the most important lessons we have learnt, is the power of strong communities and partnerships. Throughout, stakeholders from across the city have worked closely with health professionals to ensure the best outcomes for our communities, and although the pandemic may be over, these partnerships will continue to provide support in this recovery phase.

    “Liverpool’s event is a way for us to process what has happened over the past five years and I encourage people to take some time out of their day, honour those we lost and celebrate all of our remarkable achievements during this unprecedented period.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI USA: Congresswoman Schrier Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Improve Public Health Preparedness

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Kim Schrier, M.D. (WA-08)

    WASHINGTON, D.C.Congresswoman Kim Schrier, M.D. (WA-08) introduced the bipartisan Diagnostics Testing Preparedness Plan Act, which would facilitate the innovation and development of diagnostics between the private and public sectors during Public Health Emergencies. Congresswoman Schrier was joined in introducing this legislation by Representatives Miller-Meeks (IA-01), Carson (IN-07), and Crenshaw (TX-02). 

    “Diagnostics are an essential part of public health preparedness and, as was exemplified in the COVID-19 Pandemic when we struggled to provide the testing required to slow the spread of disease while South Korea was doing thousands of drive-thru tests daily, diagnostic testing is especially crucial during a public health emergency,” said Congresswoman Schrier, M.D. “This commonsense, bipartisan bill will improve our clinical and diagnostic laboratory testing capacity, enhance public-private partnerships, and strengthen our overall public health preparedness against illnesses ranging from the seasonal flu to new, emerging threats.”

    The Diagnostics Testing Preparedness Plan Act would require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop a strategic plan that supports the rapid deployment of diagnostic tests during public health emergencies. Specifically, HHS would develop and periodically update a plan for rapid development, procurement, and distribution of diagnostic tests during public health emergencies, including laboratory and at-home tests. The plan must promote collaboration among government agencies and private sector stakeholders. 

    “From development to distribution, it is crucial to have a comprehensive plan for diagnostic and clinical lab testing capacities during a public health emergency,” said Dr. Miller-Meeks. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw how critical diagnostic tests were for the public health response. As a physician, I am proud to sponsor this bipartisan bill to ensure the U.S. has a robust response to future public health emergencies.”

    “Diagnostics play a role in every aspect of public health,” said Congressman Carson. “Whether it’s a bad flu season or the outbreak of a new infectious disease like the bird flu, our bill will ensure my district and cities across the country are better coordinated and better prepared to tackle the world’s most serious health problems. I’m honored to work with Roche Diagnostics in my home district and with my colleagues across the aisle on this important bill.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Ofqual seeks views on improvements to supporting compliance for AOs

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    The regulator is to refine its approach to ensure awarding organisations continue to offer high quality qualifications. 

    Changes to improve the way Ofqual both supports compliance and takes regulatory action were put out for consultation today.  

    The changes are designed both to support awarding organisations and ensure that enforcement action, when it is needed, is proportionate and fair, to maintain the standards of qualifications that students and the public rely on.

    The updated approach introduces proposals to better explain the way in which the regulator uses its powers. It also proposes revised and more efficient processes for dealing with regulatory breaches and a new sanction.

    Proposals include:  

    • a streamlined process for settling simple cases quickly, where organisations agree they have breached Ofqual’s conditions  

    • a new sanction of a public rebuke from the regulator in cases where it’s right that a failure to follow regulatory rules be addressed formally and publicly, but where a fine may not be proportionate

    Where cases are not contested, it is proposed that the chief regulator will have the power to decide that a final decision can be made by a single decision-maker.

    Deputy Chief Regulator Michael Hanton said:  “The 11 million certificates awarded for regulated qualifications in England each year are intrinsic to our education system, the economy, and wider society. Ofqual’s job is to be the guardian of standards and quality in those qualifications.

    “Like all regulators, we want those we regulate to comply with our rules, so that standards are maintained. These proposals are intended to bring clarity about how we will both support compliance and also take action when necessary.” 

    The updated policy, ‘Supporting Compliance and Taking Regulatory Action’, will include a new section explaining the ways Ofqual can support awarding organisations to meet its requirements and avoid the need for formal enforcement action.

    Previous work on updating the policy was interrupted by the pandemic.  

    The consultation was launched today, Thursday, 20 February 2025, and will end on Tuesday, 15 May 2025, at 11:45pm.

    Background information:  

    • Ofqual regulates 249 awarding organisations, certificating over 11 million certificates a year. These include GCSEs, A levels, T Levels, apprenticeship assessments and safety critical qualifications in sectors such as healthcare, childcare and security.   

    • Parliament gave Ofqual enforcement powers in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Those powers were amended by the Education Act 2011. 

    • The Taking Regulatory Action policy was last amended in 2012. 

    • Ofqual previously consulted on the proposal to implement a ‘rebuke’ as part of its consultation on this policy in 2019. This work was paused due to the pandemic. 

    • The consultation and further details are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/amending-our-taking-regulatory-action-policy

    Updates to this page

    Published 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI: BE Semiconductor Industries N.V. Announces Q4-24 and Full Year 2024 Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Q4-24 Revenue of € 153.4 Million and Net Income of € 59.3 Million. Operating Results Within Prior Guidance

    FY-24 Revenue of € 607.5 Million and Net Income of € 182.0 Million Up 4.9% and 2.8%, Respectively, vs. FY-23. Orders of € 586.7 Million Up 7.0% vs. FY-23

    Proposed Dividend of € 2.18 per Share for Fiscal 2024. 95% Pay-Out Ratio

    DUIVEN, the Netherlands, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — BE Semiconductor Industries N.V. (the “Company” or “Besi”) (Euronext Amsterdam: BESI; OTC markets: BESIY), a leading manufacturer of assembly equipment for the semiconductor industry, today announced its results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2024.

    Key Highlights Q4-24

    • Revenue of € 153.4 million down 2.0% vs. Q3-24 and 3.9% vs. Q4-23 primarily due to lower demand for automotive applications partially offset by increased hybrid bonding shipments
    • Orders of € 121.9 million down 19.7% vs. Q3-24 and 26.7% vs. Q4-23 due primarily to decreased bookings for high performance computing and mainstream assembly applications
    • Gross margin of 64.0% decreased by 0.7 points vs. Q3-24 and 1.1 points vs. Q4-23 primarily due to adverse net forex influences
    • Net income of € 59.3 million increased 26.7% vs. Q3-24 and 8.0% vs. Q4-23 due to € 18.2 million of net tax benefits realized. As a result, net margin rose to 38.6% vs. 29.9% in Q3-24 and 34.4% in Q4-23
    • Cash and deposits of € 672.3 million at year-end increased 62.6% versus year-end 2023. Net cash of € 143.8 million increased € 33.1 million (29.9%) vs. Q3-24 and € 30.8 million (27.3%) vs. Q4-23

    Key Highlights FY 2024

    • Revenue of € 607.5 million increased 4.9% vs. 2023 principally due to higher demand by computing end-user markets, particularly for hybrid bonding and photonics applications, partially offset by weakness in mobile, automotive and Chinese end-user markets
    • Orders of € 586.7 million rose 7.0% due to strength in 2.5D and 3D AI-related applications
    • Gross margin of 65.2% rose by 0.3 points due to more favorable advanced packaging product mix
    • Net income of € 182.0 million grew 2.8% as higher revenue, gross margin and net tax benefits were partially offset by higher R&D spending and share-based compensation expense. Besi’s net margin decreased slightly to 30.0% vs. 30.6% in 2023
    • Proposed dividend of € 2.18 per share. Represents pay-out ratio of 95%

    Q1-25 Outlook

    • Revenue expected to decrease 0-10% vs. the € 153.4 million reported in Q4-24
    • Gross margin expected to range between 63-65% vs. the 64.0% realized in Q4-24
    • Operating expenses expected to grow 10-20% vs. the € 47.6 million reported in Q4-24
    (€ millions, except EPS) Q4-2024   Q3-2024   Δ Q4-2023  

    Δ

    FY-2024   FY-2023   Δ
    Revenue 153.4   156.6   -2.0 % 159.6   -3.9 % 607.5   578.9   +4.9 %
    Orders 121.9   151.8   -19.7 % 166.4   -26.7 % 586.7   548.3   +7.0 %
    Gross Margin 64.0%   64.7%   -0.7   65.1%   -1.1   65.2%   64.9%   +0.3  
    Operating Income 50.6   55.1   -8.2 % 66.1   -23.4 % 195.6   213.4   -8.3 %
    EBITDA 58.0   62.4   -7.1 % 72.7   -20.2 % 224.2   239.1   -6.2 %
    Net Income* 59.3   46.8   +26.7 % 54.9   +8.0 % 182.0   177.1   +2.8 %
    Net Margin* 38.6%   29.9%   +8.7   34.4%   +4.2   30.0%   30.6%   -0.6  
    EPS (basic) 0.75   0.59   +27.1 % 0.71   +5.6 % 2.31   2.28   +1.3 %
    EPS (diluted) 0.74   0.59   +25.4 % 0.68   +8.8 % 2.30   2.23   +3.1 %
    Net Cash and Deposits 143.8   110.7   +29.9 % 113.0   +27.3 % 143.8   113.0   +27.3 %

    * Includes net tax benefit of € 18.2 million in Q4-24 versus a tax charge of € 2.3 million in Q4-23.

    Richard W. Blickman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Besi, commented:

    “Besi’s business development in 2024 reflected contrasting growth trends for AI and mainstream assembly equipment markets. For the year, revenue grew by approximately 5% to reach € 607.5 million due to significantly higher demand by computing end-user markets, particularly for AI-related hybrid bonding and photonics applications. Similarly, orders of € 586.7 million increased by 7.0%. As a result, orders for AI applications grew to represent approximately 50% of our total orders in 2024. Strong order growth from computing end-user markets this year was partly offset by unfavorable market conditions for mainstream applications related to an industry downturn more than two years in duration.

    “We continue to navigate an extended downturn at industry leading levels of profitability. Besi achieved gross, operating and net margins of 65.2%, 32.2% and 30.0%, respectively, in 2024. Gross margins increased slightly versus 2023 due to a more favorable advanced packaging product mix which were partially offset by unfavorable net forex effects, particularly in the second half of the year. Net income rose 2.8% versus 2023 primarily due to higher revenue and gross margins realized and a net tax benefit of € 18.2 million. Such favorable influences were partially offset by a significant increase in development spending and higher share-based compensation expense. Given profits earned in 2024 and our solid liquidity position, we will propose a cash dividend of € 2.18 per share for approval at Besi’s 2025 AGM which represents a pay-out ratio relative to net income of 95%.

    “Investments in Besi’s future growth continued in 2024 as reflected in higher development spending and a planned expansion of our advanced packaging production capacity in 2025. We increased R&D spending by 31.7% this year to offer customers leading edge assembly solutions for next generation 2.5D and 3D architectures. In addition, progress continued on our hybrid bonding agenda as revenue approximately tripled versus 2023 and orders more than doubled. In addition, adoption increased from nine to fifteen customers. During Q4-24, some notable hybrid bonding bookings included a first order from a Japanese semiconductor producer focused on 2nm advanced logic semiconductors and from a Korean IDM for advanced logic applications.

    “Besi’s fourth quarter results were adversely affected by ongoing weakness in mainstream assembly markets, seasonal influences and lower demand for hybrid bonding and photonics applications as customers digested capacity added in 2024. Revenue of € 153.4 million was down 2.0% vs. Q3-24 and 3.9% vs. Q4-23 primarily due to lower demand for automotive applications partially offset by increased hybrid bonding shipments. Orders of € 121.9 million decreased by 19.7% vs. Q3-24 and 26.7% vs. Q4-23 due to lower bookings for hybrid bonding, photonics and mainstream assembly applications. Hybrid bonding and photonics orders have fluctuated on a quarterly basis due to the timing by customers of new device introductions and related capacity additions for these emerging applications. Our operating income in Q4-24 decreased by 8.2% versus Q3-24 primarily due to lower revenue and a 0.7 point gross margin decrease from adverse forex movements. Q4-24 net income of € 59.3 million increased 26.7% vs. Q3-24 and 8.0% vs. Q4-23 due to net tax benefits realized from an upward revaluation of deferred tax assets.

    “We enter the year 2025 with cautious optimism based on strong momentum in our advanced die placement solutions for AI applications partially offset by ongoing weakness in mainstream automotive, smart phone, industrial and Chinese end-user markets. We believe that the pace of innovation is increasing as the pandemic and generative AI have accelerated society’s move to a digital world with AI technology adoption increasing significantly in our daily lives. We believe that the commercial viability of hybrid bonding process technology has now been confirmed by some of the industry’s leading players and research institutes. Significant incremental adoption is anticipated to occur over the next three years as the technology is increasingly used in HBM 4/5 memory stacks, ASIC logic devices, silicon photonics, co-packaged optics and consumer mobile/computing applications. As such, we estimate that hybrid bonding adoption and deployment is still in its very early stages.

    “The timing and trajectory of a new mainstream assembly upturn is difficult to predict at present. The assembly market still suffers from post-pandemic excess capacity which has taken more than two years to approach equilibrium levels. Semiconductor unit growth and capacity utilization rates have improved since 2022 but at a less rapid rate than previously anticipated by analysts. That being said, we believe it likely that a mainstream assembly recovery will begin in the second half of 2025. Its trajectory will depend on demand trends in each of our end markets and the ultimate course of global trade restrictions. For Q1-25, we forecast that revenue will decrease by 0-10% versus Q4-24 and for gross margins to remain in a range of 63-65% based on our projected product mix. Aggregate operating expenses are forecast to rise 10-20% versus Q4-24 primarily due to higher strategic consulting costs.”

    Share Repurchase Activity

    During the quarter, Besi repurchased approximately 0.2 million of its ordinary shares at an average price of € 112.84 per share or a total of € 22.4 million. For the year, Besi repurchased approximately 0.6 million shares at an average price of € 125.53 per share for a total of € 79.8 million. At year end, Besi held approximately 1.8 million shares in treasury equal to 2.3% of its shares outstanding.

    Investor and media conference call
    A conference call and webcast for investors and media will be held today at 4:00 pm CET (10:00 am EST). To register for the conference call and/or to access the audio webcast and webinar slides, please visit www.besi.com.
    Important Dates

    • Publication Annual Report 2024
    • Publication Q1 results
    • Annual General Meeting of Shareholders
    • Publication Q2/semi-annual results
    • Publication Q3/nine-month results
    • Publication Q4/full year results
    February 28, 2025

    April 23, 2025

    April 23, 2025

    July 24, 2025

    October 23, 2025

    February 2026

    Dividend Information*

    • Proposed ex-dividend date
    • Proposed record date
    • Proposed payment of 2024 dividend
    April 25, 2025

    April 28, 2025

    Starting May 2, 2025

    * Subject to approval at Besi’s AGM on April 23, 2025 

    Basis of Presentation

    The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) as adopted by the European Union. Reference is made to the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements as included in our 2024 Annual Report, which will be available on www.besi.com as of February 28, 2025.

    Contacts
    Richard W. Blickman, President & CEO
    Andrea Kopp-Battaglia, Senior Vice President Finance        
    Claudia Vissers, Executive Secretary/IR coordinator
    Edmond Franco, VP Corporate Development/US IR coordinator
    Tel. (31) 26 319 4500                
    investor.relations@besi.com   

    About Besi
    Besi is a leading manufacturer of assembly equipment supplying a broad portfolio of advanced packaging solutions to the semiconductor and electronics industries. We offer customers high levels of accuracy, reliability and throughput at a lower cost of ownership with a principal focus on wafer level and substrate assembly solutions. Customers are primarily leading semiconductor manufacturers, foundries, assembly subcontractors and electronics and industrial companies. Besi’s ordinary shares are listed on Euronext Amsterdam (symbol: BESI). Its Level 1 ADRs are listed on the OTC markets (symbol: BESIY) and its headquarters are located in Duiven, the Netherlands. For more information, please visit our website at www.besi.com.

    Statement of Compliance
    The accounting policies applied in the condensed consolidated financial statements included in this press release are the same as those applied in the Annual Report 2024 and were authorized for issuance by the Board of Management and Supervisory Board on February 19, 2025. In accordance with Article 393, Title 9, Book 2 of the Netherlands Civil Code, EY Accountants BV has issued an unqualified auditor’s opinion on the Annual Report 2024. The Annual Report 2024 will be published on our website on February 28, 2025 and proposed for adoption by the Annual General Meeting on April 23, 2025. The condensed financial statements included in this press release have been prepared in accordance with IFRS Accounting Standards, as adopted by the European Union but do not include all of the information required for a complete set of IFRS financial statements.

    Caution Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains statements about management’s future expectations, plans and prospects of our business that constitute forward-looking statements, which are found in various places throughout the press release, including, but not limited to, statements relating to expectations of orders, net sales, product shipments, expenses, timing of purchases of assembly equipment by customers, gross margins, operating results and capital expenditures. The use of words such as “anticipate”, “estimate”, “expect”, “can”, “intend”, “believes”, “may”, “plan”, “predict”, “project”, “forecast”, “will”, “would”, and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. The financial guidance set forth under the heading “Outlook” contains such forward-looking statements. While these forward-looking statements represent our judgments and expectations concerning the development of our business, a number of risks, uncertainties and other important factors could cause actual developments and results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, including any inability to maintain continued demand for our products; failure of anticipated orders to materialize or postponement or cancellation of orders, generally without charges; the volatility in the demand for semiconductors and our products and services; the extent and duration of the COVID-19 and other global pandemics and the associated adverse impacts on the global economy, financial markets, global supply chains and our operations as well as those of our customers and suppliers; failure to develop new and enhanced products and introduce them at competitive price levels; failure to adequately decrease costs and expenses as revenues decline; loss of significant customers, including through industry consolidation or the emergence of industry alliances; lengthening of the sales cycle; acts of terrorism and violence; disruption or failure of our information technology systems; consolidation activity and industry alliances in the semiconductor industry that may result in further increased customer concentration, inability to forecast demand and inventory levels for our products; the integrity of product pricing and protection of our intellectual property in foreign jurisdictions; risks, such as changes in trade regulations, conflict minerals regulations, currency fluctuations, political instability and war, associated with substantial foreign customers, suppliers and foreign manufacturing operations, particularly to the extent occurring in the Asia Pacific region where we have a substantial portion of our production facilities; potential instability in foreign capital markets; the risk of failure to successfully manage our diverse operations; any inability to attract and retain skilled personnel, including as a result of restrictions on immigration, travel or the availability of visas for skilled technology workers; those additional risk factors set forth in Besi’s annual report for the year ended December 31, 2024 and other key factors that could adversely affect our businesses and financial performance contained in our filings and reports, including our statutory consolidated statements. We expressly disclaim any obligation to update or alter our forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    Consolidated Statements of Operations
    (€ thousands, except share and per share data) Three Months Ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)
    Year Ended
    December 31,
    (audited)
      2024   2023 2024 2023
             
    Revenue 153,413   159,635 607,473 578,862
    Cost of sales 55,253   55,700 211,529 203,074
             
    Gross profit 98,160   103,935 395,944 375,788
             
    Selling, general and administrative expenses 28,575   24,277 126,048 105,956
    Research and development         expenses 19,009   13,533 74,305 56,440
             
    Total operating expenses 47,584   37,810 200,353 162,396
             
    Operating income 50,576   66,125 195,591 213,392
             
    Financial expense, net 3,877   729 7,071 5,703
             
    Income before taxes 46,699   65,396 188,520 207,689
             
    Income tax expense (benefit) (12,595 ) 10,501 6,528 30,605
             
    Net income 59,294   54,895 181,992 177,084
             
    Net income per share – basic 0.75   0.71 2.31 2.28
    Net income per share – diluted 0.74   0.68 2.30 2.23
               
    Number of shares used in computing per share amounts:
    – basic
    – diluted 1
    79,402,192
    81,628,947
      77,070,082
    82,091,299
    78,877,471
    81,889,907
    77,508,722
    82,800,279
     1) The calculation of diluted income per share assumes the exercise of equity settled share based payments and the conversion of all Convertible Notes outstanding     
               
    Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (€ thousands) December
    31, 2024
    (audited)
    September 30, 2024
    (unaudited)
    June
    30, 2024
    (unaudited)
    March
    31, 2024
    (unaudited)
    December
    31, 2023
    (audited)
    ASSETS          
               
    Cash and cash equivalents 342,319 307,448 127,234 232,053 188,477
    Deposits 330,000 330,000 130,000 215,000 225,000
    Trade receivables 181,862 169,266 174,601 150,192 143,218
    Inventories 103,285 104,103 99,291 99,384 92,505
    Other current assets 40,927 44,731 36,346 34,756 39,092
               
    Total current assets 998,393 955,548 567,472 731,385 688,292
               
    Property, plant and equipment 44,773 44,220 43,571 41,328 37,516
    Right of use assets 15,726 16,419 16,821 16,901 18,242
    Goodwill 46,010 45,278 45,710 45,613 45,402
    Other intangible assets 96,677 94,855 92,627 90,241 93,668
    Deferred tax assets 31,567 8,610 9,517 11,444 12,217
    Other non-current assets 1,330 1,316 1,239 1,252 1,216
               
    Total non-current assets 236,083 210,698 209,485 206,779 208,261
               
    Total assets 1,234,476 1,166,246 776,957 938,164 896,553
               
               
               
    Bank overdraft 776
    Current portion of long-term debt 2,042 2,241 3,033 984 3,144
    Trade payables 52,630 49,211 51,620 52,382 46,889
    Other current liabilities 111,531 87,739 73,023 100,606 87,200
               
    Total current liabilities 166,979 139,191 127,676 153,972 137,233
               
    Long-term debt 525,653 524,527 179,801 265,142 297,353
    Lease liabilities 12,350 13,033 13,448 13,625 14,924
    Deferred tax liabilities 10,320 11,619 10,396 12,136 12,959
    Other non-current liabilities 17,910 12,449 11,352 12,914 12,671
               
    Total non-current liabilities 566,233 561,628 214,997 303,817 337,907
               
    Total equity 501,264 465,427 434,284 480,375 421,413
               
    Total liabilities and equity 1,234,476 1,166,246 776,957 938,164 896,553
    Consolidated Cash Flow Statements
    (€ thousands) Three Months Ended
    December 31,
    (unaudited)
    Year Ended
    December 31,
    (audited)
      2024   2023   2024   2023  
             
    Cash flows from operating activities:        
    Income before income tax 46,699   65,396   188,520   207,689  
             
    Depreciation and amortization 7,420   6,577   28,601   25,732  
    Share based payment expense 2,851   2,807   30,067   19,107  
    Financial expense, net 3,877   729   7,071   5,703  
             
    Changes in working capital 4,819   (24,238 ) (39,095 ) (26,819 )
    Interest (paid) received 1,965   1,647   9,183   4,722  
    Income tax (paid) received (3,751 ) 386   (23,264 ) (27,562 )
             
    Net cash provided by operating activities 63,880   53,304   201,083   208,572  
             
    Cash flows from investing activities:        
    Capital expenditures (1,074 ) (1,451 ) (12,039 ) (6,899 )
    Capitalized development expenses (5,447 ) (5,780 ) (19,437 ) (21,121 )
    Repayments of (investments in) deposits   (39,659 ) (105,000 ) (44,927 )
             
    Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities (6,521 ) (46,890 ) (136,476 ) (72,947 )
             
    Cash flows from financing activities:        
    Proceeds from bank lines of credit 776     776    
    Proceeds from notes     350,000    
    Transaction costs related to notes                 (29 )   (6,424 )  
    Payments of lease liabilities (1,128 ) (1,100 ) (4,314 ) (4,307 )
    Purchase of treasury shares (22,415 ) (23,123 ) (79,833 ) (213,387 )
    Dividends paid to shareholders     (171,534 ) (222,109 )
             
    Net cash used in financing activities (22,796 ) (24,223 ) 88,671   (439,803 )
             
    Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

    34,563

     

    (17,809

    )

    153,278

     

    (304,178

    )

    Effect of changes in exchange rates on cash and
    cash equivalents

    308

     

    1,261

     

    564

     

    969

     
    Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the
    period

    307,448

     

    205,025

     

    188,477

     

    491,686

     
             
    Cash and cash equivalents at end of the period 342,319   188,477   342,319   188,477  
    Supplemental Information (unaudited)
    (€ millions, unless stated otherwise)
                                     
    REVENUE Q4-2024 Q3-2024 Q2-2024 Q1-2024 Q4-2023 Q3-2023 Q2-2023 Q1-2023
                                     
    Per geography:                                
    China 42.8   28 % 45.5   29 % 57.5   38 % 58.5   40 % 62.0   39 % 40.8   33 % 64.9   40 % 37.6   28 %
    Asia Pacific (excl. China) 53.5   35 % 51.6   33 % 54.1   36 % 43.6   30 % 57.9   36 % 42.3   34 % 59.2   36 % 58.2   44 %
    EU / USA / Other 57.1   37 % 59.5   38 % 39.6   26 % 44.2   30 % 39.7   25 % 40.2   33 % 38.4   24 % 37.6   28 %
                                                     
    Total 153.4   100 % 156.6   100 % 151.2   100 % 146.3   100 % 159.6   100 % 123.3   100 % 162.5   100 % 133.4   100 %
                                     
    ORDERS Q4-2024 Q3-2024 Q2-2024 Q1-2024 Q4-2023 Q3-2023 Q2-2023 Q1-2023
                                     
    Per geography:                                
    China 40.4   33 % 45.4   30 % 43.3   23 % 51.1   40 % 71.1   43 % 46.0   36 % 51.4   46 % 35.5   25 %
    Asia Pacific (excl. China) 38.8   32 % 69.3   46 % 72.0   39 % 45.0   35 % 36.6   22 % 40.9   32 % 33.2   29 % 71.3   50 %
    EU / USA / Other 42.7   35 % 37.1   24 % 69.9   38 % 31.6   25 % 58.7   35 % 40.4   32 % 28.0   25 % 35.2   25 %
                                                     
    Total 121.9   100 % 151.8   100 % 185.2   100 % 127.7   100 % 166.4   100 % 127.3   100 % 112.6   100 % 142.0   100 %
                                     
    Per customer type:                                
    IDM 61.2   50 % 84.5   56 % 122.4   66 % 53.5   42 % 82.7   50 % 70.5   55 % 60.5   54 % 74.0   52 %
    Foundries/Subcontractors* 60.7   50 % 67.3   44 % 62.8   34 % 74.2   58 % 83.7   50 % 56.8   45 % 52.1   46 % 68.0   48 %
                                                     
    Total 121.9   100 % 151.8   100 % 185.2   100 % 127.7   100 % 166.4   100 % 127.3   100 % 112.6   100 % 142.0   100 %
    * Includes foundries as of financial year 2024                                
                                     
    HEADCOUNT Dec 31, 2024 Sep 30, 2024 Jun 30, 2024 Mar 31, 2024 Dec 31, 2023 Sep 30, 2023 Jun 30, 2023 Mar 31, 2023
                                     
    Fixed staff (FTE) 1,812   93 % 1,807   87 % 1,783   86 % 1,760   88 % 1,736   93 % 1,725   87 % 1,689   86 % 1,682   84 %
    Temporary staff (FTE) 134   7 % 271   13 % 279   14 % 236   12 % 134   7 % 248   13 % 279   14 % 312   16 %
                                                     
    Total 1,946   100 % 2,078   100 % 2,062   100 % 1,996   100 % 1,870   100 % 1,973   100 % 1,968   100 % 1,994   100 %
                                     
    OTHER FINANCIAL DATA Q4-2024 Q3-2024 Q2-2024 Q1-2024 Q4-2023 Q3-2023 Q2-2023 Q1-2023
                                     
    Gross profit 98.2   64.0 % 101.2   64.7 % 98.3   65.0 % 98.3   67.2 % 103.9   65.1 % 79.6   64.6 % 106.6   65.6 % 85.7   64.2 %
                                     
                                     
    Selling, general and admin expenses:                                
    As reported 28.6   18.6 % 27.3   17.4 % 30.5   20.2 % 39.6   27.1 % 24.3   15.2 % 23.3   18.9 % 29.4   18.1 % 29.0   21.7 %
    Share-based compensation expense -2.9   -1.8 % (3.4 ) -2.1 % (6.9 ) -4.6 % (16.9 ) -11.6 % (2.8 ) -1.7 % (1.6 ) -1.3 % (5.5 ) -3.4 % (9.3 ) -7.0 %
                                                     
    SG&A expenses as adjusted 25.7   16.8 % 23.9   15.3 % 23.6   15.6 % 22.7   15.5 % 21.5   13.5 % 21.7   17.6 % 23.9   14.7 % 19.7   14.8 %
                                     
                                     
    Research and development expenses:                                
    As reported 19.0   12.4 % 18.9   12.1 % 18.5   12.2 % 17.9   12.2 % 13.5   8.5 % 13.6   11.0 % 14.3   8.8 % 15.0   11.2 %
    Capitalization of R&D charges 5.4   3.5 % 4.4   2.8 % 4.9   3.2 % 4.7   3.2 % 5.7   3.6 % 4.7   3.8 % 5.3   3.3 % 5.4   4.0 %
    Amortization of intangibles -3.9   -2.5 % (3.9 ) -2.5 % (3.6 ) -2.3 % (3.6 ) -2.4 % (3.3 ) -2.1 % (3.3 ) -2.6 % (3.5 ) -2.2 % (3.5 ) -2.6 %
                                                     
    R&D expenses as adjusted 20.5   13.4 % 19.4   12.4 % 19.8   13.1 % 19.0   13.0 % 15.9   10.0 % 15.0   12.2 % 16.1   9.9 % 16.9   12.7 %
                                     
                                     
    Financial expense (income), net:                                
    Interest income -5.1     (5.2 )   (3.0 )   (4.0 )   (3.6 )   (2.9 )   (3.1 )   (2.6 )  
    Interest expense 6.1     5.7     2.1     2.8     3.0     2.8     2.9     2.9    
    Net cost of hedging 2.0     1.9     1.4     1.6     1.7     1.7     2.0     1.6    
    Foreign exchange effects, net 0.9     (0.8 )   0.5     0.2     (0.4 )   0.2     (0.1 )   (0.4 )  
                                                     
    Total 3.9     1.6     1.0     0.6     0.7     1.8     1.7     1.5    
                                     
    Gross cash 672.3     637.4     257.2     447.1     413.5     391.2     378.3     644.9    
                                     
                                     
    Operating income (as % of net sales) 50.6   33.0 % 55.1   35.2 % 49.3   32.6 % 40.7   27.8 % 66.1   41.4 % 42.7   34.6 % 62.9   38.7 % 41.7   31.3 %
                                     
    EBITDA (as % of net sales) 58.0   37.8 % 62.4   39.8 % 56.2   37.2 % 47.5   32.5 % 72.7   45.6 % 48.9   39.7 % 69.3   42.6 % 48.2   36.1 %
                                     
    Net income (as % of net sales) 59.3   38.6 % 46.8   29.9 % 41.9   27.7 % 34.0   23.2 % 54.9   34.4 % 35.0   28.4 % 52.6   32.4 % 34.5   25.9 %
                                     
    Effective tax rate -27.0 %   12.6 %   13.0 %   15.3 %   16.1 %   14.4 %   14.0 %   14.0 %  
                                     
                                     
    Income per share                                
    Basic 0.75     0.59     0.53     0.44     0.71     0.45     0.68     0.44    
    Diluted 0.74     0.59     0.53     0.44     0.68     0.45     0.66     0.44    
                                     
    Average shares outstanding (basic) 79,402,192

          79,630,787       79,281,533       77,181,326       77,070,082       77,374,933       77,634,197       77,946,873      
                                     
    Shares repurchased                                
    Amount 22.4     27.8     14.8     14.8     23.1     45.5     66.9     77.7    
    Number of shares 198,450

          230,807       105,042       101,049       226,572       447,829       761,937       1,120,327      
                                     

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI: Aegon reports second half year 2024 results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    The Hague – February 20, 2025. Please click here to access all 2H 2024 results related documents. 

    2H 2024 IFRS results

    • Net profit of EUR 741 million as operating result and benefit from the a.s.r. stake are partly offset by restructuring charges and net impairments in the US
    • Operating result of EUR 776 million, up 14% compared with the second half of 2023, reflecting improved experience variance in the US and business growth in the US and asset management
    • Shareholders’ equity per share of EUR 4.53, increases by 13% compared with June 30, 2024, while contractual service margin per share after estimated tax adjustment increases by 5% to EUR 4.38. Valuation equity per share – the sum of these components – grew by 9% to EUR 8.91

    2H 2024 capital generation, cash and capital management

    • Operating capital generation before holding funding and operating expenses remained broadly stable at EUR 658 million compared with the second half of 2023. Aegon meets its increased guidance of EUR 1.2 billion for 2024
    • Capital ratios of Aegon’s main units remain above their respective operating levels and Cash Capital at Holding at EUR 1.7 billion per year-end 2024. EUR 200 million share buyback completed in December
    • Free cash flow of EUR 385 million, which includes capital distributions from a.s.r. Full-year free cash flow of EUR 759 million meets guidance of more than EUR 700 million
    • 2024 final dividend of EUR 0.19 per common share proposed, an increase of 19% compared with 2023 final dividend

    Lard Friese, Aegon CEO, commented:  
    In 2024, we continued to make good progress with our transformation and are on track to meet the 2025 targets we laid out at our 2023 Capital Markets Day (CMD). We will provide an update on our strategy and new group targets at our next CMD on December 10, 2025, in London. Looking back on the year, I am proud of what the teams achieved, and I am grateful for their hard work.

    We have delivered on both our increased guidance for operating capital generation (OCG) of EUR 1.2 billion, and on our free cash flow guidance of more than EUR 700 million for 2024. Our main business units remained well capitalized, and we have generated a full year IFRS operating result of EUR 1.5 billion. Our valuation equity per share, which is a measure of shareholder value, increased by 12% to EUR 8.91.

    We continued to execute our strategy to grow our businesses and improve the service we offer to customers. This included the roll-out of a new brand identity across our fully owned units that facilitates improved digital customer experiences. Taking a closer look at our commercial performance in 2024: in the Americas, we strengthened our distribution capabilities as World Financial Group (WFG) grew its number of licensed agents to over 86,000, up 17% compared with the prior year. This contributed to the 22% increase in the operating result of Transamerica’s distribution segment, which reached USD 191 million. Transamerica generated Individual Life sales of USD 473 million, slightly down compared with 2023. The Retirement Plans business experienced outflows but the mid-sized Retirement Plans business continued to grow with strong written plan sales and USD 557 million of net deposits. Throughout the year, we also continued to implement management actions to reduce our exposure to Financial Assets. This included achieving the goals of our program to purchase universal life policies from institutional owners earlier than anticipated.

    In the United Kingdom, we are executing the strategy we presented at our June 2024 Teach-In. Our UK Workplace platform performed strongly, with net deposits amounting to GBP 3.7 billion in 2024, due to the onboarding of new schemes and higher regular contributions from existing schemes. While outflows continued in our UK Adviser platform, we are executing our strategy to return the platform to growth by 2028 that includes targeting the top 500 financial adviser firms.

    2024 saw our Asset Management business return to growth, with third-party net deposits in Global Platforms and net deposits in Strategic Partnerships combined totaling around EUR 14 billion. This was driven by consecutive net deposits at both businesses during each quarter of 2024.

    Our International business saw 15% lower new life sales, mainly driven by pricing actions in China to reflect lower interest rates. At the same time, its value of new business grew by 18%, driven by Brazil and Spain & Portugal, underscoring our focus on profitable growth.

    Over the year, we remained disciplined in our management of capital. During the first half of 2024, we completed the EUR 1.535 billion share buyback program. In the second half, we completed a EUR 200 million share buyback program and announced a new EUR 150 million share buyback program, which began in January 2025.

    On the basis of our 2024 performance, we today propose a final dividend of 19 eurocents per share. This will result in a total dividend paid for the full-year 2024 of 35 eurocents, up 17% compared with 2023, and means we are on our way to achieve our target of around 40 eurocents per share over 2025.

    Additional information 
    Presentation
    The conference call presentation is available on aegon.com.

    Supplements
    Aegon’s second half 2024 Financial Supplement and other supplementary documents are available on aegon.com.

    Webcast and conference call including Q&A
    The webcast and conference call starts at 9:00 am CET. The audio webcast can be followed on aegon.com. To join the conference call and/or participate in the Q&A, you will need to register via the following registration link. Directly after registration you will see your personal pin on the confirmation screen, and you will also receive an email with the call details and your personal pin to enter the conference call. The link becomes active 15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time. To avoid any unforeseen connection issues, it is recommended to make use of the “Call me” option. Approximately two hours after the conference call, a replay will be available on aegon.com. 

    Click to join
    With “Call me”, there’s no need to dial-in. Simply click the following registration link and select the option “Call me”.
    Enter your information and you will be called back to directly join the conference. The link becomes active 15 minutes prior to the scheduled start time. Should you wish not to use the “Click to join” function, dial-in numbers are also available. For passcode: you will receive a personal pin upon registration.

    Dial-in numbers for conference call:
    United States: +1 864 991 4103 (local)
    United Kingdom: +44 808 175 1536 (toll-free)
    The Netherlands: +31 800 745 8377 (toll-free); or +31 970 102 86838 (toll)

    Financial calendar 2025
    First quarter 2025 trading update – May 16, 2025
    Annual General Meeting – June 12, 2025
    Second half 2025 results – August 21, 2025
    Third quarter 2025 trading update – November 13, 2025
    Capital Markets Day – December 10, 2025

    About Aegon
    Aegon is an international financial services holding company. Aegon’s ambition is to build leading businesses that offer their customers investment, protection, and retirement solutions. Aegon’s portfolio of businesses includes fully owned businesses in the United States and United Kingdom, and a global asset manager. Aegon also creates value by combining its international expertise with strong local partners via insurance joint ventures in Spain & Portugal, China, and Brazil, and via asset management partnerships in France and China. In addition, Aegon owns a Bermuda-based life insurer and generates value via a strategic shareholding in a market leading Dutch insurance and pensions company.

    Aegon’s purpose of helping people live their best lives runs through all its activities. As a leading global investor and employer, Aegon seeks to have a positive impact by addressing critical environmental and societal issues, with a focus on climate change and inclusion & diversity. Aegon is headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands, domiciled in Bermuda, and listed on Euronext Amsterdam and the New York Stock Exchange. More information can be found at aegon.com. More information can be found at aegon.com.

    Contacts

    Media relations Investor relations
    Richard Mackillican Yves Cormier
    +31(0) 6 27411546 +31(0) 70 344 8028
    richard.mackillican@aegon.com yves.cormier@aegon.com
       

    Local currencies and constant currency exchange rates
    This document contains certain information about Aegon’s results, financial condition and revenue generating investments presented in USD for the Americas and in GBP for the United Kingdom, because those businesses operate and are managed primarily in those currencies. Certain comparative information presented on a constant currency basis eliminates the effects of changes in currency exchange rates. None of this information is a substitute for or superior to financial information about Aegon presented in EUR, which is the currency of Aegon’s primary financial statements.

    Forward-looking statements
    The statements contained in this document that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements as defined in the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The following are words that identify such forward-looking statements: aim, believe, estimate, target, intend, may, expect, anticipate, predict, project, counting on, plan, continue, want, forecast, goal, should, would, could, is confident, will, and similar expressions as they relate to Aegon. These statements may contain information about financial prospects, economic conditions and trends and involve risks and uncertainties. In addition, any statements that refer to sustainability, environmental and social targets, commitments, goals, efforts and expectations and other events or circumstances that are partially dependent on future events are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Aegon undertakes no obligation, and expressly disclaims any duty, to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which merely reflect company expectations at the time of writing. Actual results may differ materially and adversely from expectations conveyed in forward-looking statements due to changes caused by various risks and uncertainties. Such risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to the following:

    • Unexpected delays, difficulties, and expenses in executing against Aegon’s environmental, climate, diversity and inclusion or other “ESG” targets, goals and commitments, and changes in laws or regulations affecting us, such as changes in data privacy, environmental, health and safety laws;
    • Changes in general economic and/or governmental conditions, particularly in Bermuda, the United States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom;
    • Civil unrest, (geo-) political tensions, military action or other instability in a country or geographic region;
    • Changes in the performance of financial markets, including emerging markets, such as with regard to:         
      • The frequency and severity of defaults by issuers in Aegon’s fixed income investment portfolios;
      • The effects of corporate bankruptcies and/or accounting restatements on the financial markets and the resulting decline in the value of equity and debt securities Aegon holds;
      • The effects of declining creditworthiness of certain public sector securities and the resulting decline in the value of government exposure that Aegon holds;
      • The impact from volatility in credit, equity, and interest rates;
    • Changes in the performance of Aegon’s investment portfolio and decline in ratings of Aegon’s counterparties;
    • Lowering of one or more of Aegon’s debt ratings issued by recognized rating organizations and the adverse impact such action may have on Aegon’s ability to raise capital and on its liquidity and financial condition;
    • Lowering of one or more of insurer financial strength ratings of Aegon’s insurance subsidiaries and the adverse impact such action may have on the written premium, policy retention, profitability and liquidity of its insurance subsidiaries;
    • The effect of applicable Bermuda solvency requirements, the European Union’s Solvency II requirements, and applicable equivalent solvency requirements and other regulations in other jurisdictions affecting the capital Aegon is required to maintain;
    • Changes in the European Commissions’ or European regulator’s position on the equivalence of the supervisory regime for insurance and reinsurance undertakings in force in Bermuda;
    • Changes affecting interest rate levels and low or rapidly changing interest rate levels;
    • Changes affecting currency exchange rates, in particular the EUR/USD and EUR/GBP exchange rates;
    • Changes affecting inflation levels, particularly in the United States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom;
    • Changes in the availability of, and costs associated with, liquidity sources such as bank and capital markets funding, as well as conditions in the credit markets in general such as changes in borrower and counterparty creditworthiness;
    • Increasing levels of competition, particularly in the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and emerging markets;
    • Catastrophic events, either manmade or by nature, including by way of example acts of God, acts of terrorism, acts of war and pandemics, could result in material losses and significantly interrupt Aegon’s business;
    • The frequency and severity of insured loss events;
    • Changes affecting longevity, mortality, morbidity, persistence and other factors that may impact the profitability of Aegon’s insurance products and management of derivatives;
    • Aegon’s projected results are highly sensitive to complex mathematical models of financial markets, mortality, longevity, and other dynamic systems subject to shocks and unpredictable volatility. Should assumptions to these models later prove incorrect, or should errors in those models escape the controls in place to detect them, future performance will vary from projected results;
    • Reinsurers to whom Aegon has ceded significant underwriting risks may fail to meet their obligations;
    • Changes in customer behavior and public opinion in general related to, among other things, the type of products Aegon sells, including legal, regulatory or commercial necessity to meet changing customer expectations;
    • Customer responsiveness to both new products and distribution channels;
    • Third-party information used by us may prove to be inaccurate and change over time as methodologies and data availability and quality continue to evolve impacting our results and disclosures;
    • As Aegon’s operations support complex transactions and are highly dependent on the proper functioning of information technology, operational risks such as system disruptions or failures, security or data privacy breaches, cyberattacks, human error, failure to safeguard personally identifiable information, changes in operational practices or inadequate controls including with respect to third parties with which Aegon does business, may disrupt Aegon’s business, damage its reputation and adversely affect its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, and Aegon may be unable to adopt to and apply new technologies;
    • The impact of acquisitions and divestitures, restructurings, product withdrawals and other unusual items, including Aegon’s ability to complete, or obtain regulatory approval for, acquisitions and divestitures, integrate acquisitions, and realize anticipated results, and its ability to separate businesses as part of divestitures;
    • Aegon’s failure to achieve anticipated levels of earnings or operational efficiencies, as well as other management initiatives related to cost savings, Cash Capital at Holding, gross financial leverage and free cash flow;
    • Changes in the policies of central banks and/or governments;
    • Litigation or regulatory action that could require Aegon to pay significant damages or change the way Aegon does business;
    • Competitive, legal, regulatory, or tax changes that affect profitability, the distribution cost of or demand for Aegon’s products;
    • Consequences of an actual or potential break-up of the European Monetary Union in whole or in part, or further consequences of the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and potential consequences if other European Union countries leave the European Union;
    • Changes in laws and regulations, or the interpretation thereof by regulators and courts, including as a result of comprehensive reform or shifts away from multilateral approaches to regulation of global or national operations, particularly regarding those laws and regulations related to ESG matters, those affecting Aegon’s operations’ ability to hire and retain key personnel, taxation of Aegon companies, the products Aegon sells, the attractiveness of certain products to its consumers and Aegon’s intellectual property;
    • Regulatory changes relating to the pensions, investment, insurance industries and enforcing adjustments in the jurisdictions in which Aegon operates;
    • Standard setting initiatives of supranational standard setting bodies such as the Financial Stability Board and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors or changes to such standards that may have an impact on regional (such as EU), national or US federal or state level financial regulation or the application thereof to Aegon, including the designation of Aegon by the Financial Stability Board as a Global Systemically Important Insurer (G-SII);
    • Changes in accounting regulations and policies or a change by Aegon in applying such regulations and policies, voluntarily or otherwise, which may affect Aegon’s reported results, shareholders’ equity or regulatory capital adequacy levels;
    • Changes in ESG standards and requirements, including assumptions, methodology and materiality, or a change by Aegon in applying such standards and requirements, voluntarily or otherwise, may affect Aegon’s ability to meet evolving standards and requirements, or Aegon’s ability to meet its sustainability and ESG-related goals, or related public expectations, which may also negatively affect Aegon’s reputation or the reputation of its board of directors or its management; and
    • Other risks and uncertainties identified in the Form 20-F and in other documents filed or to be filed by Aegon with the SEC.
    • Reliance on third-party information in certain of Aegon’s disclosures, which may change over time as methodologies and data availability and quality continue to evolve. These factors, as well as any inaccuracies in third-party information used by Aegon, including in estimates or assumptions, may cause results to differ materially and adversely from statements, estimates, and beliefs made by Aegon or third-parties. Moreover, Aegon’s disclosures based on any standards may change due to revisions in framework requirements, availability of information, changes in its business or applicable governmental policies, or other factors, some of which may be beyond Aegon’s control. Additionally, Aegon’s discussion of various ESG and other sustainability issues in this document or in other locations, including on our corporate website, may be informed by the interests of various stakeholders, as well as various ESG standards, frameworks, and regulations (including for the measurement and assessment of underlying data). As such, our disclosures on such issues, including climate-related disclosures, may include information that is not necessarily “material” under US securities laws for SEC reporting purposes, even if we use words such as “material” or “materiality” in relation to those statements. ESG expectations continue to evolve, often quickly, including for matters outside of our control; our disclosures are inherently dependent on the methodology (including any related assumptions or estimates) and data used, and there can be no guarantee that such disclosures will necessarily reflect or be consistent with the preferred practices or interpretations of particular stakeholders, either currently or in future. 

    This document contains information that qualifies, or may qualify, as inside information within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation (596/2014). Further details of potential risks and uncertainties affecting Aegon are described in its filings with the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets and the US Securities and Exchange Commission, including the 2023 Integrated Annual Report. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this document. Except as required by any applicable law or regulation, Aegon expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in Aegon’s expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

    WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP (WFG):
    WFG CONSISTS OF:
    IN THE UNITED STATES, WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC (IN CALIFORNIA, DOING BUSINESS AS WORLD FINANCIAL INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC), WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY OF HAWAII, INC., WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., AND / OR WFG INSURANCE AGENCY OF PUERTO RICO, INC. (COLLECTIVELY WFGIA), WHICH OFFER INSURANCE AND ANNUITY PRODUCTS.
    IN THE UNITED STATES, TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC. IS A FULL-SERVICE, FULLY LICENSED, INDEPENDENT BROKER-DEALER AND REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISOR. TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC. (TFA), MEMBER  FINRA, MSRB, SIPC , AND REGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISOR, OFFERS SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES.
    IN CANADA, WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY OF CANADA INC. (WFGIAC), WHICH OFFERS LIFE INSURANCE AND SEGREGATED FUNDS. WFG SECURITIES INC. (WFGS), WHICH OFFERS MUTUAL FUNDS.
    WFGIAC AND WFGS ARE AFFILIATED COMPANIES.

    Attachment

    The MIL Network