NewzIntel.com

Category: Politics

  • MIL-OSI Global: For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is it?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jayashri Kulkarni, Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

    Last week, Australian Open player Destanee Aiava revealed she had struggled with borderline personality disorder.

    The tennis player said a formal diagnosis, after suicidal behaviour and severe panic attacks, “was a relief”. But “it also felt like a death sentence because it’s something that I have to live with my whole life”.

    A diagnosis is often associated with therapeutic nihilism. This means it’s viewed as impossible to treat, and can leave clinicians and people with the condition in despair.

    In fact, people with this disorder can and do recover with adequate support. Understanding it is caused by trauma is fundamental to effectively treat this complex and poorly understood mental illness.

    A stigmatising diagnosis

    The name “borderline personality disorder” is confusing and adds greatly to the stigma around it.

    Doctors first used “borderline” to describe a condition they believed was in-between two others: neurosis and psychosis.

    But this implies the condition is not real in itself, and can invalidate the suffering and distress the person and their loved ones experience.

    “Personality disorder” is a judgemental term that describes the very essence of a person – their personality – as flawed.

    What is borderline personality disorder?

    People with the disorder can express a range of symptoms, but high levels of anxiety – including panic attacks – are usually constant.

    Symptoms cluster around four main areas:

    • high impulsivity (leading to suicidal thoughts and behaviour, self-harm and other risky behaviours)

    • unstable or poor sense of self (including low self-esteem)

    • mood disturbances (including intense, inappropriate anger, episodic depression or mania)

    • problems in relationships.

    People with the disorder greatly fear being abandoned and as a result, commonly have distressing difficulties in interpersonal relationships.

    This creates a “push-pull” dynamic with loved ones, as people with borderline personality disorder seek closeness, but push away those they love to test the strength of the relationship.

    For example, they may escalate a small issue into a major disagreement to see if the loved one will “stick with them” and reinforce their love.

    Conversely, if a loved one appears distant or fed up – for example, is thinking about ending the relationship – the person with borderline personality disorder will make major efforts to “pull” them back. This might look like a flurry of messages, expressions of despair, or even suicidal behaviours.

    People with borderline personality disorder greatly fear being abandoned, making relationship issues common.
    Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Who does it affect?

    The disorder affects one in 100 Australians, although this is likely a conservative estimate, as diagnosis is based on the most severe symptoms.

    Women are much more likely to be diagnosed with it than men – but why this is so remains a major debate, with political and sociological factors playing a role in making psychiatric diagnoses. Symptoms usually begin in the mid to late teens.

    While an initial response to receiving a diagnosis can be comforting for some, it is commonly seen as a chronic, relapsing condition, meaning symptoms can return after a period of improvement.

    Borderline personality disorder can fluctuate in intensity and mimic other conditions such as major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders and psychosis.

    Estimates suggest 26% of presentations at emergency departments for mental health issues are by people diagnosed with personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder.

    What causes it?

    The main cause for borderline personality disorder appears to be trauma in early life, compounded by repeated traumas later.

    Early life trauma can lead to biological changes in the brain that cause behavioural, emotional or cognitive shifts, leading to social and relationship issues. This is known as complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Aiava has acknowledged the disorder is “mainly from childhood trauma”, although she has not given details about her specific experiences.

    People with borderline personality disorder usually have complex post-traumatic stress disorder. But complex post-traumatic stress disorder doesn’t always result in a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.

    Although the two disorders are not identical, they share many similarities, in particular that they are both caused by complex and repeated trauma.

    However those with borderline personality disorder tend to experience more rage, emotional disturbances and have a greater fear of abandonment.

    They also face greater stigma, whereas the term “complex post-traumatic stress disorder” doesn’t carry the same negative connotations and focuses on the cause of the condition – trauma – rather than “personality”, leading to better treatment options.

    The recognition of the major role of trauma in borderline personality disorder is an important step forward in treating the disorder. But because of the stigma associated with it, using the diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder maybe a better step forward in the future.

    Can it be treated?

    There are many effective psychological therapies and other treatments for people with borderline personality disorder or complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

    For example, dialectical behavioural therapy is a type of cognitive therapy that helps people learn skills such as tolerating distress, managing relationships, regulating emotions and practising mindfulness.

    The treatment of people with post-traumatic stress disorder, including victims of war and rape, has taught us a lot about how to treat complex, underlying trauma. For example, with trauma-focused psychological therapies.

    Other new treatments, such as eye movement desensitisation and reprogramming, have also shown to be effective.

    Many people with borderline personality disorder who receive treatment and have supportive relationships are able to “outgrow” the condition. Others may need to continue to manage symptoms while pursuing a good quality of life.

    Treating trauma, not personality

    Rethinking borderline personality disorder as a trauma disorder enables a more effective and understanding approach for those with it.

    Understanding what trauma does to the brain means newer, targeted medications can also be used.

    For example, our research has shown how the brain’s glutamate system – the chemicals responsible for learning and making sense of one’s environment – is overactive in people with complex post-traumtic stress disorder. Medications that work on the glutumate system may therefore help alleviate borderline personality disorder symptoms.

    Educating partners and families about borderline personality disorder, providing them support and co-designing crisis strategies are also important parts of total care. Preventing early life trauma is also critical.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

    Jayashri Kulkarni receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and educational plus clinical trial grants from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychotropic medications.

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

    – ref. For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is it? – https://theconversation.com/for-tennis-star-destanee-aiava-borderline-personality-disorder-felt-like-a-death-sentence-and-a-relief-what-is-it-247451

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

    This week Prince Harry achieved something few before him have: an admission of guilt and unlawful behaviour from the Murdoch media organisation. But he also fell short of his long-stated goal of holding the Murdochs to account in a public trial.

    The Duke of Sussex, along with Tom Watson, the Labour MP who had led the charge against the Murdochs’ News Group Newspapers (NGN) in the United Kingdom during the 2011–12 phone hacking scandal, are the last to settle their claims against News over their privacy being invaded by phone hacking or through the use of private investigators.

    They join a list of around 1,300 people, including celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, who have already settled their claims against The Sun newspaper at an estimated cost to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s company of more than £1 billion (almost A$2 billion).

    This one is significant because unlike previous settlements, it came with an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, as well as the perfunctory wheelbarrow full of cash.

    Until now, The Sun has simply refused to say sorry or admit liability. But that stance has become increasingly absurd.

    As Grant posted on X last year when he settled his claim:

    News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused The Sun of doing. As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.

    Prince Harry wrung from News considerably more. In a statement released after the case was settled on Wednesday morning in London, NGN said:

    NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.

    It went on:

    NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. NGN further apologises to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years. We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages. It is also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that NGN’s response to the 2006 arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable.

    Let’s break down what this is actually saying, and what it isn’t.

    Carefully crafted wording

    First, it is undoubtedly a significant admission that in pursuit of stories, The Sun engaged in unlawful activity. That is a big step up (or down, depending on your point of view) from previous settlement statements.

    Note, though, it carefully pins the unlawful activity on private investigators working for The Sun rather than on journalists and, more importantly, editors. The word “incidents” is doing a lot of work here: “widespread” and “industrial-strength” come to mind as more appropriate.

    Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, said immediately after the settlement was reached that “NGN unlawfully engaged more than 100 private investigators over at least 16 years on more than 35,000 occasions”.

    He continued: “this happened as much at The Sun as it did at the News of the World with the knowledge of all the Editors and executives, going to the very top of the company.”

    NGN’s statement, then, continues to assert phone hacking did not happen at The Sun but in a roundabout way, somehow, the newspaper benefited from it. Sort of.

    Dancing to avoid perjury

    The company has been engaged in this kind of casuistry ever since 2006 when it said the journalist and private investigator who were found guilty of phone hacking (Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire, respectively) were just two bad apples in an otherwise orchard-kissed media basket.

    The hundreds of people who have received payments because their phones were hacked know this only too well, but there is an important reason NGN feels it still has to maintain this charade. To do otherwise would be an admission that it has perjured itself in courts and before inquiries.

    The Murdochs’ company can hardly deny that journalists at the newspaper it was forced to close over phone hacking – The News of the World – were engaged in the practice. Several of them were jailed over it, most notably former editor Andy Coulson.

    As one of Coulson’s former reporters, Dan Evans, testified at his editor’s trial in 2014, “even the office cat knew” phone hacking was happening at the newspaper.

    The newspaper was closed, in large part, to try and persuade the public that the problem of unethical reporters was confined to that newspaper alone.

    They weren’t expected to notice that months later, News set up a Sunday edition of The Sun that continues to be published.

    The legal war continues

    For Prince Harry, this has been a deeply personal campaign, especially as News has admitted seriously intruding into his private life since he was 12, and into his mother’s too, for many years.

    NGN also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that its response to the 2006 arrests and its subsequent actions were “regrettable”. This is PR-speak for when you can’t bring yourself to actually apologise.

    Harry’s lawyer went on the attack over these evasions and euphemisms:

    there was an extensive conspiracy to cover up what really had been going on and who knew about it. Senior executives deliberately obstructed justice by deleting over 30 million emails, destroying back-up tapes, and making false denials – all in the face of an ongoing police investigation. They then repeatedly lied under oath to cover their tracks – both in Court and at the Leveson Public Inquiry.

    Beneath the duelling statements, though, is the sense that this settlement, important though it is, may not be the end of the saga.

    It seems clear those backing and advising Prince Harry see the settlement as an important step in pursuing criminal charges against NGN executives, as well as winning a personal apology from Rupert Murdoch himself.

    Will that actually happen? We do know that in Murdoch’s long history in the media, apologies are vanishingly rare.

    We also know that the second part of the Leveson inquiry was shelved by the former Conservative government. The recently elected Labour government has been under pressure from Hacked Off, the public interest group that has been advocating for victims of media intrusion and for reform of media laws ever since the phone hacking came to light in 2011.

    Will Britain’s police and government build on NGN’s partial admissions and apologies? Will they investigate News executives, therefore fulfilling what was meant to occur in the second stage of the Leveson inquiry, whose terms of reference singled out News’s activities as a company?

    Or will they take the cautious view that this rare settlement means justice has now been served and hope, like Murdoch and many of his senior executives, this long-running issue will now just quietly go away?

    It is too early to tell. What we do know is that in recent years, the Murdochs’ once brilliant batting average has dropped like a stone. First, there was the historically high payout in the Dominion lawsuit, then the failed attempt to revoke an irrevocable trust that is tearing apart the family, and now the settlement with Prince Harry.

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

    – ref. Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire? – https://theconversation.com/murdochs-uk-newspapers-have-apologised-to-prince-harry-where-does-it-leave-the-legally-embattled-media-empire-248110

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    Shutterstock/The Conversation

    Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most influential and controversial powerbrokers in the new Trump administration. He spent at least US$277 million (about A$360 million) of his own money to help Donald Trump win re-election, campaigning alongside him around the country.

    This significant investment of time and money raises the question of what the world’s wealthiest person hopes to receive in return. Critics have wondered whether Musk’s support for Trump is just a straightforward commercial transaction, with Musk expecting to receive political favours.

    Or does it reflect Musk’s own genuinely held political views, and perhaps personal political ambition?

    From left to alt-right

    Decoding Musk’s political views and tracking how they have changed over time is a complex exercise. He’s hard to pin down, largely by design.

    Musk’s current X feed, for example, is a bewildering mix of far-right conspiracy theories about immigration, clips of neoliberal economist Milton Friedman warning about the dangers of inflation, and advertisements for Tesla.

    Historically, Musk professes to have been a left libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

    Musk claims that over time, the Democratic party has moved further to the left, leaving him feeling closer politically to the Republican party.

    Key to Musk’s political shift, at least by his own account, is his estrangement from his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson.

    After Vivian’s transition, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus”. She is very much alive.

    He’s since repeatedly signalled his opposition to transgender rights and gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more broadly.

    However, if the mere existence of a trans person in his family was enough to cause a political meltdown, Musk was clearly already on a trajectory towards far-right politics.

    Rather than responding to a shift in the Democratic Party, it makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much broader recent phenomenon known as as “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

    The political science, explained

    Libertarianism has historically tended to be divided between left-wing and right-wing forms.

    Left libertarians support economic policies of limited government, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and deregulation more broadly. This is combined with progressive social policies, such as marriage equality and drug decriminalisation.

    By contrast, right libertarians support the same set of economic policies, but hold conservative social views, such as opposing abortion rights and celebrating patriotism.

    Historically, the Libertarian Party in the United States adopted an awkward middle ground between the two poles.

    The past decade, though, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism more generally, move strongly to the right. In particular, many libertarians have played leading roles in the alt-right movement.

    The alt-right or “alternative right” refers to the recent resurgence of far-right political movements opposing multiculturalism, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white nationalism.

    The alt-right is a very online movement, with its leading activists renowned for internet trolling and “edgelording” – that is, the posting of controversial and confronting content to deliberately stoke controversy and attract attention.

    Though some libertarians have resisted the pull of the alt-right, many have been swept along the pipeline, including prominent leaders in the movement.

    Making sense of Musk

    While this discussion of theory may seem abstract, it helps to understand what Musk’s values are (beneath the chaotic tweets and Nazi salutes).

    In economic terms, Musk remains a limited-government libertarian. He advocates cutting government spending, reducing taxes and repealing regulation – especially regulations that put limits on his businesses.

    His formal role in the Trump administration as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency”, also known as DOGE, is targeted at these goals.

    Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This is the alt-right influence on display.

    Alt-right sensibilities are most evident, however, in Musk’s online persona.

    On X, Musk has deliberately stoked controversy by boosting and engaging with white nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

    For example, he has favourably engaged with far-right politicians advocating for the antisemitic “Great Replacement theory”. This theory claims Jews are encouraging mass migration to the global north as part of a deliberate plot to eliminate the white race.

    More recently, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. He’s also shared videos from known white supremacists outlining the racist “Muslim grooming gangs” conspiracy theory in the United Kingdom.

    Whether Musk actually believes these outlandish racist conspiracy theories is, in many ways, irrelevant.

    Rather, Musk’s public statements are better understood as reflecting philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s famous definition of “bullshit”. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or provoke in which the speaker is simply not concerned with whether the statement is actually true.

    Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset “the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

    Theory vs practice

    Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

    For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

    Musk will expect this special treatment to continue under a quintessentially transactional president such as Trump.

    The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

    Across the campaign, both Musk and Trump repeatedly criticised immigration to the US. Reprising the themes of the far-right Great Replacement theory, Musk claimed illegal immigration was a deliberate plot by Democrats to “replace” the existing electorate with “compliant illegals”.

    However, after the election Musk has argued Trump should preserve categories of skilled migration such as the H1-B visas. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

    Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. H1-B visas allow temporary workers to enter the country for up to six years, making them entirely dependent on the sponsoring company. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude”.

    These visas have been used heavily in the technology sector, including in companies owned by both Musk and Trump.

    An unsteady alliance

    So what might we expect from Musk now that he has both political office and influence?

    Musk’s stated aim of using DOGE to cut $2 trillion from the US budget would represent an unprecedented transformation of government. It also seems highly unlikely.

    Instead, expect Musk to focus on creating controversy by cutting DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive programs, such as support for women’s reproductive rights.

    Musk will clearly use his political influence to look after the interests of his companies. Shares in Tesla surged to record highs following Trump’s re-election, suggesting investors believe Musk will be a major financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

    Finally, Musk will undoubtedly use his new position to remain in the public eye. This last part might lead Musk into conflict with another expert in shaping the media cycle – Trump himself.

    Musk has already reportedly fallen out with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will now no longer co-lead DOGE with Musk.

    Exactly how stable the alliance between Trump and Musk is, and whether the egos and interests of the two billionaires can continue to coexist, remains to be seen.

    If the alliance persists, it will be a key factor in shaping what many are terming the emergence of a “new gilded age” of political corruption and soaring inequality.

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

    – ref. Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan? – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-now-has-an-office-in-the-white-house-whats-his-political-game-plan-248011

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Belarus Presidential Election: Joint Statement, January 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Australia, Canada, the EU, New Zealand and the UK have released a joint statement following Belarus’ sham presidential elections on 26 January 2025.

    Joint statement from the Commonwealth of Australia, Canada, The European Union, New Zealand, and The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland:

    We are united in our condemnation of the sham presidential elections in Belarus on 26 January and the ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by the Belarusian regime. Recently announced sanctions represent a coordinated, multilateral effort to hold the Lukashenko regime to account.

    No election can be considered free, fair or in line with international standards when it is held in a climate of ongoing repression, marked by a clampdown on civil society, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on genuine political participation. The regime’s decision to invite the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe / Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to observe only 10 days before the elections prevented ODIHR’s access to key stages of the election process. These actions are at odds with Belarus’ international commitments and demonstrate a clear desire to avoid transparency in the electoral process.

    We condemn the ongoing appalling human rights violations committed by the Lukashenko regime and call on them to release the over 1,250 political prisoners who remain unjustly detained. We urge Belarus to follow its international human rights obligations and OSCE commitments in all respects, including restoring an open civil society, to create an environment in which new elections which meet international standards can be held. We stand with the Belarusian people and recognise their right to determine their own future in a genuinely free and fair manner, without fear, oppression or external interference.

    We will continue to support the aspirations of the Belarusian people for a free, democratic and independent Belarus.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Press release: PM call with Taoiseach Martin of Ireland: 27 January 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Prime Minister’s Office 10 Downing Street

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning.

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning to congratulate him on his election.

    The leaders agreed that the UK – Ireland relationship was going from strength to strength, and it was vital to continue that in such a volatile geopolitical context.

    Discussing devastating Storm Éowyn at the weekend, the leaders paid tribute to the work of first responders and engineers to restore electricity to thousands of homes. The Prime Minister said that he had also spoken to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and that the UK stood by to offer further support, as required.

    The Prime Minister also updated on his EU reset, and the leaders underscored the importance of a close and constructive relationship with the EU to boost prosperity and security.

    Looking ahead to the upcoming UK-Ireland summit, both agreed that the meeting would offer a chance to deepen collaboration across all areas of the bilateral relationship, including business, innovation, and energy.

    Turning to Ukraine, the Prime Minister reflected on his visit earlier this month and reiterated his view that it was vital to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

    The leaders also discussed Holocaust Memorial Day today. The Prime Minister said he had been deeply moved by his visit to Auschwitz earlier this month, and the leaders agreed the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau was a poignant reminder on the need to defeat antisemitism and hatred. 

    They looked forward to meeting soon.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Philadelphia Mental Health Clinic and Its Psychiatrist Owner Agree to Pay $900,000 to Resolve False Claims Act Lawsuit for Alleged Medicaid Fraud

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    PHILADELPHIA – United States Attorney Jacqueline C. Romero announced that Dr. Ghodrat Pirooz Sholevar and his company, Nueva Vida Multicultural/Multilingual Behavioral Health, Inc., have agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve allegations in the United States’ Amended Complaint that they fraudulently billed Medicaid for medication management appointments for children and other patients that were too short pursuant to applicable regulations. The government alleges that the visits violated rules promulgated by Community Behavioral Health, the local Medicaid program administrator, and the False Claims Act.

    Sholevar and Nueva Vida operated three mental health clinics in Northeast Philadelphia and provided psychiatry services under the Medicaid program to adults and children. Among other mental health services, Sholevar provided medication management appointments for his patients. A medication management appointment or “med check” is required to prescribe, and monitor the effects of, certain drugs for mental health conditions. During a med check, a doctor typically obtains a patient’s relevant history, examines his mental status, assesses his response to the medication, and adjusts any prescriptions or treatment plans if necessary. Medication management appointments are required to be at least 15 minutes in length to be fully reimbursable and documentation of the actual time in clock hours that services were provided is a condition of payment for Medicaid services rendered to patients in Philadelphia.

    In an amended complaint filed on May 7, 2024, the United States contends that, from January 15, 2009, through March 31, 2017, Nueva Vida regularly submitted false bills for medication management appointments performed by Sholevar because these visits were not at least 15 minutes long and instead were likely substantially shorter. Nueva Vida also regularly billed for more medication management appointments than could be completed in a single workday if each appointment were 15 minutes long as required. Nueva Vida billed Medicaid for whole single “units” of medication management, thereby falsely representing that each patient had been seen for the required 15 minutes. The government alleges that, despite conducting appointments that were much shorter than 15 minutes, Sholevar falsely recorded start and end times in patients’ files that made it appear that the patients were seen for a full 15 minutes. These false “clock times” included overlapping times where Sholevar was purportedly seeing two or three patients during the same 15-minute window, and at two different clinic locations.

    The United States further contends that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the Medicaid rules regarding the timing of medication management visits. The defendants’ fee schedules for services to Medicaid patients specified that the medication management visit was 15 minutes per “unit” of service billed. The defendants were notified in an audit as early as 2004 that medication management visits ranging from six to twelve minutes were too short. The Medicaid program administrator also regularly recouped payments from the defendants for medication management visits that did not include start and end times, or where there was evidence that the appointment was less than 15-minutes long. But the defendants continued providing too-short appointments and failing to document clock times in treatment records, even after these issues were repeatedly brought to their attention. Nueva Vida ceased operating mental health clinics in 2018.

    “The defendants allegedly overbilled the Medicaid program at the expense of low-income Philadelphians, including children, who were seeking mental health services,” said U.S. Attorney Romero. “These individuals deserved full and appropriate health care services, including careful management of psychiatric drugs that can have dangerous side effects. We will hold accountable those who bill Medicaid but fail to provide the full service, because this not only defrauds the government, but deprives vulnerable individuals of care.”

    “Medicaid provides important mental health services to adults and children,” said Maureen R. Dixon, Special Agent in Charge for the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “The defendants’ actions defrauded the Medicaid program and may have resulted in patients not receiving the full services they deserve. HHS-OIG will continue to work with our partners at the United States Attorney’s Office to investigate allegations of Medicaid fraud and ensure proper services are provided to patients.”

    This settlement resolved a lawsuit that the United States filed under the False Claims Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The government’s resolution of this matter illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

    This matter was investigated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. For the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the investigation and settlement were handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Erin Lindgren and Gregory in den Berken and auditor George Niedzwicki.

    The case is captioned United States v. Nueva Vida Multicultural/Multilingual Behavioral Health, Inc. and Ghodrat Pirooz Sholevar, M.D., Civ. No. 24-1451 (E.D. Pa.). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability. 

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Newark Man Charged With Firearm And Narcotics Offenses

    Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

    NEWARK, N.J. – A Newark man has been charged with firearm and narcotics offenses, Acting U.S. Attorney Vikas Khanna announced.

    Khalif Irving, 25, of Newark, New Jersey, was charged in a three-count complaint with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.  He had an initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer in Newark federal court on January 24, 2025, and was ordered detained.

    According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

    Irving, a/k/a “Kah Kah,” has been advertising narcotics for sale on social media and posting photos depicting firearms.  On January 23, 2025, Irving stowed a loaded firearm in a utility box affixed to the side of a building at the Janice Kromer Village apartments.  Minutes later, law enforcement recovered the firearm, arrested Irving, and recovered suspected narcotics from Irving’s person.

    The offense of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon charged in Count One of the Complaint carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000.  The offense of possession with intent to distribute narcotics charged in Count Two of the Complaint carries a maximum penalty of 20 year’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of $1 million.  The offense of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime charged in Count Thee of the Complaint carries a mandatory minimum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment, which must run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000.   

    Acting U.S. Attorney Khanna credited special agents and task force officers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), under the direction of Special Agent in Charge L.C. Cheeks Jr., the Newark Police Department, under the direction of Public Safety Director Emanuel Miranda, and the North Bergen Police Department, under the direction of Chief Robert Farley with the investigation leading to today’s charges.

    The investigation was conducted as part of the Newark Violent Crime Initiative (VCI). The Newark VCI was formed in August 2017 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, and the City of Newark’s Department of Public Safety for the sole purpose of combatting violent crime in and around Newark. As part of this partnership, federal, state, county, and city agencies collaborate and pool resources to prosecute violent offenders who endanger the safety of the community. The VCI is composed of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, the ATF, the DEA, the DHS/HSI, the USMS, the Newark Department of Public Safety, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, the Essex County Sheriff’s Office, New Jersey State Parole, Union County Jail, New Jersey State Police Regional Operations and Intelligence Center/Real Time Crime Center, New Jersey Department of Corrections, the East Orange Police Department, and the Irvington Police Department.

    The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Thompson of the Organized Crime and Gangs Unit in Newark.

    The charges and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

                                                     ###

    Defense counsel: Michael Thomas, Assistant Federal Public Defender

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Jamf achieves StateRAMP Authorized status to meet organizations’ most stringent compliance needs

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Today, Jamf (NASDAQ: JAMF), the standard in managing and securing Apple at work, announced it has achieved StateRAMP Authorized status for its Jamf Pro and Jamf School products. Achieving this certification highlights Jamf’s continued commitment to meeting the needs of high compliance organizations.

    StateRAMP is a critical cloud security assessment and authorization program designed to address the specific technology and compliance requirements of education institutions as well as state and local governments. 

    Jamf Pro and Jamf School can now be found on the StateRAMP Authorized Product List. Authorized status is the highest level of verification within the StateRAMP program. It signifies that Jamf Pro and Jamf School meet all the required security controls within the StateRAMP framework, have been assessed by a third-party assessment organization (3PAO), and the results have been verified by the StateRAMP PMO.

    “StateRAMP Authorized status is a significant accomplishment,” said Linh Lam, CIO at Jamf. “As a best of breed solution, our high compliance customers expect us to help them comply with the most demanding industry regulations. With Authorized status, Jamf’s state, local, and education customers can be assured our StateRAMP environment will help protect their information systems and assets from cyber threats, while meeting their compliance obligations.”

    To maintain this status, Jamf must comply with monthly continuous monitoring requirements and conduct annual and significant change audits. 

    To learn more about Jamf information security, compliance and privacy, visit: https://www.jamf.com/trust-center/.

    About Jamf
    Jamf’s purpose is to simplify work by helping organizations manage and secure an Apple experience that end users love and organizations trust. Jamf is the only company in the world that provides a complete management and security solution for an Apple-first environment that is enterprise secure, consumer simple and protects personal privacy. To learn more, visit www.jamf.com.

    Media Contact:
    Liarna La Porta | media@jamf.com

    Investor Contact:
    Jennifer Gaumond | ir@jamf.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Voxtur Terminates Definitive Agreement with University Bancorp

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO and TAMPA, Fla., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Voxtur Analytics Corp. (TSXV: VXTR; OTCQB: VXTRF), a technology company creating a more transparent and accessible real estate lending ecosystem, today announced the termination of the definitive agreement dated Friday July 26, 2024, with University Bancorp, Inc. (“University”) for the acquisition of 50.5% stake in Blue Water Financial Technologies Holding Company, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Voxtur (“Blue Water”).

    About Voxtur

    Voxtur is a transformational real estate technology company that is redefining industry standards in a dynamic lending environment. The Company offers targeted data analytics to simplify tax solutions, property valuation and settlement services throughout the lending lifecycle for investors, lenders, government agencies and servicers. Voxtur’s proprietary data hub and workflow platforms more accurately and efficiently value assets, originate and service loans, securitize portfolios and evaluate tax assessments. The Company serves the property lending and property tax sectors, both public and private, in the United States and Canada. For more information, visit www.voxtur.com.

    Forward-Looking Information

    This news release contains certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively, “forward-looking information”) which reflect the expectations of management regarding the Company’s strategic initiatives, plans, business prospects, and opportunities. Forward-looking statements should not be read as guarantees of future events, performance or results, and give rise to the possibility that management’s predictions, forecasts, projections, expectations, or conclusions will not prove to be accurate, that the assumptions may not be correct and that the Company’s future growth, financial performance and objectives and the Company’s strategic initiatives, plans, business prospects and opportunities, will not occur or be achieved. Any information contained herein that is not based on historical facts may be deemed to constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian and United States securities laws. Forward-looking information may be based on expectations, estimates and projections as at the date of this news release, and may be identified by the words “may”, “would”, “could”, “should”, “will”, “intend”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “expect” or similar expressions. Forward-looking information may include but is not limited to: the effects of unexpected costs, liabilities or delays; success of software activities; the competition for skilled personnel; expectations for other economic, business, environmental, regulatory and/or competitive factors related to the Company, or the real estate industry generally; anticipated future production costs; and other events or conditions that may occur in the future. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking information is not based on historical facts but instead reflects estimates or projections concerning future results or events based on the opinions, assumptions and estimates of management considered reasonable at the date the information is provided. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking information are reasonable, such information involves risks and uncertainties, and undue reliance should not be placed on such information, as unknown or unpredictable factors could have material adverse effects on future results, performance, or achievements of the Company. Among the key factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking information include but are not limited to: implementation of new products; changing global financial conditions; reliance on specific key employees and customers to maintain business operations; competition within the Company’s industry; a risk in technological failure, failure to implement technological upgrades, or failure to implement new technological products in accordance with expected timelines; changing market conditions; failure of governing agencies and regulatory bodies to approve the use of products and services developed by the Company; the Company’s dependence on maintaining intellectual property and protecting newly developed intellectual property; operating losses and negative cash flows; and currency fluctuations. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information contained herein.

    This forward-looking information is provided as of the date of this news release and, accordingly, is subject to change after such date. The Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise this information to reflect new events or circumstances except as required in accordance with applicable laws.

    NEITHER THE TSXV NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSXV) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

    Voxtur’s common shares are traded on the TSXV under the symbol VXTR and in the US on the OTCQB under the symbol VXTRF.

    Voxtur Contact:
    Jordan Ross
    Chief Operating Officer
    Tel: (416) 708-9764
    Email: jordan@voxtur.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Human case of avian flu detected in England

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    UKHSA confirms rare case of bird flu (H5N1) in the West Midlands region.

    UKHSA has confirmed a case of influenza A(H5N1) in a person in the West Midlands region. Bird-to-human transmission of avian influenza is rare and has previously occurred a small number of times in the UK.

    The person acquired the infection on a farm, where they had close and prolonged contact with a large number of infected birds. The risk to the wider public continues to be very low.

    The individual is currently well and was admitted to a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) unit.

    The birds were infected with the DI.2 genotype, one of the viruses known to be circulating in birds in the UK this season. This is different to strains circulating among mammals and birds in the US.

    Although there has been no demonstrated human-to-human transmission despite extensive recent surveillance of influenza A(H5N1), UKHSA has been tracing all individuals who have been in contact with the confirmed case of avian influenza. Those at highest risk of exposure have been offered antiviral treatment. This is done to reduce the chance that any virus they have been exposed to will be able to cause infection.

    The case was detected after the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) identified an outbreak of avian influenza(H5N1) in a flock of birds. UKHSA carried out routine monitoring on people who had been in close contact with the infected birds.

    Professor Susan Hopkins, Chief Medical Adviser at UKHSA, said:

    The risk of avian flu to the general public remains very low despite this confirmed case. We have robust systems in place to detect cases early and take necessary action, as we know that spillover infections from birds to humans may occur.  

    Currently there is no evidence of onwards transmission from this case.

    People are reminded not to touch sick or dead birds and it’s important that they follow Defra advice about reporting any suspected avian influenza cases.

    UK Chief Veterinary Officer Christine Middlemiss said:

    While avian influenza is highly contagious in birds, this is a very rare event and is very specific to the circumstances on this premises.

    We took swift action to limit the spread of the disease at the site in question, all infected birds are being humanely culled, and cleansing and disinfection of the premises will be undertaken all to strict biosecure standards. This is a reminder that stringent biosecurity is essential when keeping animals.

    We are seeing a growing number of avian flu cases in birds on both commercial farms and in backyard flocks across the country. Implementing scrupulous biosecurity measures will help protect the health and welfare of your birds from the threat of avian influenza and other diseases.

    Andrew Gwynne, Minister for Public Health and Prevention, said:

    The safety of the public is paramount, and we are monitoring this situation closely.

    The risk of wider or onward transmission is very low, however the UK remains prepared and ready to respond to any current and future health threats.

    We recently added the H5 vaccine, which protects against avian influenza, to our stockpile as part of our preparedness plans.

    UKHSA will publish further details about the confirmed human case in due course.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Three public figures awarded Freedom of the City

    Source: City of Plymouth

    Three public figures known for their achievements in Plymouth and in recognition of their outstanding leadership, were awarded Freedom of the City at the Full Council meeting today (27 January).

    Sir Gary Streeter

    Gary had a career in politics spanning over 30 years, he started his involvement with politics in 1986 as he was passionate about contributing to the community.

    Gary was an Elected Member of Parliament for Plymouth Sutton from 1992 to 1997 when the boundaries changed, and subsequently elevated to the whip’s office. He was also then promoted to Minister in the Lord Chancellor’s department in 1996 to 1997.

    Gary was Shadow Secretary of State for International Development from 1998 to 2001.

    Gary was re-elected as MP for South West Devon, and became Vice Chairman of the Conservative party in 2001 to 2002, and Member of Parliament for South West Devon from 1997 to 2024.

    Gary said: “It is a great honour to be granted the freedom of such a great city. It has been an absolute privilege to serve so many Plymouth residents for over 30 years as their member of parliament. I am very grateful to the city council for bestowing such an honour upon me.”

    Kevin Nancekivell

    Kevin played non-league football for Bideford Town and Tiverton Town before getting his chance with Argyle at the age of 28. 

    Retiring from playing in 2004, Kevin began a coaching journey that saw him rise through various roles with Argyle’s Centres of Excellence and Academy, gaining his UEFA A Licence in 2010.

    In 2011, new Argyle manager Carl Fletcher asked Nancekivell to join his first-team coaching staff, and when Fletcher left in 2013 Kevin, along with Romain Larrieu, took temporary charge of the team.

    It was the first of five times where Nance has taken caretaker charge of Argyle, either solo or as a unit, typically with strong results.

    For his passion, dedication and honesty, not to mention his skill as a coach, Kevin is a beloved figure to the Green Army, who sometimes refer to him as ‘Mr Plymouth Argyle’.

    Kevin said: ‘I’m incredibly honoured to receive the Freedom of the City award. Plymouth has been a huge part of my life, and it’s a privilege to represent this great city through football. 

    “To be recognised in this way is truly humbling but it wouldn’t have been possible with the support and dedication of my family, colleagues, teammates and of course Argyle supporters.”

    Linda Gilroy

    With a political career spanning over 40 years, Linda started her journey in Plymouth politics in 1987, when she was elected as the secretary to the Plymouth Drake Constituency Labour Party and was elected chairwoman of the Cornwall Labour Party for four years from 1990.  

    Linda was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Plymouth Sutton for 13 years from 1997 until 2010.

    In parliament she was a member of the European legislation select committee from 1997 until the 2001 General Election when she was appointed Minister of State for Local and Regional Government. From 2005 to 2010 she served on the Defence Select Committee and as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Science Minister.

    Linda said: “In thanking the Lord Mayor and the Council for this honour, I would like to pay tribute to Plymouth City Council’s award-winning work.  During my time representing the city this helped many campaigns succeed. These included bringing down the dockyard wall and the regeneration of Devonport still flowing from this, rescuing Ford Park Cemetery from dereliction and securing investment for the Peninsula Medical and Dental Schools and community health facilities in Cattedown and Mount Gould. It is good to see that work going from strength to strength.”

    Lord Mayor of Plymouth, Tina Tuohy added: “I am pleased to present the award to Sir Gary, Kevin and Linda for their achievements in the service of Plymouth, and in recognition of their outstanding leadership, contributions to the public and the Plymouth communities.

    “This is why we have chosen to grant Freedom of the City to them today. I would like to thank them for all the incredible work that they do. A huge congratulations to them all.”

    Kevin Nancekivell, Lord Mayor Councillor Tina Tuohy and Sir Gary Streeter

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: PM call with Taoiseach Martin of Ireland: 27 January 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning.

    The Prime Minister spoke to the Taoiseach Micheál Martin this morning to congratulate him on his election.

    The leaders agreed that the UK – Ireland relationship was going from strength to strength, and it was vital to continue that in such a volatile geopolitical context.

    Discussing devastating Storm Éowyn at the weekend, the leaders paid tribute to the work of first responders and engineers to restore electricity to thousands of homes. The Prime Minister said that he had also spoken to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and that the UK stood by to offer further support, as required.

    The Prime Minister also updated on his EU reset, and the leaders underscored the importance of a close and constructive relationship with the EU to boost prosperity and security.

    Looking ahead to the upcoming UK-Ireland summit, both agreed that the meeting would offer a chance to deepen collaboration across all areas of the bilateral relationship, including business, innovation, and energy.

    Turning to Ukraine, the Prime Minister reflected on his visit earlier this month and reiterated his view that it was vital to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

    The leaders also discussed Holocaust Memorial Day today. The Prime Minister said he had been deeply moved by his visit to Auschwitz earlier this month, and the leaders agreed the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau was a poignant reminder on the need to defeat antisemitism and hatred. 

    They looked forward to meeting soon.

    Updates to this page

    Published 27 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Statement by the Prime Minister on International Holocaust Remembrance Day

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day:

    “Eighty years ago today, the Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp was liberated. Within its confines, over one million Jewish people had been barbarically murdered. As the largest camp under Hitler’s regime, it became one of the most important symbols of the Holocaust.

    “Let me be unequivocally clear – the Holocaust was one of the darkest chapters of human history. The Nazi regime systemically and senselessly murdered six million Jewish people, accounting for two thirds of the Jewish population in Europe. They killed millions of others, including 500,000 Roma and Sinti peoples, political opponents, 2SLGBTQI+ people, and people with disabilities. They executed a genocide of unconscionable inhumanity and evil.

    “The pain inflicted onto Holocaust survivors is still felt to this day. We can never bring back the six million Jewish lives lost during the Holocaust. We can never reunite the families torn apart forever. We can never finish the stories left incomplete. But we can remember. We can and must remind ourselves and each other of our obligation to stop this from ever happening again.

    “Over the past 15 months, in the wake of Hamas’ horrifying attack against Israel and with the rise in antisemitism, Jewish people in Canada and across the world have felt unsafe in their communities, workplaces, and places of worship. This is unacceptable, and we are doubling down on our commitment to combat antisemitism and hate: With the Canada Community Security Program to enhance security at community spaces at risk of hate-motivated crimes. With new investments in Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2024-2028 and Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate. With the efforts of our Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, Deborah Lyons, including the launch of the Canadian Handbook on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism last fall. With a National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism being held in March. And later today, we will be announcing a new set of projects funded under the National Holocaust Remembrance Program, with more to come, to help Canadians better understand the Holocaust and the ways antisemitism still affects us today.

    “As social media and those who control its platforms seek to distort the horrors of the Holocaust and platform Holocaust denialism, it is now more important than ever to remember. To remember the hate and the cruelty. To remember, listen, and re-tell the stories of survivors while they’re still with us. To remember those who risked and gave their lives to save countless others. To remember our solemn vow: Never forget. Never again.”

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI: Ninepoint Partners LP Launches Two New Series of Ninepoint Global Infrastructure Fund and Announces Termination of Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ninepoint Partners LP (Ninepoint Partners) is pleased to announce the launch of two new series of Ninepoint Global Infrastructure Fund, being Series T and Series FT. As of January 16, 2025, Ninepoint Global Infrastructure Fund is now available in Series A, Series F, Series T, Series FT, Series I and Series D securities.

    The investment objective of Ninepoint Global Infrastructure Fund is primarily to maximize risk adjusted long-term returns and secondarily to achieve a high level of income. Ninepoint Global Infrastructure Fund focuses on achieving growth of capital through securities selection and pursues a long-term investment program with the aim of generating capital gains and seeks to provide a moderate level of volatility and a low degree of correlation to other asset classes through diversifying across a relatively concentrated group of global infrastructure stocks.

    “The Series T and Series FT are designed to provide investors with a greater amount of cash flow compared to other available series, making them an attractive option for those seeking a reliable source of investment income,” commented Jeff Sayer, Vice President & Portfolio Manager, Ninepoint Partners. “With a target annualized distribution of 6.0%, paid monthly, these series’ distributions are comprised of return of capital, net income, and capital gains, delivering a consistent income stream.”

    Ninepoint Partners also announced today it intends to terminate Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF effective on or about March 28, 2025 (the Termination Date). Effective immediately, Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF is closed to new purchases, however, investors can continue to trade ETF series units on Cboe Canada until they are delisted. Investors may also redeem or switch their mutual fund series units of Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF up to the close of business on the Termination Date. Ninepoint Partners will waive any short-term trading fees for redemptions of units of Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF prior to the Termination Date. Investors that still hold units of Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF on the Termination Date will receive a cash payment for their units equal to the proportionate share of all property and assets of Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF attributable to the applicable series of Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF, which is expected to be the series net asset value per unit on the Termination Date multiplied by the number of units held.

    Ninepoint Partners will send a notice to each investor in Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF regarding the termination. The ETF series units of Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF are expected to be delisted from Cboe Canada, at the request of Ninepoint Partners, at the close of business on or about March 26, 2025. As Ninepoint Carbon Credit ETF prepares to terminate, it may no longer be fully invested in accordance with its stated investment objectives outlined in the simplified prospectus.

    About Ninepoint Partners LP

    Based in Toronto, Ninepoint Partners LP is one of Canada’s leading alternative investment management firms overseeing approximately $7 billion in assets under management and institutional contracts. Committed to helping investors explore innovative investment solutions that have the potential to enhance returns and manage portfolio risk, Ninepoint offers a diverse set of alternative strategies spanning Equities, Fixed Income, Alternative Income, Real Assets, F/X and Digital Assets.

    For more information on Ninepoint Partners LP, please visit www.ninepoint.com or please contact us at (416) 943-6707 or (866) 299-9906 or invest@ninepoint.com.

    Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with mutual fund investments. Please read the Prospectus before investing. Mutual fund securities are not covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or by any other government deposit insurer. There can be no assurances that the Fund will be able to maintain its NAV per security at a constant amount or that the full amount of your investment in the Fund will be returned to you. Past performance may not be repeated.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws in Canada (“forward-looking statements”). Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “believes” or variations (including negative variations) of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Ninepoint Partners LP to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this press release and Ninepoint Partners LP disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Ninepoint Partners LP undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements if circumstances, management’s estimates or opinions should change, except as required by securities legislation. Accordingly, the reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.

    Sales Inquiries:
    Ninepoint Partners LP
    Neil Ross
    416-945-6227
    nross@ninepoint.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Eos Energy Secures Cerberus Delayed Draw Term Loan Full Funding, Continuing U.S. Manufacturing Capacity to Strengthen America’s Energy Independence

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TURTLE CREEK, Pa., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOSE) (“Eos” or the “Company”), America’s leading innovator in designing, manufacturing, and providing zinc-based long duration energy storage systems sourced and manufactured in the United States, today announced the successful achievement of the third set of performance milestones previously agreed upon between Eos and an affiliate of Cerberus Capital Management LP (“Cerberus”) as part of Cerberus’s strategic investment in the Company. Successfully meeting these performance milestones allowed the Company to access the final $40.5 million of the Delayed Draw Term Loan (DDTL), fueling ongoing operations, U.S. production expansion, and the creation of an American energy storage powerhouse.

    “The Eos team is making measurable progress, consistently meeting critical operational targets and positioning the Company for profitable growth,” said Nathan Kroeker, Eos Chief Financial Officer. “With the term loan fully funded, combined with Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee first disbursement in December, Eos has a strong foundation and sufficient capital to continue implementing Project AMAZE. We’re executing our strategy to scale production into strong customer demand for long duration energy storage. Cash from customer projects now play an important role in funding working capital and our American-made system can play a critical role in America achieving energy independence.”

    The $210.5 million DDTL announced in June 2024 is now fully funded, driven by the Company consistently achieving key operational milestones related to the Company’s state-of-the-art manufacturing line, raw materials cost-out, Z3 technology performance improvement and orders backlog cash conversion. The Company surpassed its January raw materials cost-out target by 6% while delivering manufacturing cycle times below 10 seconds to further demonstrate continued operational efficiency and progress towards profitable growth.

    “Cerberus is ecstatic about the incredible progress made since our initial investment last year. Joe and team continue to fire on all cylinders, and Cerberus will continue to be all-in, helping Eos execute on their rapidly growing global pipeline and backlog,” said Nick Robinson, Cerberus Senior Managing Director and Eos Board Member. “With all the pieces now firmly in place to scale, 2025 and beyond is all about revenue growth, profitability and acceleration of global manufacturing capacity to meet exponential global demand. This demand is driven by a critical need for a long duration, non-flammable alternative to lithium at a time when the national security imperative could not be more important. With President Trump’s recent Executive Order, emphasizing American-made, and American-sourced, manufacturing to supporting America’s energy independence, Cerberus could not be more excited about partnering with Eos to build a large global platform. Cerberus views Eos as the “First Solar” of the battery space, further highlighting America’s ability to lead, innovate, and reclaim our energy independence.”

    About Eos Energy Enterprises

    Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. is accelerating the shift to American energy independence with positively ingenious solutions that transform how the world stores power. Our breakthrough Znyth™ aqueous zinc battery was designed to overcome the limitations of conventional lithium-ion technology. It is safe, scalable, efficient, sustainable, manufactured in the U.S., and the core of our innovative systems that today provides utility, industrial, and commercial customers with a proven, reliable energy storage alternative for 3 to 12-hour applications. Eos was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Edison, New Jersey. For more information about Eos (NASDAQ: EOSE), visit eose.com.


    Forward Looking Statements

    Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters set forth in this press release are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our path to profitability and strategic outlook, statements regarding our capital needs to support project AMAZE, statements regarding the anticipated use of proceeds from the delayed draw term loan with Cerberus, and statements that refer to outlook, projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intends,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements are based on our management’s beliefs, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, them. Because such statements are based on expectations as to future financial and operating results and are not statements of fact, actual results may differ materially from those projected.

    Factors which may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, but are not limited to: changes adversely affecting the business in which we are engaged; our ability to forecast trends accurately; our ability to generate cash, service indebtedness and incur additional indebtedness; our ability to achieve the operational milestones on the delayed draw term loan; our ability to raise financing in the future, including the discretionary revolving facility from Cerberus; risks associated with the credit agreement with Cerberus, including risks of default, dilution of outstanding Common Stock, consequences for failure to meet milestones and contractual lockup of shares; our customers’ ability to secure project financing; the amount of final tax credits available to our customers or to Eos pursuant to the Inflation Reduction Act; uncertainties around our ability to meet the applicable conditions precedent to funding under the DOE loan; our ability to continue to develop efficient manufacturing processes to scale and to forecast related costs and efficiencies accurately; fluctuations in our revenue and operating results; competition from existing or new competitors; our ability to convert firm order backlog and pipeline to revenue; risks associated with security breaches in our information technology systems; risks related to legal proceedings or claims; risks associated with evolving energy policies in the United States and other countries and the potential costs of regulatory compliance; risks associated with changes to the U.S. trade environment; risks resulting from the impact of global pandemics, including the novel coronavirus, Covid-19; our ability to maintain the listing of our shares of common stock on NASDAQ; our ability to grow our business and manage growth profitably, maintain relationships with customers and suppliers and retain our management and key employees; risks related to the adverse changes in general economic conditions, including inflationary pressures and increased interest rates; risk from supply chain disruptions and other impacts of geopolitical conflict; changes in applicable laws or regulations; the possibility that Eos may be adversely affected by other economic, business, and/or competitive factors; other factors beyond our control; risks related to adverse changes in general economic conditions; and other risks and uncertainties.

    The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are also subject to additional risks, uncertainties, and factors, including those more fully described in the Company’s most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K. Further information on potential risks that could affect actual results will be included in the subsequent periodic and current reports and other filings that the Company makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time. Moreover, the Company operates in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks and uncertainties may emerge that could have an impact on the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.

    Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and, except as required by law, the Company assumes no obligation and does not intend to update or revise these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Arax Investment Partners Acquires Cedrus Financial

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Arax Investment Partners (“Arax”), a premier wealth and asset management platform company backed by RedBird Capital Partners (“RedBird”), today announced that it has acquired Cedrus Financial (“Cedrus”), an established RIA headquartered in Littleton, Colorado, managing around $1 billion in assets under management. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

    The acquisition marks the latest addition to Arax’s expanding platform, which partners with leading boutique wealth management firms and financial advisors to unlock strategic business growth and provide complementary investment opportunities, alongside an enhanced client experience. Cedrus will operate within Arax Advisory Partners, which is Arax’s coalition of independent firms focused on specialized services, investment advice and supervisory solutions for institutions, high-net-worth families and elite athletes.

    “At Cedrus, our goal has always been meeting the needs of our clients,” said Mark Neely, Managing Partner at Cedrus. “Joining the Arax platform provides access to operational synergies and technological advancements that will support the scaled growth of our business, compounding our ability to deliver premium service to our clients and help them achieve their financial goals.”

    “Our multi-boutique wealth management strategy continues to attract the best in the business, supporting the growth and expansion of the Arax platform,” said Haig Ariyan, Chief Executive Officer of Arax. “In Cedrus, we found a partner firm with a unique and personalized approach that prioritizes integrity and collaboration in service of clients – in other words, a natural fit for our platform. We look forward to working with the Cedrus team.”

    About CĒDRUS Financial
    Founded in 2013, Cedrus is a wealth management and investment advisory firm providing financial planning, portfolio management and advisor selection services to high-net-worth families. The firm pairs cutting-edge wealth management strategies with 100 years of combined experience in small business ownership, corporate management and wealth preservation to create holistic wealth management solutions in support of its clients’ financial goals. With a footprint across Colorado and Idaho, Cedrus is the partner of choice for individuals seeking a transparent and communicative approach to managing family wealth.

    About Arax Investment Partners
    Arax Investment Partners is a rapidly growing, multi-boutique wealth management platform making strategic control investments in best-in-class operating companies in partnership with their founders and management teams. Arax is focused on making strategic investments and supporting RIAs, hybrid wealth managers, and advisor teams seeking a new growth platform to scale their businesses.

    Arax enables its partners and affiliates to be entrepreneurial and focus on delivering industry-leading financial services to their clients. Firms within the Arax network benefit from a seasoned management team with a successful track record of scaling wealth platforms, M&A experience, capital sourcing capabilities and company-building expertise backed by a proven investor with an extensive network, RedBird Capital Partners. Our experienced leaders, multi-platform structure and growth equity partnership create a unique advantage for our partners. For more information, please go to www.araxpartners.com.

    About RedBird Capital Partners
    RedBird Capital Partners is a private investment firm that builds high-growth companies with strategic capital solutions to founders and entrepreneurs. The firm currently manages $10 billion in assets on behalf of a global group of blue chip institutional and family office investors. Founded in 2014 by Gerry Cardinale, RedBird integrates sophisticated private equity investing with a hands-on business building mandate that focuses on three core industry verticals – Financial Services, Sports and Media & Entertainment. Over his 30-year investment career, Cardinale has partnered with founders and entrepreneurs to build some of the most iconic growth companies in their respective industries. For more information, please go to www.redbirdcap.com.

    Media Contact:

    Dan Gagnier
    Gagnier Communications
    RedBird@gagnierfc.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

    Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly.

    One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it’s still vastly higher than it was just five years ago.

    Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year.

    With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump now looks set to turn to another tool to fight America’s drug problem: trade policy.

    During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don’t halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders. Trump also promised to impose a new set of tariffs against China if it doesn’t do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. He reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, saying to reporters, “We’re thinking in terms of 25% on Mexico and Canada because they’re allowing … fentanyl to come in.”

    Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what’s already a crisis.

    Fentanyl: The ‘single greatest challenge’

    In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be “the single greatest challenge we face as a country.”

    But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success.

    The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name.

    This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act.” The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control.

    President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “Public enemy No. 1” at this 1971 press conference.

    These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997.

    In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven’t been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm.

    Why tariffs won’t work

    America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

    Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

    The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

    This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

    A question of supply and demand

    Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

    The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

    Rodney Coates 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. Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-tariffs-cant-solve-americas-fentanyl-crisis-245978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Council chairman honours student’s artistic achievement 27 January 2025 Council chairman honours student’s artistic achievement at St Thomas of Canterbury Primary School

    Source: Aisle of Wight

    St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School in Carisbrooke welcomed the chairman of the Isle of Wight Council, Councillor Karl Love, for a special occasion last week.

    The visit was organised to recognise Year 4 student, Elsie, who emerged as the winner of Councillor Love’s Christmas card competition.

    Elsie’s creative design was selected to be the chairman’s official Christmas card, a proud moment for the young artist. During a school assembly, Councillor Love presented her with a certificate to acknowledge her impressive achievement.

    Adding to the significance of the event, the council’s mace bearer, Steve Hammond, accompanied Councillor Love, bringing along the ceremonial mace. The presence of the mace captivated the children, leading to a lively session of questions about its history and importance.

    Head of school, Patsy Mauri, said: “The children thoroughly enjoyed Councillor Love’s visit; they were very engaged while he spoke and asked very sensible questions. We are very proud of Elsie’s accomplishment.”

    Councillor Love shared his enthusiasm about the visit, saying: “It was a delight to be back in the classroom in front of children, having spent many years working for education and young people.”

    Elsie had the opportunity to take a photo with the mace, thanks to some careful positioning of the sleeve of her jumper as touching the mace directly is not permitted!

    The visit not only celebrated Elsie’s artistic talent but also provided the students with a valuable learning experience, offering insights into local government and its traditions.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Chrisinger, Assistant Professor of Community Health, Tufts University

    More than 41 million Americans use SNAP benefits to buy groceries. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s pick for director of the Health and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has announced a bold plan. He wants to “Make America Healthy Again.”

    Kennedy’s strategy has gotten a lot of attention for its oddities, such as his opposition to vaccine mandates and support for raw milk. But it includes some concepts that many public health experts consider sensible, such as calling for a stronger focus on chronic disease prevention and seeking more restrictions on prescription drug advertising aimed at consumers.

    But he’s also demanding a ban on junk food from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Banning junk food from SNAP is something that has divided public health experts for years.

    As public health researchers, we’ve devoted our careers to helping reduce chronic diseases. We agree with Kennedy that a healthy diet and sound nutrition are important ways to improve the nation’s health. We also know from our own research that safety net programs, including SNAP benefits – which are still sometimes called food stamps – are staving off hunger and food insecurity for millions of Americans.

    And we’re certain that adding to the restrictions that already limit access to SNAP benefits do little to make Americans healthier.

    What is SNAP?

    Over 42.1 million Americans, about 13% of all families, receive SNAP benefits. More than 1 in 4 of the households enrolled in the program include someone who is earning at least some income.

    More than 4 in 5 families getting SNAP benefits include a child, someone over 65 or someone with a disability. These benefits are distributed on a monthly basis through an electronic benefits transfer card that looks and works like a credit or debit card and can be used at supermarkets and other approved retailers. The federal government has spent more than US$110 billion annually on this program in recent years.

    Benefits help get food on the table but typically don’t cover everything a family needs to eat. The average monthly benefit is $195 per person.

    Americans who earn less than 130% of the poverty line are eligible for SNAP. In the 2025 fiscal year, a family of three can’t make more than $2,152 a month in net income or have assets of more than $4,500 if a household includes someone over 60, and $3,000 if it doesn’t.

    Adults without children or disabilities can’t get these benefits for more than three months every three years unless they meet the program’s work requirements by being employed or spending at least 20 hours weekly in a training program. People who are on strike and foreigners living in the U.S. without authorization are ineligible. People with prior drug-related felony convictions are federally banned from SNAP for life, but states can waive this rule. This program is federally funded but administered by the states, which have some leeway in determining eligibility.

    People enrolled in SNAP already face some restrictions on what they can buy with their benefits. They can’t use SNAP to purchase premade or restaurant meals, alcohol, tobacco, or things such as diapers, vitamins and toilet paper.

    Why restrict SNAP?

    Since SNAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kennedy would have very little power to change SNAP’s rules should the Senate approve his nomination following the controversial politician’s upcoming confirmation hearing on Jan. 29, 2025.

    Still, we’re concerned that his support for new restrictions could help sway the authorities who would be responsible for such a policy change.

    Proposals to ban particular foods from SNAP have been floated many times by state legislators and members of Congress over the years.

    These bills have generally been designed to exclude supposedly luxury items, such as steak and seafood, or aimed at barring purchases from a different supermarket aisle: candy, soda and other junk foods.

    States can’t make this kind of modification without the USDA’s authorization. And so far, the USDA has rebuffed calls for it to allow such measures. Even without the agency’s support, Congress can make changes to these policies in the Farm Bill, which could in the future force the USDA to allow these restrictions in states that ask for them.

    The Trump administration, including Kennedy, has signaled its interest in these kinds of restrictions.

    Why SNAP restrictions won’t make America healthier

    While improving the American diet is a worthy goal, research that we and other scholars have done makes it clear that adding new restrictions to SNAP will do little to help us become a healthier nation.

    First, many studies have found that nearly all Americans could eat healthier.

    The rich and the poor alike consume unhealthy food in the U.S.

    Studies show that while lower-income Americans often spend more of their food budget on unhealthy stuff than more affluent people do, families in the middle and at the top of the income ladder still purchase lots of junk food.

    Unsurprisingly, those purchases reflect what we’re eating: Americans at all income levels have diets that don’t satisfy federal dietary guidelines. Spotlighting the poor food choices of SNAP participants would be a distraction from these facts and would risk further stigmatizing a successful anti-hunger program.

    Maintaining a good diet is not cheap or straightforward, especially on a low income. The poorest communities have far more inexpensive fast-food chains and dollar stores than their wealthier neighbors, as well as more ads for unhealthy products. Even when they get SNAP benefits, many Americans still struggle to make ends meet, and studies show how this negatively affects the quality of their diets.

    Another reason SNAP restrictions wouldn’t make America healthier is that diet is just one of many contributors to chronic diseases. Your level of physical activity, exposure to pollution, stress and genetics, among other things, shape your risk of getting heart disease, diabetes or other chronic diseases.

    Flexible but don’t cover all needs

    SNAP benefits are fairly flexible, covering just about anything people might want to eat, even if they have dietary restrictions due to their culture or health conditions. The program helps Americans afford most of their basic necessities, although it fails to pay for all the groceries most people who rely on the program need to buy in the course of a month.

    SNAP’s main function is preventing the worst effects of hunger and food insecurity for the more than 41 million people relying on it.

    There are other ways for the government to help make Americans healthier besides the imposition of stigmatizing restrictions on SNAP. For example, it can create matching programs for SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables, which would give retailers incentives to offer more produce and make it easier for people who get SNAP benefits to buy more healthy food. The USDA has begun to support this kind of effort in several states.

    Benjamin Chrisinger receives funding from The Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership.

    Danielle Krobath 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. Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits – https://theconversation.com/why-government-cant-make-america-healthier-by-micromanaging-groceries-purchased-with-snap-benefits-246462

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Minister for Foreign Affairs visits Colombia

    Source: Government of Sweden

    Minister for Foreign Affairs visits Colombia – Government.se

    Please enable javascript in your browser

    Press release from Ministry for Foreign Affairs

    Published

    On 28–29 January, Minister for Foreign Affairs Maria Malmer Stenergard will visit Colombia. The visit will include meetings with Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro and Minister of Foreign Affairs Luis Gilberto Murillo. A business delegation comprising around 20 Swedish companies, with a focus on mining and energy, will take part in the visit.

    “I look forward to deepening relations between our countries on this visit. Sweden and Colombia enjoy broad cooperation on green transition, gender equality and human rights. There is also extensive trade between our two countries, and strong Swedish business interests in areas including mining and energy,” says Ms Malmer Stenergard.

    The visit to Colombia is a follow-up to President Petro’s visit to Sweden in mid-2024. As part of the trip, Ms Malmer Stenergard will visit the department of Chocó on Colombia’s Pacific coast, where she will meet with UN bodies, civil society organisations and public authorities working with peace issues, humanitarian assistance to victims of the armed conflict in Colombia, and women’s empowerment and participation in the peace process. 

    Press contact

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Second patient transferred point to point to Hong Kong for treatment by direct cross-boundary ambulance transfer in GBA

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    Second patient transferred point to point to Hong Kong for treatment by direct cross-boundary ambulance transfer in GBA
    Second patient transferred point to point to Hong Kong for treatment by direct cross-boundary ambulance transfer in GBA
    ******************************************************************************************

    The following is issued on behalf of the Hospital Authority:     The Hospital Authority (HA) announced today (January 27) that Tuen Mun Hospital (TMH) received the second patient under the Pilot Scheme for Direct Cross-boundary Ambulance Transfer in the Greater Bay Area (Pilot Scheme) yesterday afternoon. The patient was transferred to Hong Kong for treatment by a point-to-point cross-boundary ambulance. The HA expresses sincere gratitude to various units in Guangdong and Hong Kong for their proactive co-ordination and collaboration, which enabled the smooth point-to-point transfer of the patient to Hong Kong.     A patient was previously admitted to the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital (HKU-SZH). After thorough assessment and discussion with patient and family by the medical team, it was decided to transfer the patient back to Hong Kong for ongoing treatment. The patient departed from the HKU-SZH at 2.00pm yesterday and arrived at TMH before 3.00pm, where he is currently receiving treatment and is in stable condition.     The spokesperson for the HA stated that upon receiving notification, TMH promptly communicated with the medical team in Shenzhen to understand the patient’s clinical situation and prepare for admitting the patient. The HA expresses heartfelt thanks to all parties involved for their substantial co-ordination and co-operation, ensuring that the patient was swiftly transported directly point to point to Hong Kong for treatment under the care of medical personnel. Without the handover of patients between ambulances at boundary control points, the direct transport not only minimise the risks posed to patients during transfers and improve the patients’ chances of recovery, but also exemplifies that the close collaboration and development of quality healthcare co-operation in the Greater Bay Area (GBA) supports Hong Kong patients residing in the GBA.     The spokesperson emphasised that the Pilot Scheme has a mechanism in place to avoid abuse while ensuring the safety of cross-boundary transfer. Doctors at the sending hospital will assess the clinical diagnosis and condition of the patients to determine the necessity for cross-boundary inter-hospital transfer for continuous treatment or recovery services. In general, taking patients safety into consideration, the Pilot Scheme will only facilitate the transfer of emergency patients who have clinical needs, are unable to cross the boundary independently, and whose clinical conditions are stable. Patients who are clinically unstable cannot participate in the scheme. The medical teams from both regions will jointly evaluate cases, exchange information, and co-ordinate to decide whether to initiate the transfer mechanism, ensuring that both the patients and their family are informed of the relevant arrangements and the risks involved in the transfer.     The study on the provision of land-based cross-boundary transfers for non-emergency and non-critically ill patients and the exploration of rolling out a pilot co-operation scheme for cross-boundary referrals of patients between designated public hospitals were put forward in the Outline Development Plan for the GBA. The Chief Executive also put forward in his 2023 Policy Address the initiative to explore cross-boundary ambulance transfer arrangements between hospitals in the GBA. Under the staunch support and guidance of various national ministries as well as the concerted efforts of the government departments of Hong Kong, Guangdong and Macao, the Pilot Scheme was set for official launch on November 30 last year. The first patient was transferred point to point from Shenzhen to Hong Kong for treatment by direct cross-boundary ambulance on January 10 this year.

     
    Ends/Monday, January 27, 2025Issued at HKT 21:35

    NNNN

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI: LM Funding America Achieves 560 PH/s with 15 MW Oklahoma Mining Site Active

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Tampa, FL, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — LM Funding America, Inc. (NASDAQ: LMFA), (“LM Funding” or the “Company”) a Bitcoin mining and technology-based specialty finance company, today announced the successful deployment of approximately 432 petahash per second (“PH/s”) of miners at its 15 MW mining site in Oklahoma. This expansion increases the Company’s total fleet to 5,121 active miners for an energized hashrate of approximately 560 PH/s across multiple sites, of which 432 PH/s can be overclocked at the Oklahoma mining site.

    Bruce M. Rodgers, Chairman and CEO of LM Funding America stated, “We are pleased to announce that with the deployment of additional miners at our 15 MW Oklahoma site, we now have approximately 560 PH/s across our mining operations. This marks the achievement of our previously outlined objectives and we plan to aggressively pursue the acquisition of additional mining sites that align with our strategic investment criteria.”

    Ryan Duran, President of LM Funding America’s US Digital Mining & Hosting Co. subsidiary, stated, “Through the dedicated efforts of our team and strategic partnerships, we successfully met our installation targets. This includes the successful transition of 1,440 miners from storage to active deployment, showcasing our commitment to operational excellence.”

    About LM Funding America
    LM Funding America, Inc. (Nasdaq: LMFA), operates as a Bitcoin mining and specialty finance company. It operates through two segments; Specialty Finance and Mining Operations. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in Tampa, Florida. For more information, please visit https://www.lmfunding.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements
    This press release may contain forward-looking statements made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” and “project” and other similar words and expressions are intended to signify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guaranties of future results and conditions but rather are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Some of these risks and uncertainties are identified in the Company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and its other filings with the SEC, which are available at www.sec.gov. These risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, uncertainty created by the risks of operating in the cryptocurrency mining business, uncertainty in the cryptocurrency mining business in general, problems with hosting vendors in the mining business, the capacity of our Bitcoin mining machines and our related ability to purchase power at reasonable prices, the ability to finance and grow our cryptocurrency mining operations, our ability to acquire new accounts in our specialty finance business at appropriate prices, the potential need for additional capital in the future, changes in governmental regulations that affect our ability to collected sufficient amounts on defaulted consumer receivables, changes in the credit or capital markets, changes in interest rates, and negative press regarding the debt collection industry.  The occurrence of any of these risks and uncertainties could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

    Contact:
    Crescendo Communications, LLC
    Tel: (212) 671-1021
    Email: LMFA@crescendo-ir.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: PSB Holdings, Inc. Reports Earnings of $0.73 Per Share for Q4 2024; Twelve Month 2024 Earnings up 10% to $2.37 per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    WAUSAU, Wis., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PSB Holdings, Inc. (“PSB”) (OTCQX: PSBQ), the holding company for Peoples State Bank (“Peoples”) serving Northcentral and Southeastern Wisconsin reported fourth quarter earnings ending December 31, 2024 of $0.73 per common share on net income of $3.0 million, compared to $0.69 per common share on net income of $2.9 million during the third quarter ending September 30, 2024, and $0.55 per common share on net income of $2.3 million during the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2023. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, PSB reported earnings of $2.37 per common share on net income of $9.8 million compared to $2.16 per common share on earnings of $9.1 million for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.

    PSB’s fourth quarter 2024 operating results reflected the following changes from the third quarter of 2024: (1) higher net interest income supported by a net interest margin increase of six basis points; (2) lower non-interest income due primarily to a loss on the sale of securities; (3) slightly lower non-interest expenses due to lower salaries and employee benefit expenses; and (4) loan growth of 2% during the quarter.

    “We are pleased with our results for the fourth quarter and fiscal 2024. We continue to maintain strong asset quality and controlled expenses, and expect to see continued expansion in our net interest margin as loan products continue to reset to higher yields and funding costs stabilize or decline. Additionally, we expect to see stronger loan growth in fiscal 2025. We are focused on delivering strong returns to shareholders through capital growth, payment of dividends and supporting our stock price through stock repurchases, when economically appropriate,” stated Scott Cattanach, President and CEO.

    December 31, 2024, Highlights:

    • Net interest income increased to $10.4 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $9.9 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024. Asset and loan yields increased while funding costs declined slightly.
    • Noninterest income decreased $566,000 to $1.3 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $1.8 million the prior quarter due primarily to a loss on the sale of securities.
    • Noninterest expenses decreased to $8.0 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024 from $8.2 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, reflecting lower salary and benefit expenses.
    • Loans increased $20.2 million, or 2% in the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.08 billion largely due to new commercial real estate and construction and development loans. Allowance for credit losses was 1.13% of gross loans.
    • Non-performing assets remained unchanged at $10.4 million, or 0.71% of total assets at December 31, 2024 compared to the previous quarter.
    • Total deposits increased slightly to $1.15 billion at December 31, 2024 from $1.14 billion at September 30, 2024, with the increase largely consisting of interest-bearing demand and savings deposits.
    • Return on average tangible common equity was 11.07% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 10.96% the prior quarter and 9.64% in the year ago quarter.
    • Tangible book value per common share was up 9.0% over the past year to $25.98 at December 31, 2024, compared to $23.84 at December 31, 2023. Additionally, PSB paid dividends totaling $0.64 per share during 2024, up 6.7% over the prior year.
    • On January 21, 2025, the Bank acquired Larson Financial Group, LLC, a financial advisory company based in Wausau, WI.

    Balance Sheet and Asset Quality Review

    Total assets decreased $10.0 million during the fourth quarter to $1.47 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to September 30, 2024. Cash and cash equivalents decreased $46.6 million to $40.5 million at December 31, 2024 from $87.1 million at September 30, 2024 as funds were used to originate new loans and pay down FHLB advances. Cash and cash equivalents increased $12.7 million from one year earlier. Investment securities available for sale increased $14.2 million to $189.1 million at December 31, 2024, from $174.9 million one quarter earlier. Total collateralized liquidity available to meet cash demands was approximately $349 million at December 31, 2024, with an additional $354 million that could be raised in a short time frame from the brokered CDs market.

    Total loans receivable increased $20.2 million to $1.08 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to one quarter earlier, due primarily to increased commercial non-real estate, commercial real estate and construction lending. Commercial non-real estate loans increased $5.1 million to $144.2 million at December 31, 2024, from $139.0 million one quarter earlier. Commercial real estate loans increased $10.1 million to $551.6 million at December 31, 2024 and construction and development lending increased $18.4 million to $79.4 million at December 31, 2024, compared to one quarter earlier. Offsetting gross loan growth, loans in process of disbursement increased $10.0 million to $27.8 million as new construction and development loans have not been fully funded. Residential real estate loans decreased $3.9 million from the prior quarter to $337.5 million. The loan portfolio remains well diversified with commercial real estate and construction loans totaling 56.5% of gross loans, followed by residential real estate loans at 30.2% of gross loans, commercial non-real estate loans at 12.9% and consumer loans at 0.4%.

    The allowance for credit losses decreased slightly to 1.13% of gross loans at December 31, 2024, from 1.18% the prior quarter. Annualized net charge-offs to average loans were 0.02% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024. Non-performing assets remained at 0.71% of total assets at December 31, 2024 and totaled $10.4 million. Approximately 71% of the non-performing assets consisted of three loan relationships. For the eighth consecutive quarter, the Bank did not own any foreclosed real estate.

    Total deposits increased $8.2 million to $1.15 billion at December 31, 2024, from $1.14 billion at September 30, 2024. The increase in deposits reflects a $12.9 million increase in interest-bearing demand and savings deposits and a $3.3 million increase in retail and local time deposits greater than $250,000, offset by a $1.5 million decrease in money market deposits, a $5.6 million decrease in non-interest bearing deposits and a $0.9 million decrease in retail and local time deposits less than $250,000.

    At December 31, 2024, non-interest bearing demand deposits decreased to 22.6% of total deposits from 23.3% the prior quarter, while interest-bearing demand and savings deposits increased to 29.4% of deposits, compared to 28.4% at September 30, 2024. Uninsured and uncollateralized deposits decreased to 21.6% of total deposits at December 31, 2024, from 21.7% of total deposits at September 30, 2024.

    FHLB advances decreased $19.0 million to $162.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $181.3 million at September 30, 2024.

    Tangible stockholder equity as a percent of total tangible assets was 7.76% at December 31, 2024, compared to 7.85% at September 30, 2024, and 7.49% at December 31, 2023.

    Tangible net book value per common share increased $2.14 to $25.98, at December 31, 2024, compared to $23.84 one year earlier, an increase of 9.0% after dividends of $0.64 were paid to shareholders. Relative to the prior quarter’s tangible book value per common share of $26.41, tangible net book value per common share decreased primarily due to a fair market value decrease in the investment portfolios and payment of dividends. The accumulated other comprehensive loss on the investment portfolio was $19.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $15.8 million one quarter earlier.

    Operations Review

    Net interest income increased to $10.4 million (on a net margin of 2.96%) for the fourth quarter of 2024, from $9.9 million (on a net margin of 2.90%) for the third quarter of 2024, and $9.6 million (on a net margin of 2.88%) for the fourth quarter of 2023. Earning asset yields remained flat at 5.29% during the fourth quarter of 2024, while interest bearing deposit and borrowing costs decreased seven basis points to 3.06% compared to 3.13% during the third quarter of 2024. Relative to one year earlier, earning asset yields were up 30 basis points while interest bearing deposit and borrowing costs increased 27 basis points.

    The increase in earning asset yields was primarily due to higher yields on loan originations and renewals. Loan yields increased during the fourth quarter of 2024 to 5.80% from 5.78% for the third quarter of 2024. Taxable security yields were 3.16% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 3.01% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, while tax-exempt security yields were flat at 3.31% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024. The increase in taxable security yields reflect the rise in interest rates and security restructuring activity from security sales.

    The cost of all deposits declined to 2.08% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 2.11% the prior quarter, while the overall cost of funds decreased seven basis points to 3.06% from 3.13% during the same time period. Deposit costs for all deposit categories decreased during the fourth quarter with time deposits decreasing two basis points to 4.02%, money market deposits decreasing 13 basis points to 2.56% and savings and demand deposits decreasing two basis points to 2.56%. FHLB advances also declined four basis points to 4.40% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024.

    Total noninterest income decreased during the fourth quarter of 2024 to $1.28 million, from $1.84 million for the third quarter of 2024 due primarily to a net loss on sale of securities. Mortgage banking income decreased slightly to $414,000 in the fourth quarter from $433,000 the prior quarter while various decreases in nominal revenue sources accounted for the remaining decline in noninterest income. At December 31, 2024, the Bank serviced $373.5 million in secondary market residential mortgage loans for others which provide fee income.

    Noninterest expenses decreased $149,000 to $8.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $8.2 million for the third quarter of 2024 and increased $644,000 from $7.4 million for the fourth quarter of 2023. Relative to one year earlier, salary and benefit cost increased $447,000, or 10.5% to $4.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $4.2 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023.

    Taxes decreased $69,000 during the fourth quarter to $524,000, from $593,000 one quarter earlier. The effective tax rate for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, was 14.4% compared to 16.6% for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024, and 26.7% for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023.

    About PSB Holdings, Inc.

    PSB Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Peoples State Bank. Peoples is a community bank headquartered in Wausau, Wisconsin, serving northcentral and southeastern Wisconsin from twelve full-service banking locations in Marathon, Oneida, Vilas, Portage, Milwaukee and Waukesha counties and a loan production office in Dane County. Peoples also provides investment and insurance products, along with retirement planning services, through Peoples Wealth Management, a division of Peoples. PSB Holdings, Inc. is traded under the stock symbol PSBQ on the OTCQX Market. More information about PSB, its management, and its financial performance may be found at www.psbholdingsinc.com.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about PSB’s business based, in part, on assumptions made by management and include, without limitation, statements with respect to the potential growth of PSB, its future profits, expected stock repurchase levels, future dividend rates, future interest rates, and the adequacy of its capital position. Forward-looking statements can be affected by known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, including, but not limited to, strength of the economy, the effects of government policies, including interest rate policies, risks associated with the execution of PSB’s vision and growth strategy, including with respect to current and future M&A activity, and risks associated with global economic instability. The forward-looking statements in this press release speak only as of the date on which they are made and PSB does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this release.

               
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.     
    Consolidated Balance Sheets     
    December 31, September 30, June 30, and March 31, 2024, unaudited, December 31, 2023 derived from audited financial statements 
               
      Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
               
    Assets          
               
    Cash and due from banks $ 21,414   $ 23,554   $ 16,475   $ 13,340   $ 20,887  
    Interest-bearing deposits   3,724     5,126     251     105     1,431  
    Federal funds sold   15,360     58,434     69,249     2,439     5,462  
               
    Cash and cash equivalents   40,498     87,114     85,975     15,884     27,780  
    Securities available for sale (at fair value)   189,086     174,911     165,177     165,566     164,024  
    Securities held to maturity (fair values of $79,654, $82,389, $79,993, $81,234 and        
      $82,514 respectively)   86,748     86,847     86,825     87,104     87,081  
    Equity securities   2,782     1,752     1,661     1,474     1,474  
    Loans held for sale   217     –     2,268     865     230  
    Loans receivable, net (allowance for credit losses of $12,342, $12,598, $12,597,        
     $12,494 and $12,302 respectively)   1,078,204     1,057,974     1,074,844     1,081,394     1,078,475  
    Accrued interest receivable   5,042     4,837     5,046     5,467     5,136  
    Foreclosed assets   –     –     –     –     –  
    Premises and equipment, net   13,805     14,065     14,048     13,427     13,098  
    Mortgage servicing rights, net   1,742     1,727     1,688     1,657     1,664  
    Federal Home Loan Bank stock (at cost)   8,825     8,825     8,825     7,006     6,373  
    Cash surrender value of bank-owned life insurance   24,732     24,565     24,401     24,242     24,085  
    Core deposit intangible   195     212     229     249     273  
    Goodwill   2,541     2,541     2,541     2,541     2,541  
    Other assets   11,539     10,598     12,111     11,682     11,866  
               
    TOTAL ASSETS $ 1,465,956   $ 1,475,968   $ 1,485,639   $ 1,418,558   $ 1,424,100  
               
    Liabilities          
               
    Non-interest-bearing deposits $ 259,515   $ 265,078   $ 250,435   $ 247,608   $ 266,829  
    Interest-bearing deposits   887,834     874,035     901,886     865,744     874,973  
               
       Total deposits   1,147,349     1,139,113     1,152,321     1,113,352     1,141,802  
               
    Federal Home Loan Bank advances   162,250     181,250     184,900     158,250     134,000  
    Other borrowings   6,872     6,128     5,775     8,096     8,058  
    Senior subordinated notes   4,781     4,779     4,778     4,776     4,774  
    Junior subordinated debentures   13,023     12,998     12,972     12,947     12,921  
    Allowance for credit losses on unfunded commitments   672     477     477     477     577  
    Accrued expenses and other liabilities   14,723     12,850     13,069     10,247     12,681  
               
       Total liabilities   1,349,670     1,357,595     1,374,292     1,308,145     1,314,813  
               
    Stockholders’ equity          
               
    Preferred stock – no par value:          
       Authorized – 30,000 shares; no shares issued or outstanding          
       Outstanding – 7,200 shares, respectively   7,200     7,200     7,200     7,200     7,200  
    Common stock – no par value with a stated value of $1.00 per share:          
       Authorized – 18,000,000 shares; Issued – 5,490,798 shares          
       Outstanding – 4,092,977, 4,105,594, 4,128,382, 4,147,649 and          
         4,164,735 shares, respectively   1,830     1,830     1,830     1,830     1,830  
    Additional paid-in capital   8,610     8,567     8,527     8,466     8,460  
    Retained earnings   139,838     138,142     135,276     134,271     132,666  
    Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax   (19,314 )   (15,814 )   (20,503 )   (20,775 )   (20,689 )
    Treasury stock, at cost – 1,397,821, 1,385,204, 1,362,416, 1,343,149 and          
      1,326,063 shares, respectively   (21,878 )   (21,552 )   (20,983 )   (20,579 )   (20,180 )
               
       Total stockholders’ equity   116,286     118,373     111,347     110,413     109,287  
               
    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY $ 1,465,956   $ 1,475,968   $ 1,485,639   $ 1,418,558   $ 1,424,100  
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.        
    Consolidated Statements of Income            
                            Quarter Ended     Years Ended
    (dollars in thousands, Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,   December
    except per share data – unaudited)   2024     2024   2024   2024     2023       2024     2023  
                       
    Interest and dividend income:                
       Loans, including fees $ 15,646   $ 15,634 $ 15,433 $ 15,109   $ 14,888     $ 61,822   $ 53,633  
       Securities:                
          Taxable   1,545     1,345   1,295   1,197     1,147       5,382     4,919  
          Tax-exempt   522     522   521   526     532       2,091     2,137  
       Other interest and dividends   948     699   265   343     320       2,255     851  
                       
             Total interest and dividend income   18,661     18,200   17,514   17,175     16,887       71,550     61,540  
                       
    Interest expense:                
       Deposits   6,027     5,905   5,838   6,082     5,526       23,852     16,993  
       FHLB advances   1,890     2,038   1,860   1,450     1,349       7,238     4,417  
       Other borrowings   57     57   58   60     54       232     215  
       Senior subordinated notes   59     59   58   59     59       235     238  
       Junior subordinated debentures   252     252   255   251     254       1,010     985  
                       
             Total interest expense   8,285     8,311   8,069   7,902     7,242       32,567     22,848  
                       
    Net interest income   10,376     9,889   9,445   9,273     9,645       38,983     38,692  
    Provision for credit losses   –     –   100   95     100       195     450  
                       
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     10,376     9,889   9,345   9,178     9,545       38,788     38,242  
                       
    Noninterest income:                
       Service fees   362     367   350   336     360       1,415     1,448  
       Mortgage banking income   414     433   433   308     247       1,588     1,228  
       Investment and insurance sales commissions   226     230   222   121     100       799     910  
       Net loss on sale of securities   (511 )   –   –   (495 )   (297 )     (1,006 )   (576 )
       Increase in cash surrender value of life insurance     166     165   159   157     154       647     615  
       Life insurance death benefit   –     –   –   –     –       –     533  
       Other noninterest income   620     648   742   617     540       2,627     2,562  
                       
             Total noninterest income   1,277     1,843   1,906   1,044     1,104       6,070     6,720  
                       
    Noninterest expense:                
       Salaries and employee benefits   4,691     4,771   5,167   5,123     4,244       19,752     18,648  
       Occupancy and facilities   691     757   733   721     675       2,902     2,761  
       Loss (gain) on foreclosed assets   –     1   –   –     1       1     (45 )
       Data processing and other office operations   1,111     1,104   1,047   1,022     1,001       4,284     3,785  
       Advertising and promotion   141     164   171   129     244       605     733  
       Core deposit intangible amortization   17     17   20   24     24       78     109  
       Other noninterest expenses   1,351     1,337   1,257   1,306     1,169       5,251     4,557  
                       
            Total noninterest expense   8,002     8,151   8,395   8,325     7,358       32,873     30,548  
                       
    Income before provision for income taxes   3,651     3,581   2,856   1,897     3,291       11,985     14,414  
    Provision for income taxes   524     593   410   169     878       1,696     4,845  
                       
    Net income $ 3,127   $ 2,988 $ 2,446 $ 1,728   $ 2,413     $ 10,289   $ 9,569  
    Preferred stock dividends declared $ 122   $ 122 $ 122 $ 122   $ 122     $ 486   $ 486  
                       
    Net income available to common shareholders $ 3,005   $ 2,866 $ 2,324 $ 1,606   $ 2,291     $ 9,803   $ 9,083  
    Basic earnings per common share $ 0.73   $ 0.69 $ 0.56 $ 0.39   $ 0.55     $ 2.37   $ 2.16  
    Diluted earnings per common share $ 0.73   $ 0.69 $ 0.56 $ 0.39   $ 0.55     $ 2.37   $ 2.16  
                       
    PSB Holdings, Inc.
    Quarterly Financial Summary
    (dollars in thousands, except per share data) Quarter ended
          Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,
    Earnings and dividends:     2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
                   
      Interest income   $ 18,661   $ 18,200   $ 17,514   $ 17,175   $ 16,887  
      Interest expense   $ 8,285   $ 8,311   $ 8,069   $ 7,902   $ 7,242  
      Net interest income   $ 10,376   $ 9,889   $ 9,445   $ 9,273   $ 9,645  
      Provision for credit losses   $ –   $ –   $ 100   $ 95   $ 100  
      Other noninterest income   $ 1,277   $ 1,843   $ 1,906   $ 1,044   $ 1,104  
      Other noninterest expense   $ 8,002   $ 8,151   $ 8,395   $ 8,325   $ 7,358  
      Net income available to common shareholders $ 3,005   $ 2,866   $ 2,324   $ 1,606   $ 2,291  
                   
      Basic earnings per common share (3) $ 0.73   $ 0.69   $ 0.56   $ 0.39   $ 0.55  
      Diluted earnings per common share (3) $ 0.73   $ 0.69   $ 0.56   $ 0.39   $ 0.55  
      Dividends declared per common share (3) $ 0.32   $ –   $ 0.32   $ –   $ 0.30  
      Tangible net book value per common share (4) $ 25.98   $ 26.41   $ 24.55   $ 24.21   $ 23.84  
                   
      Semi-annual dividend payout ratio     23.27 %   n/a     33.61 %   n/a     38.14 %
      Average common shares outstanding   4,094,360     4,132,218     4,139,456     4,154,702     4,168,924  
                   
                   
    Balance sheet – average balances:            
      Loans receivable, net of allowances for credit loss   $ 1,064,619   $ 1,066,795   $ 1,088,013   $ 1,081,936   $ 1,081,851  
      Assets   $ 1,479,812   $ 1,445,613   $ 1,433,749   $ 1,429,437   $ 1,424,240  
      Deposits   $ 1,151,450   $ 1,110,854   $ 1,111,240   $ 1,138,010   $ 1,148,399  
      Stockholders’ equity   $ 118,396   $ 114,458   $ 110,726   $ 109,473   $ 105,060  
                   
                   
    Performance ratios:            
      Return on average assets (1)     0.84 %   0.82 %   0.69 %   0.49 %   0.67 %
      Return on average common stockholders’ equity (1)     10.75 %   10.63 %   9.03 %   6.32 %   9.29 %
      Return on average tangible common          
        stockholders’ equity (1)(4)     11.07 %   10.96 %   9.34 %   6.57 %   9.64 %
      Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1)   0.02 %   0.00 %   0.00 %   0.00 %   0.00 %
      Nonperforming loans to gross loans     0.95 %   0.97 %   1.15 %   1.08 %   0.54 %
      Nonperforming assets to total assets     0.71 %   0.71 %   0.84 %   0.83 %   0.42 %
      Allowance for credit losses to gross loans   1.13 %   1.18 %   1.16 %   1.14 %   1.13 %
      Nonperforming assets to tangible equity          
        plus the allowance for credit losses (4)   8.85 %   8.71 %   11.09 %   10.59 %   5.38 %
      Net interest rate margin (1)(2)     2.96 %   2.90 %   2.84 %   2.80 %   2.88 %
      Net interest rate spread (1)(2)     2.23 %   2.16 %   2.15 %   2.12 %   2.20 %
      Service fee revenue as a percent of            
        average demand deposits (1)     0.53 %   0.56 %   0.56 %   0.54 %   0.52 %
      Noninterest income as a percent            
        of gross revenue     6.40 %   9.20 %   9.81 %   5.73 %   6.14 %
      Efficiency ratio (2)     67.59 %   68.43 %   72.52 %   78.93 %   67.04 %
      Noninterest expenses to average assets (1)   2.15 %   2.24 %   2.35 %   2.34 %   2.05 %
      Average stockholders’ equity less accumulated          
        other comprehensive income (loss) to          
        average assets     9.08 %   9.06 %   9.03 %   8.98 %   8.88 %
      Tangible equity to tangible assets (4)   7.76 %   7.85 %   7.32 %   7.60 %   7.49 %
                   
    Stock price information:            
                   
      High   $ 27.90   $ 25.00   $ 21.40   $ 22.50   $ 22.30  
      Low   $ 25.00   $ 20.30   $ 19.75   $ 20.05   $ 20.10  
      Last trade value at quarter-end   $ 26.50   $ 25.00   $ 20.40   $ 21.25   $ 22.11  
                   
    (1) Annualized            
    (2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%.
    (3) Due to rounding, cumulative quarterly per share performance may not equal annual per share totals.  
    (4) Tangible stockholders’ equity excludes goodwill and core deposit intangibles.      
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.          
    Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income        
                   
          Quarter Ended
          Dec. 31, Sep. 30, Jun. 30, Mar. 31, Dec. 31,
    (dollars in thousands – unaudited)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
                   
    Net income $ 3,127   $ 2,988   $ 2,446   $ 1,728   $ 2,413  
                   
    Other comprehensive income:          
                   
      Unrealized gain (loss) on securities available for sale, net of tax      (3,955 )   4,738     184     (615 )   5,278  
                 
      Reclassification adjustment for security  loss included in net income, net of tax     404     –     –     391     280  
                   
      Accretion of unrealized loss included in net  income on securities available for sale deferred tax adjustment for Wisconsin Act 19     (76 )   –     –     (35 )   –  
                   
      Amortization of unrealized loss included in net  income on securities available for sale transferred to securities held to maturity, net of tax     90     90     89     91     91  
                   
      Unrealized gain (loss) on interest rate swap, net of tax     65     (101 )   39     122     (109 )
                   
      Reclassification adjustment of interest rate swap settlements included in earnings, net of tax     (27 )   (38 )   (40 )   (41 )   (39 )
                   
                   
    Other comprehensive income (loss)   (3,499 )   4,689     272     (87 )   5,501  
                   
    Comprehensive income (loss) $ (372 ) $ 7,677   $ 2,718   $ 1,641   $ 7,914  
                   
    PSB Holdings, Inc.        
    Nonperforming Assets as of:        
      Dec 31, Sep 30, Jun 30, Mar 31, Dec 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
               
    Nonaccrual loans (excluding restructured loans) $ 10,109   $ 10,116   $ 12,184   $ 11,498   $ 5,596  
    Nonaccrual restructured loans   18     25     28     30     34  
    Restructured loans not on nonaccrual   286     292     299     304     310  
    Accruing loans past due 90 days or more   –     –     –     –     –  
               
    Total nonperforming loans   10,413     10,433     12,511     11,832     5,940  
    Other real estate owned   –     –     –     –     –  
               
    Total nonperforming assets $ 10,413   $ 10,433   $ 12,511   $ 11,832   $ 5,940  
               
    Nonperforming loans as a % of gross loans receivable   0.95 %   0.97 %   1.15 %   1.08 %   0.54 %
    Total nonperforming assets as a % of total assets   0.71 %   0.71 %   0.84 %   0.83 %   0.42 %
    Allowance for credit losses as a % of nonperforming loans   118.52 %   120.75 %   100.69 %   105.59 %   207.10 %
               
    PSB Holdings, Inc.     
    Nonperforming Assets >= $500,000 net book value before specific reserves    
    At December 31, 2024     
    (dollars in thousands)     
        Gross Specific
    Collateral Description Asset Type Principal Reserves
           
    Real estate – Recreational Facility Nonaccrual $ 4,126   $ 151  
    Real estate – Independent Auto Repair Nonaccrual   538     –  
    Real estate – Dealership Nonaccrual   2,708     560  
           
           
    Total listed nonperforming assets   $ 7,372   $ 711  
    Total bank wide nonperforming assets   $ 10,413   $ 1,043  
    Listed assets as a % of total nonperforming assets     71 %   68 %
           
    PSB Holding, Inc.          
    Loan Composition by Collateral Type          
    Quarter-ended (dollars in thousands) Dec 31,
    2024    		 Sep 30,
    2024    		 Jun 30,
    2024    		 Mar 31,
    2024    		 Dec 31,
    2023
               
    Commercial:          
    Commercial and industrial $ 116,864   $ 115,234   $ 125,508   $ 118,821   $ 117,207  
    Agriculture   11,568     11,203     11,480     12,081     12,304  
    Municipal   15,733     12,596     11,190     28,842     31,530  
               
    Total Commercial   144,165     139,033     148,178     159,744     161,041  
               
    Commercial Real Estate:          
    Commercial real estate   551,641     541,577     544,171     546,257     536,209  
    Construction and development   79,377     60,952     70,540     63,375     81,701  
               
    Total Commercial Real Estate   631,018     602,529     614,711     609,632     617,910  
               
    Residential real estate:          
    Residential   271,643     269,954     270,944     274,300     274,453  
    Construction and development   28,959     34,655     36,129     34,158     33,960  
    HELOC   36,887     36,734     33,838     31,357     29,766  
               
    Total Residential Real Estate   337,489     341,343     340,911     339,815     338,179  
               
    Consumer installment   5,060     4,770     4,423     4,867     4,357  
               
    Subtotals – Gross loans   1,117,732     1,087,675     1,108,223     1,114,058     1,121,487  
    Loans in process of disbursement   (27,791 )   (17,836 )   (21,484 )   (20,839 )   (31,359 )
               
    Subtotals – Disbursed loans   1,089,941     1,069,839     1,086,739     1,093,219     1,090,128  
    Net deferred loan costs   605     733     702     669     649  
    Allowance for credit losses   (12,342 )   (12,598 )   (12,597 )   (12,494 )   (12,302 )
               
    Total loans receivable $ 1,078,204   $ 1,057,974   $ 1,074,844   $ 1,081,394   $ 1,078,475  
               
    PSB Holding, Inc.                       
    Selected Commercial Real Estate Loans by Purpose                  
      Dec 31,   Sept 30,   June 30,   Mar 31,   Dec 31,
     (dollars in thousands)  2024     2024     2024     2024     2023 
                                 
      Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)    		   Total
    Exposure    		 % of
    Portfolio (1)
    Multi Family $ 140,087 14.0 %   $ 140,307 14.7 %   $ 146,873 15.2 %   $ 142,001 14.4 %   $ 132,386 13.2 %
    Industrial and Warehousing   88,297 8.8       86,818 9.1       86,025 8.9       85,409 8.6       83,817 8.3  
    Retail   33,991 3.4       33,020 3.5       34,846 3.6       33,177 3.4       35,419 3.5  
    Hotels   31,101 3.1       31,611 3.3       34,613 3.6       35,105 3.6       36,100 3.6  
    Office   6,234 0.6       6,378 0.7       6,518 0.7       6,655 0.7       6,701 0.7  
                                 
    (1) Percentage of commercial and commercial real estate portfolio and commitments.              
                   
    PSB Holdings, Inc.                    
    Deposit Composition                    
                         
    Insured and Collateralized Deposits December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
      $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %
                         
    Non-interest bearing demand $ 204,167 17.8 % $ 210,534 18.5 % $ 202,343 17.5 % $ 199,076 17.8 % $ 197,571 17.3 %
    Interest-bearing demand and savings   315,900 27.6 %   305,631 26.8 %   304,392 26.5 %   318,673 28.7 %   317,984 27.8 %
    Money market deposits   141,024 12.3 %   138,376 12.2 %   137,637 12.0 %   143,167 12.9 %   142,887 12.5 %
    Retail and local time deposits <= $250   155,099 13.5 %   155,988 13.7 %   149,298 13.0 %   148,404 13.3 %   149,145 13.1 %
                         
    Total core deposits   816,190 71.2 %   810,529 71.2 %   793,670 69.0 %   809,320 72.7 %   807,587 70.7 %
    Retail and local time deposits > $250   25,500 2.2 %   23,500 2.1 %   22,500 2.0 %   24,508 2.3 %   23,000 2.0 %
    Broker & national time deposits <= $250   1,241 0.1 %   1,241 0.1 %   1,490 0.1 %   2,229 0.2 %   3,470 0.3 %
    Broker & national time deposits > $250   56,164 4.9 %   56,164 4.9 %   56,328 4.9 %   61,752 5.5 %   70,020 6.1 %
                         
    Totals $ 899,095 78.4 % $ 891,434 78.3 % $ 873,988 76.0 % $ 897,809 80.7 % $ 904,077 79.1 %
                         
    PSB Holdings, Inc.                    
    Deposit Composition                    
                         
    Uninsured Deposits December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
      $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %
                         
    Non-interest bearing demand $ 55,348 4.8 % $ 54,544 4.8 % $ 48,092 4.1 % $ 48,532 4.4 % $ 69,258 6.1 %
    Interest-bearing demand and savings   20,934 1.8 %   18,317 1.6 %   32,674 2.8 %   20,535 1.8 %   20,316 1.8 %
    Money market deposits   153,334 13.4 %   157,489 13.8 %   177,954 15.4 %   124,766 11.2 %   124,518 10.9 %
    Retail and local time deposits <= $250   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %
                         
    Total core deposits   229,616 20.0 %   230,350 20.2 %   258,720 22.3 %   193,833 17.4 %   214,092 18.8 %
    Retail and local time deposits > $250   18,638 1.6 %   17,329 1.5 %   19,613 1.7 %   21,710 1.9 %   23,633 2.1 %
    Broker & national time deposits <= $250   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %
    Broker & national time deposits > $250   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %   – 0.0 %
                         
    Totals $ 248,254 21.6 % $ 247,679 21.7 % $ 278,333 24.0 % $ 215,543 19.3 % $ 237,725 20.9 %
                         
                         
    PSB Holdings, Inc.                    
    Deposit Composition                    
                         
    Total Deposits December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
    (dollars in thousands)   2024     2024     2024     2024     2023  
      $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %
                         
    Non-interest bearing demand $ 259,515 22.6 % $ 265,078 23.3 % $ 250,435 21.6 % $ 247,608 22.2 % $ 266,829 23.4 %
    Interest-bearing demand and savings   336,834 29.4 %   323,948 28.4 %   337,066 29.3 %   339,208 30.5 %   338,300 29.6 %
    Money market deposits   294,358 25.7 %   295,865 26.0 %   315,591 27.4 %   267,933 24.1 %   267,405 23.4 %
    Retail and local time deposits <= $250   155,099 13.5 %   155,988 13.7 %   149,298 13.0 %   148,404 13.3 %   149,145 13.1 %
                         
    Total core deposits   1,045,806 91.2 %   1,040,879 91.4 %   1,052,390 91.3 %   1,003,153 90.1 %   1,021,679 89.5 %
    Retail and local time deposits > $250   44,138 3.8 %   40,829 3.6 %   42,113 3.7 %   46,218 4.2 %   46,633 4.1 %
    Broker & national time deposits <= $250   1,241 0.1 %   1,241 0.1 %   1,490 0.1 %   2,229 0.2 %   3,470 0.3 %
    Broker & national time deposits > $250   56,164 4.9 %   56,164 4.9 %   56,328 4.9 %   61,752 5.5 %   70,020 6.1 %
                         
    Totals $ 1,147,349 100.0 % $ 1,139,113 100.0 % $ 1,152,321 100.0 % $ 1,113,352 100.0 % $ 1,141,802 100.0 %
                         
    PSB Holdings, Inc. 
    Average Balances ($000) and Interest Rates         
    (dollars in thousands)           
                           
                           
      Quarter ended December 31, 2024   Quarter ended September 30, 2024   Quarter ended December 31, 2023
      Average   Yield /   Average   Yield /   Average   Yield /
      Balance Interest Rate   Balance Interest Rate   Balance Interest Rate
    Assets                      
    Interest-earning assets:                      
       Loans (1)(2) $ 1,077,242   $ 15,693 5.80 %   $ 1,079,393   $ 15,674 5.78 %   $ 1,094,152   $ 14,974 5.43 %
       Taxable securities   194,272     1,545 3.16 %     177,520     1,345 3.01 %     167,366     1,147 2.72 %
       Tax-exempt securities (2)   79,475     661 3.31 %     79,472     661 3.31 %     80,922     673 3.30 %
       FHLB stock   8,825     227 10.23 %     8,825     176 7.93 %     6,373     158 9.84 %
       Other   58,405     721 4.91 %     36,680     523 5.67 %     11,846     162 5.43 %
                           
       Total (2)   1,418,219     18,847 5.29 %     1,381,890     18,379 5.29 %     1,360,659     17,114 4.99 %
                           
    Non-interest-earning assets:                    
       Cash and due from banks   15,500           17,162           16,243      
       Premises and equipment,                    
          net   14,001           14,216           13,243      
       Cash surrender value ins   24,625           24,458           23,990      
       Other assets   20,090           20,485           22,406      
       Allowance for credit                      
          losses   (12,623 )         (12,598 )         (12,301 )    
                           
       Total $ 1,479,812           $ 1,445,613           $ 1,424,240        
                           
    Liabilities & stockholders’ equity                    
    Interest-bearing liabilities:                    
       Savings and demand                      
          deposits $ 319,777   $ 1,479 1.84 %   $ 323,841   $ 1,515 1.86 %   $ 327,036   $ 1,296 1.57 %
       Money market deposits   304,897     1,961 2.56 %     277,884     1,876 2.69 %     272,087     1,820 2.65 %
       Time deposits   256,201     2,587 4.02 %     247,296     2,514 4.04 %     273,332     2,410 3.50 %
       FHLB borrowings   170,701     1,890 4.40 %     182,414     2,038 4.44 %     133,560     1,349 4.01 %
       Other borrowings   6,848     57 3.31 %     6,702     57 3.38 %     6,999     54 3.06 %
       Senior sub. notes    4,780     59 4.91 %     4,779     59 4.91 %     4,773     59 4.90 %
       Junior sub. debentures   13,011     252 7.71 %     12,985     252 7.72 %     12,909     254 7.81 %
                           
       Total   1,076,215     8,285 3.06 %     1,055,901     8,311 3.13 %     1,030,696     7,242 2.79 %
                           
    Non-interest-bearing liabilities:                    
       Demand deposits   270,575           261,833           275,944      
       Other liabilities   14,626           13,421           12,540      
       Stockholders’ equity   118,396           114,458           105,060      
                           
       Total $ 1,479,812           $ 1,445,613           $ 1,424,240        
                           
    Net interest income   $ 10,562       $ 10,068       $ 9,872  
    Rate spread     2.23 %       2.16 %       2.20 %
    Net yield on interest-earning assets   2.96 %       2.90 %       2.88 %
                           
    (1) Nonaccrual loans are included in the daily average loan balances outstanding.     
    (2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%. 
                           
    PSB Holdings, Inc.
    Average Balances ($000) and Interest Rates
    (dollars in thousands)       
          Year ended December 31, 2024   Year ended December 31, 2023
          Average   Yield/   Average   Yield/
          Balance Interest Rate   Balance Interest Rate
    Assets                
    Interest-earning assets:              
       Loans (1)(2) $ 1,087,816   $ 62,085 5.71 %   $ 1,043,144   $ 53,824 5.16 %
       Taxable securities   179,074     5,382 3.01 %     183,984     4,919 2.67 %
       Tax-exempt securities (2)   79,735     2,647 3.32 %     81,481     2,705 3.32 %
       FHLB stock   8,024     750 9.35 %     5,304     386 7.28 %
       Other     29,153     1,505 5.16 %     9,073     465 5.13 %
                       
       Total (2)     1,383,802     72,369 5.23 %     1,322,986     62,299 4.71 %
                       
    Non-interest-earning assets:              
       Cash and due from banks   16,841           17,110      
       Premises and equipment, net     13,834           13,294      
       Cash surrender value ins   24,382           24,331      
       Other assets   20,911           23,136      
                     
       Allowance for credit losses     (12,528 )         (12,079 )    
                       
       Total   $ 1,447,242           $ 1,388,778        
                       
    Liabilities & stockholders’ equity            
    Interest-bearing liabilities:              
       Savings and demand deposits   $ 331,411   $ 6,133 1.85 %   $ 344,906   $ 4,582 1.33 %
       Money market deposits   281,828     7,569 2.69 %     249,079     5,328 2.14 %
       Time deposits   256,265     10,150 3.96 %     261,595     7,083 2.71 %
       FHLB borrowings   167,708     7,238 4.32 %     116,282     4,417 3.80 %
       Other borrowings   7,241     232 3.20 %     7,061     215 3.04 %
       Senior sub. notes      4,778     235 4.92 %     4,927     238 4.83 %
       Junior sub. debentures   12,972     1,010 7.79 %     12,870     985 7.65 %
                       
       Total     1,062,203     32,567 3.07 %     996,720     22,848 2.29 %
                       
    Non-interest-bearing liabilities:            
       Demand deposits   258,173           274,273      
       Other liabilities   13,475           12,397      
       Stockholders’ equity   113,391           105,388      
                       
       Total   $ 1,447,242           $ 1,388,778        
                       
    Net interest income   $ 39,802       $ 39,451  
    Rate spread       2.16 %       2.42 %
    Net yield on interest-earning assets   2.88 %       2.98 %
                       
    (1) Nonaccrual loans are included in the daily average loan balances outstanding.  
    (2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%.
                       

    Investor Relations Contact
    PSB Holdings, Inc.
    1905 Stewart Avenue
    Wausau, WI 54401
    888.929.9902
    InvestorRelations@bankpeoples.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings of $0.27 Per Share and Twelve Month 2024 Earnings of $1.34 Per Share; Board of Directors Increases Annual Dividend by 12.5% to $0.36 Per Share

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    EAU CLAIRE, Wis., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) (Nasdaq: CZWI), the parent company of Citizens Community Federal N.A. (the “Bank” or “CCFBank”), today reported earnings of $2.7 million and earnings per diluted share of $0.27 for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $3.3 million and earnings per diluted share of $0.32 for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and $3.7 million and $0.35 earnings per diluted share for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, respectively.

    The Company’s fourth quarter 2024 operating results reflected the following changes from the third quarter of 2024: (1) increase in net interest income of $0.4 million with net interest margin increased by 16 basis points; (2) a $0.05 million increase in negative provision for credit losses to $0.45 million in the fourth quarter; (3) lower non-interest income of $0.9 million primarily due to $0.5 million lower gain on sale of loans and $0.2 million higher net losses on sale of equity securities in the fourth quarter of 2024; and (4) higher non-interest expense primarily due to higher REO expenses of $0.2 million and higher professional fees of $0.2 million.

    Book value per share improved to $17.94 at December 31, 2024, compared to $17.88 at September 30, 2024, and $16.60 at December 31, 2023. Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)1 was $14.69 at December 31, 2024, compared to $14.64 at September 30, 2024, and a 9.5% increase from $13.42 at December 31, 2023. For the fourth quarter of 2024, tangible book value was positively influenced by net income and intangible amortization which was mostly offset by the impact of higher long-term interest rates which increased the net unrealized loss on the available for sale securities portfolio. Stockholders’ equity as a percentage of total assets was 10.24% at December 31, 2024, compared to 10.01% at September 30, 2024. Tangible common equity (“TCE”) as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)1 increased to 8.54% at December 31, 2024, compared to 8.35% at September 30, 2024, largely due to the impact of asset shrinkage.

    “As we closed 2024, I am pleased with the execution on our strategic objectives, continuing to strengthen franchise value. The quarter reflected our balance sheet optimization efforts, which increased the net interest margin 6%, and increased the tangible common equity ratio for the continued repurchase of shares at prices that were accretive to earnings per share and tangible book value. The TCE ratio increased to 8.54%, from 8.35% in the prior quarter which provides flexibility to grow the loan portfolio and potentially repurchase shares in 2025. Deposits, net of the decrease in wholesale deposits, increased $27 million. Loans decreased $56 million during the quarter, primarily in non-strategic relationships, but we forecast modest loan growth of one to three percent in 2025. Credit metrics improved and we continue to maintain a healthy reserve for credit losses to total loans at 1.50%,” stated Stephen Bianchi, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer.

    December 31, 2024, Highlights:

    • Quarterly earnings were $2.7 million, or $0.27 per diluted share for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, a decrease compared to earnings of $3.3 million, or $0.32 per diluted share for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and $3.7 million, or $0.35 per diluted share for the quarter ended December 31, 2023.
    • Net interest income increased $0.4 million to $11.7 million for the current quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $11.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and flat with $11.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2023. The increase in net interest income from the third quarter of 2024 was primarily due to an increase in net interest margin of 16 basis points.
    • The net interest margin increased to 2.79%, primarily due to lower deposit costs, for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 2.63% for the previous quarter, and 2.69% for the quarter ended December 31, 2023. The net interest margin increase in the fourth quarter of 2024, was also favorably impacted by accelerated deferred fee accretion on loan payoffs of 3 basis points.
    • Negative provision for credit losses of $0.45 million, $0.40 million, and $0.65 million were recorded during the quarters ended December 31, 2024, September 30, 2024, and December 31, 2023, respectively. The fourth quarter’s negative provision was due to decreases in on-balance sheet allowance for credit losses (“ACL”) of $0.324 million and a $0.126 million decrease in off-balance sheet ACL due to a reduction in unfunded loan commitments.
    • Non-interest income decreased $0.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2024, due to $0.5 million in lower gain on sale of loans, $0.2 million of higher net losses on equity securities and lower loan servicing income and service charges on deposit accounts. Non-interest income decreased by $0.5 million compared to the fourth quarter of 2023, due to higher net losses on equity securities.
    • Non-interest expense increased $0.4 million to $10.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 from $10.4 million for the previous quarter and increased $0.6 million from $10.2 million in the fourth quarter one year earlier. The $0.4 million increase in non-interest expense from the third quarter was largely due to $0.2 million increase in professional fees and $0.2 million in losses on repossessed assets. The $0.6 million increase from the fourth quarter of 2023 was due to: (1) a $0.7 million increase in compensation expenses, due to higher incentive compensation and annual merit increases; (2) an increase of $0.2 million on losses on repossessed assets; and (3) higher data processing of $0.2 million, partially offset by lower other expenses of $0.5 million primarily due to 2023 branch closure costs.
    • Loans receivable decreased $55.8 million during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.369 billion compared to the prior quarter end, due to pay offs of non-strategic relationships as part of the balance sheet optimization plan.
    • Total deposits decreased $32.5 million during the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to three months earlier, as wholesale deposits were reduced with brokered deposits decreasing $47.5 million to $19.1 million at December 31, 2024, compared to three months earlier.
    • Federal Home Loan Bank advances decreased $16.0 million to $5.0 million at December 31, 2024, from $21.0 million at September 30, 2024.
    • The effective tax rate was 19.5% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 21.5% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and 20.9% for the quarter ended December 31, 2023.
    • Nonperforming assets decreased to $14.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $17.1 million at September 30, 2024. The decrease was largely due to a partial paydown on one agricultural real estate loan relationship in forestry services that was placed on nonaccrual status in the third quarter.
    • Net charge-offs remain minimal and were 0.009% of average loans during the fourth quarter and 0.007% over the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2024.
    • Common stock totaling 94 thousand shares were repurchased in the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2024, at an average price of $14.55 per share. For the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2024, approximately 476 thousand shares of common stock were repurchased at an average price of $12.76 per share.
    • In November 2024, the Company notified its customers that it would be closing the Faribault, Minnesota branch on February 3, 2025, with account balances transferred to the nearest branch which is 39 miles away. The branch closure costs recognized in the fourth quarter were minimal.
    • The efficiency ratio was 76% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 72% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024.
    • On January 23, 2025, the Board of Directors declared a $0.36 per share annual dividend, an increase of 12.5%, to shareholders of record as of February 7, 2025, and payable February 21, 2025.

    Balance Sheet and Asset Quality

    Total assets decreased by $50.6 million during the quarter to $1.749 billion at December 31, 2024.

    Securities available for sale (AFS”) decreased $6.6 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $142.8 million from $149.4 million at September 30, 2024. The decrease was due to higher pre-tax unrealized losses of $3.3 million and principal repayments of $3.3 million.

    Securities held to maturity (“HTM”) decreased $1.5 million to $85.5 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $87.0 million at September 30, 2024, due to principal repayments.

    The on-balance sheet liquidity ratio, which is defined as the fair market value of AFS and HTM securities that are not pledged and cash on deposit with other financial institutions, was 11.75% of total assets at December 31, 2024, compared to 11.46% at September 30, 2024. On-balance sheet liquidity collateralized new borrowing capacity and uncommitted federal funds borrowing availability was $725 million, or 273%, of uninsured and uncollateralized deposits at December 31, 2024, and $718 million, or 269%, at September 30, 2024.

    Continued balance sheet optimization resulted in loans decreasing by $55.8 million during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.372 billion, compared to September 30, 2024. A large level of non-strategic relationships were repaid during the quarter as well as a $4.9 million reduction in criticized loans.

    The office loan portfolio consisting of 71 loans totaled $28 million at December 31, 2024, and decreased $3 million from $31 million at September 30, 2024. Criticized loans in the office loan portfolio for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, totaled $0.5 million and there have been no charge-offs in the trailing twelve months.

    The allowance for credit losses on loans decreased by $0.45 million to $20.5 million at December 31, 2024, representing 1.50% of total loans receivable compared to 1.47% of total loans receivable at September 30, 2024. For the quarter ended December 31, 2024, the Bank recorded a negative provision of $0.45 million which included a negative provision on ACL for loans of $0.32 million and a negative provision of $0.13 million on ACL for unfunded commitments.

    Allowance for Credit Losses (“ACL”) – Loans Percentage

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Loans, end of period   $ 1,368,981     $ 1,424,828     $ 1,428,588     $ 1,460,792  
    Allowance for credit losses – Loans   $ 20,549     $ 21,000     $ 21,178     $ 22,908  
    ACL – Loans as a percentage of loans, end of period     1.50 %     1.47 %     1.48 %     1.57 %

    In addition to the ACL – Loans, the Company has established an ACL – Unfunded Commitments of $0.334 million at December 31, 2024, $0.460 million at September 30, 2024, and $1.250 million at December 31, 2023, classified in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
    Allowance for Credit Losses – Unfunded Commitments:
    (in thousands)

        December 31, 2024 and Three Months Ended   December 31, 2023 and Three Months Ended   December 31, 2024 and Twelve Months Ended   December 31, 2023 and Twelve Months Ended
    ACL – Unfunded commitments – beginning of period   $ 460     $ 1,571     $ 1,250     $ —  
    Cumulative effect of ASU 2016-13 adoption     —       —       —       1,537  
    (Reductions) additions to ACL – Unfunded commitments via provision for credit losses charged to operations     (126 )     (321 )     (916 )     (287 )
    ACL – Unfunded commitments – end of period   $ 334     $ 1,250     $ 334     $ 1,250  

    Special mention loans decreased by $2.5 million to $8.5 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $11.0 million at September 30, 2024. Over the past 12 months, special mention loans have declined $9.9 million from $18.4 million at December 31, 2023.

    Substandard loans decreased by $2.3 million to $18.9 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $21.2 million at September 30, 2024, primarily due to a $1.6 million reduction in a nonperforming loan, classified as substandard, agricultural real estate forestry services loan.

    Nonperforming assets decreased $2.8 million to $14.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $17.1 million at September 30, 2024, primarily due to the $1.6 million reduction in nonperforming assets discussed above and the sale of a real estate owned property.

        (in thousands)
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   March 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Special mention loan balances   $ 8,480   $ 11,047   $ 8,848   $ 13,737   $ 18,392
    Substandard loan balances     18,891     21,202     14,420     14,733     19,596
    Criticized loans, end of period   $ 27,371   $ 32,249   $ 23,268   $ 28,470   $ 37,988

    Total deposits decreased $32.5 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.49 billion as $59.7 million of wholesale brokered deposits were repaid. Brokered deposits declined $47.5 million to $19.1 million at December 31, 2024, from $66.6 million at September 30, 2024, and declined $79.1 million from $98.2 million at December 31, 2023.

    Deposit Portfolio Composition
    (in thousands)

        December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   June 30,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
    Consumer deposits   $ 852,083   $ 844,808   $ 822,665   $ 827,290   $ 814,899
    Commercial deposits     412,355     406,095     395,148     400,910     415,715
    Public deposits     190,460     176,844     187,698     202,175     182,172
    Wholesale deposits     33,250     92,920     114,033     97,114     106,306
    Total deposits   $ 1,488,148   $ 1,520,667   $ 1,519,544   $ 1,527,489   $ 1,519,092

    At December 31, 2024, the deposit portfolio composition was 57% consumer, 28% commercial, 13% public, and 2% wholesale deposits compared to 55% consumer, 27% commercial, 12% public, and 6% wholesale deposits at September 30, 2024.

    Deposit Composition By Type
    (in thousands)

        December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   June 30,
    2024    		   March 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
    Non-interest-bearing demand deposits   $ 252,656   $ 256,840   $ 255,703   $ 248,537   $ 265,704
    Interest-bearing demand deposits     355,750     346,971     353,477     361,278     343,276
    Savings accounts     159,821     169,096     170,946     177,595     176,548
    Money market accounts     369,534     366,067     370,164     387,879     374,055
    Certificate accounts     350,387     381,693     369,254     352,200     359,509
    Total deposits   $ 1,488,148   $ 1,520,667   $ 1,519,544     1,527,489   $ 1,519,092

    Uninsured and uncollateralized deposits were $265.4 million, or 18% of total deposits, at December 31, 2024, and $267.1 million, or 18% of total deposits, at September 30, 2024. Uninsured deposits alone at December 31, 2024, were $428.0 million, or 29% of total deposits, and $413.6 million, or 27% of total deposits at September 30, 2024.

    As part of the balance sheet optimization plan, $16.0 million in Federal Home Loan Bank advances were repaid during the fourth quarter and totaled $5.0 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $21.0 million one quarter earlier.

    Common stock totaling approximately 94 thousand shares were repurchased in the fourth quarter of 2024 at an average price of $14.55 per share. For the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2024, approximately 476 thousand shares of common stock were repurchased at an average price of $12.76 per share. There are 238 thousand shares remaining under the July 2024 Board of Director repurchase authorization plan.

    Review of Operations

    Net interest income increased $0.4 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $11.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and flat from $11.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2023. The increase in net interest income compared to the third quarter of 2024 was primarily due to an increase in net interest margin, partially offsetting the impact of asset shrinkage. The net interest margin increase was favorably impacted by 3 basis points due to deferred fee accretion on loan payoffs.

    Net interest income and net interest margin analysis:
    (in thousands, except yields and rates)

        Three months ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   March 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
        Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin   Net Interest Income   Net Interest Margin
    As reported   $ 11,708     2.79 %   $ 11,285     2.63 %   $ 11,576     2.72 %   $ 11,905     2.77 %   $ 11,747     2.69 %
    Less accretion for PCD loans     (42 )   (0.01)%     (45 )   (0.01)%     (62 )   (0.01)%     (75 )   (0.02)%     (37 )   (0.01)%
    Less scheduled accretion interest     (33 )   (0.01)%     (33 )   (0.01)%     (32 )   (0.01)%     (33 )   (0.01)%     (33 )   (0.01)%
    Without loan purchase accretion   $ 11,633     2.77 %   $ 11,207     2.61 %   $ 11,482     2.70 %   $ 11,797     2.74 %   $ 11,677     2.67 %

    The table below shows the impact of certificate, loan and securities contractual fixed rate maturing and repricing.

    Portfolio Contractual Repricing:
    (in millions, except yields)

        Q1 2025   Q2 2025   Q3 2025   Q4 2025   FY 2026
    Maturing Certificate Accounts:                    
    Contractual Balance   $ 95     $ 177     $ 43     $ 14     $ 13  
    Contractual Interest Rate     4.63 %     4.68 %     4.25 %     3.07 %     3.36 %
    Maturing or Repricing Loans:                    
    Contractual Balance   $ 46     $ 97     $ 18     $ 55     $ 322  
    Contractual Interest Rate     5.27 %     7.10 %     6.15 %     4.79 %     3.85 %
    Maturing or Repricing Securities:                    
    Contractual Balance   $ 4     $ 3     $ 3     $ 4     $ 19  
    Contractual Interest Rate     6.15 %     5.12 %     4.07 %     4.31 %     3.49 %

    Non-interest income decreased $0.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 to $2.0 million from $2.9 million the prior quarter due to $0.5 million of lower gain on sale of loans, $0.2 million of higher net losses on equity securities and lower loan servicing income and service charges on deposit accounts. Total non-interest income for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, was higher at $2.5 million due to an increase in net losses on equity securities in 4Q 2024.

    Non-interest expense increased $0.4 million to $10.8 million from $10.4 million for the previous quarter and increased $0.6 million from $10.2 million one year earlier. The $0.4 million increase in non-interest expense compared to the linked quarter was largely due to the $0.2 million increase in professional fees and $0.2 million in losses on repossessed assets. The $0.6 million increase from the fourth quarter of 2023 is due to: (1) a $0.7 million increase in compensation expenses, due to higher incentive compensation and annual merit increases; (2) an increase in the current quarter of $0.2 million on losses on repossessed assets; (3) higher data processing of $0.2 million partially offset by lower other expenses $0.5 million primarily due to 2023 branch closure costs.

    Provision for income taxes decreased to $0.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2024 from $0.9 million in the third quarter of 2024 largely due to lower pre-tax income. The effective tax rate was 19.5% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, 21.5% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, and 20.9% for the quarter ended December 31, 2023.

    These financial results are preliminary until Form 10-K is filed in March 2025.
    About the Company

    Citizens Community Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: “CZWI”) is the holding company of the Bank, a national bank based in Altoona, Wisconsin, currently serving customers primarily in Wisconsin and Minnesota through 22 branch locations. Its primary markets include the Chippewa Valley Region in Wisconsin, the Twin Cities and Mankato markets in Minnesota, and various rural communities around these areas. The Bank offers traditional community banking services to businesses, ag operators and consumers, including residential mortgage loans.

    Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

    Certain statements contained in this release are considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may be identified using forward-looking words or phrases such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “expect,” “estimates,” “intend,” “may,” “on pace,” “preliminary,” “planned,” “potential,” “should,” “will,” “would” or the negative of those terms or other words of similar meaning. Such forward-looking statements in this release are inherently subject to many uncertainties arising in the operations and business environment of the Company and the Bank. These uncertainties include: conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally; the impact of inflation on our business and our customers; geopolitical tensions, including current or anticipated impact of military conflicts; higher lending risks associated with our commercial and agricultural banking activities; future pandemics (including new variants of COVID-19); cybersecurity risks; adverse impacts on the regional banking industry and the business environment in which it operates; interest rate risk; lending risk; changes in the fair value or ratings downgrades of our securities; the sufficiency of allowance for credit losses; competitive pressures among depository and other financial institutions; disintermediation risk; our ability to maintain our reputation; our ability to maintain or increase our market share; our ability to realize the benefits of net deferred tax assets; our inability to obtain needed liquidity; our ability to raise capital needed to fund growth or meet regulatory requirements; our ability to attract and retain key personnel; our ability to keep pace with technological change; prevalence of fraud and other financial crimes; the possibility that our internal controls and procedures could fail or be circumvented; our ability to successfully execute our acquisition growth strategy; risks posed by acquisitions and other expansion opportunities, including difficulties and delays in integrating the acquired business operations or fully realizing the cost savings and other benefits; restrictions on our ability to pay dividends; the potential volatility of our stock price; accounting standards for credit losses; legislative or regulatory changes or actions, or significant litigation, adversely affecting the Company or Bank; public company reporting obligations; changes in federal or state tax laws; and changes in accounting principles, policies or guidelines and their impact on financial performance. Stockholders, potential investors, and other readers are urged to consider these factors carefully in evaluating the forward-looking statements and are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. Such uncertainties and other risks that may affect the Company’s performance are discussed further in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in the Company’s Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 5, 2024 and the Company’s subsequent filings with the SEC. The Company undertakes no obligation to make any revisions to the forward-looking statements contained in this news release or to update them to reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this release.

    1Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    This press release contains non-GAAP financial measures, such as net income as adjusted, net income as adjusted per share, tangible book value, tangible book value per share, tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets and return on average tangible common equity, which management believes may be helpful in understanding the Company’s results of operations or financial position and comparing results over different periods.

    Net income as adjusted and net income as adjusted per share are non-GAAP measures that eliminate the impact of certain expenses such as branch closure costs and related severance pay, accelerated depreciation expense and lease termination fees, and the gain on sale of branch deposits and fixed assets. Tangible book value, tangible book value per share, tangible common equity as a percentage of tangible assets and return on average tangible common equity are non-GAAP measures that eliminate the impact of goodwill and intangible assets on our financial position. Management believes these measures are useful in assessing the strength of our financial position.

    Where non-GAAP financial measures are used, the comparable GAAP financial measure, as well as the reconciliation to the comparable GAAP financial measure, can be found in this press release. These disclosures should not be viewed as a substitute for operating results determined in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other banks and financial institutions.

    Contact: Steve Bianchi, CEO
    (715)-836-9994

    (CZWI-ER)

    CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
    Consolidated Balance Sheets
    (in thousands, except shares and per share data)
        December 31, 2024 (unaudited)   September 30, 2024 (unaudited)   June 30, 2024 (unaudited)   December 31, 2023 (audited)
    Assets                
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 50,172     $ 36,632     $ 36,886     $ 37,138  
    Securities available for sale “AFS”     142,851       149,432       146,438       155,743  
    Securities held to maturity “HTM”     85,504       87,033       88,605       91,229  
    Equity investments     4,702       5,096       5,023       3,284  
    Other investments     12,500       12,311       13,878       15,725  
    Loans receivable     1,368,981       1,424,828       1,428,588       1,460,792  
    Allowance for credit losses     (20,549 )     (21,000 )     (21,178 )     (22,908 )
    Loans receivable, net     1,348,432       1,403,828       1,407,410       1,437,884  
    Loans held for sale     1,329       697       275       5,773  
    Mortgage servicing rights, net     3,663       3,696       3,731       3,865  
    Office properties and equipment, net     17,075       17,365       17,774       18,373  
    Accrued interest receivable     5,653       6,235       6,289       5,409  
    Intangible assets     979       1,158       1,336       1,694  
    Goodwill     31,498       31,498       31,498       31,498  
    Foreclosed and repossessed assets, net     915       1,572       1,662       1,795  
    Bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”)     26,102       25,901       25,708       25,647  
    Other assets     17,144       16,683       15,794       16,334  
    TOTAL ASSETS   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity                
    Liabilities:                
    Deposits   $ 1,488,148     $ 1,520,667     $ 1,519,544     $ 1,519,092  
    Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances     5,000       21,000       31,500       79,530  
    Other borrowings     61,606       61,548       61,498       67,465  
    Other liabilities     14,681       15,773       13,720       11,970  
    Total liabilities     1,569,435       1,618,988       1,626,262       1,678,057  
    Stockholders’ equity:                
    Common stock— $0.01 par value, authorized 30,000,000; 9,981,996, 10,074,136, 10,297,341, and 10,440,591 shares issued and outstanding, respectively     100       101       103       104  
    Additional paid-in capital     114,564       115,455       117,838       119,441  
    Retained earnings     80,840       78,438       75,501       71,117  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (16,420 )     (13,845 )     (17,397 )     (17,328 )
    Total stockholders’ equity     179,084       180,149       176,045       173,334  
    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  

                    Note: Certain items previously reported were reclassified for consistency with the current presentation.

    CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
    Consolidated Statements of Operations
    (in thousands, except per share data)
        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024 (unaudited)   September 30, 2024 (unaudited)   December 31, 2023 (unaudited)   December 31, 2024 (unaudited)   December 31, 2023 (audited)
    Interest and dividend income:                    
    Interest and fees on loans   $ 19,534     $ 20,115     $ 19,408     $ 79,738     $ 73,577  
    Interest on investments     2,427       2,397       2,618       9,877       10,671  
    Total interest and dividend income     21,961       22,512       22,026       89,615       84,248  
    Interest expense:                    
    Interest on deposits     9,273       10,165       7,851       37,985       25,749  
    Interest on FHLB borrowed funds     65       128       1,371       1,281       5,966  
    Interest on other borrowed funds     915       934       1,057       3,875       4,184  
    Total interest expense     10,253       11,227       10,279       43,141       35,899  
    Net interest income before provision for credit losses     11,708       11,285       11,747       46,474       48,349  
    (Negative) provision for credit losses     (450 )     (400 )     (650 )     (3,175 )     (475 )
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     12,158       11,685       12,397       49,649       48,824  
    Non-interest income:                    
    Service charges on deposit accounts     450       513       485       1,924       1,949  
    Interchange income     550       577       581       2,247       2,324  
    Loan servicing income     520       643       539       2,271       2,218  
    Gain on sale of loans     218       752       191       2,216       1,692  
    Loan fees and service charges     292       165       124       996       432  
    Net realized gains on debt securities     —       —       —       —       12  
    Net (losses) gains on equity securities     (287 )     (78 )     277       (856 )     447  
    Bank Owned Life Insurance (BOLI) death benefit     —       —       —       184       —  
    Other     266       349       283       1,125       1,176  
    Total non-interest income     2,009       2,921       2,480       10,107       10,250  
    Non-interest expense:                    
    Compensation and related benefits     5,840       5,743       5,139       22,741       21,106  
    Occupancy     1,217       1,242       1,314       5,159       5,431  
    Data processing     1,743       1,665       1,511       6,530       5,951  
    Amortization of intangible assets     179       178       179       715       755  
    Mortgage servicing rights expense, net     107       163       159       534       615  
    Advertising, marketing and public relations     218       225       262       793       734  
    FDIC premium assessment     192       201       204       798       812  
    Professional services     514       336       371       1,763       1,524  
    Losses (gains) on repossessed assets, net     247       65       —       294       62  
    Other     552       603       1,067       2,979       3,152  
    Total non-interest expense     10,809       10,421       10,206       42,306       40,142  
    Income before provision for income taxes     3,358       4,185       4,671       17,450       18,932  
    Provision for income taxes     656       899       978       3,699       5,873  
    Net income attributable to common stockholders   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,693     $ 13,751     $ 13,059  
    Per share information:                    
    Basic earnings   $ 0.27     $ 0.32     $ 0.35     $ 1.34     $ 1.25  
    Diluted earnings   $ 0.27     $ 0.32     $ 0.35     $ 1.34     $ 1.25  
    Cash dividends paid   $ —     $ —     $ —     $ 0.32     $ 0.29  
    Book value per share at end of period   $ 17.94     $ 17.88     $ 16.60     $ 17.94     $ 16.60  
    Tangible book value per share at end of period (non-GAAP)   $ 14.69     $ 14.64     $ 13.42     $ 14.69     $ 13.42  

    Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except per share data)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31,
    2024    		   September 30,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023    		   December 31,
    2024    		   December 31,
    2023
                       
    GAAP pretax income   $ 3,358   $ 4,185   $ 4,671   $ 17,450   $ 18,932
    Branch closure costs (1)     —     —     380     168     380
    Pretax income as adjusted (2)   $ 3,358   $ 4,185   $ 5,051   $ 17,618   $ 19,312
    Provision for income tax on net income as adjusted (3)     656     899     1,058     3,735     5,991
    Net income as adjusted (non-GAAP) (2)   $ 2,702   $ 3,286   $ 3,993   $ 13,883   $ 13,321
    GAAP diluted earnings per share, net of tax   $ 0.27   $ 0.32   $ 0.35   $ 1.34   $ 1.25
    Branch closure costs, net of tax     —     —     0.03     0.01     0.03
    Diluted earnings per share, as adjusted, net of tax (non-GAAP)   $ 0.27   $ 0.32   $ 0.38   $ 1.35   $ 1.28
                         
    Average diluted shares outstanding     10,033,957     10,204,195     10,457,184     10,262,710     10,470,298

    (1) Branch closure costs include severance pay recorded in compensation and benefits and depreciation and right of use lease asset accelerated expense included in other non-interest expense in the consolidated statement of operations.
    (2) Pretax income as adjusted and net income as adjusted are non-GAAP measures that management believes enhances the market’s ability to assess the underlying business performance and trends related to core business activities.
    (3) Provision for income tax on net income as adjusted is calculated at our effective tax rate for each respective period presented.

    Loan Composition

    (in thousands)

        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total Loans:                
    Commercial/Agricultural real estate:                
    Commercial real estate   $ 709,018     $ 730,459     $ 729,236     $ 750,531  
    Agricultural real estate     73,130       76,043       78,248       83,350  
    Multi-family real estate     220,805       239,191       234,758       228,095  
    Construction and land development     78,489       87,875       87,898       110,941  
    C&I/Agricultural operating:                
    Commercial and industrial     115,657       119,619       127,386       121,666  
    Agricultural operating     31,000       27,550       27,409       25,691  
    Residential mortgage:                
    Residential mortgage     132,341       134,944       133,503       129,021  
    Purchased HELOC loans     2,956       2,932       2,915       2,880  
    Consumer installment:                
    Originated indirect paper     3,970       4,405       5,110       6,535  
    Other consumer     5,012       5,438       5,860       6,187  
    Gross loans   $ 1,372,378     $ 1,428,456     $ 1,432,323     $ 1,464,897  
    Unearned net deferred fees and costs and loans in process     (2,547 )     (2,703 )     (2,733 )     (2,900 )
    Unamortized discount on acquired loans     (850 )     (925 )     (1,002 )     (1,205 )
    Total loans receivable   $ 1,368,981     $ 1,424,828     $ 1,428,588     $ 1,460,792  

    Nonperforming Assets
    Loan Balances at Amortized Cost

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Nonperforming assets:                
    Nonaccrual loans                
    Commercial real estate   $ 4,594     $ 4,778     $ 5,350     $ 10,359  
    Agricultural real estate     6,222       6,193       382       391  
    Construction and land development     103       106       —       54  
    Commercial and industrial (“C&I”)     597       1,956       422       —  
    Agricultural operating     793       901       1,017       1,180  
    Residential mortgage     858       1,088       1,145       1,167  
    Consumer installment     1       20       36       33  
    Total nonaccrual loans   $ 13,168     $ 15,042     $ 8,352     $ 13,184  
    Accruing loans past due 90 days or more     186       530       256       389  
    Total nonperforming loans (“NPLs”) at amortized cost     13,354       15,572       8,608       13,573  
    Foreclosed and repossessed assets, net     915       1,572       1,662       1,795  
    Total nonperforming assets (“NPAs”)   $ 14,269     $ 17,144     $ 10,270     $ 15,368  
    Loans, end of period   $ 1,368,981     $ 1,424,828     $ 1,428,588     $ 1,460,792  
    Total assets, end of period   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  
    Ratios:                
    NPLs to total loans     0.98 %     1.09 %     0.60 %     0.93 %
    NPAs to total assets     0.82 %     0.95 %     0.57 %     0.83 %

    Average Balances, Interest Yields and Rates

    (in thousands, except yields and rates)

        Three Months Ended
    December 31, 2024    		   Three Months Ended
    September 30, 2024    		   Three Months Ended
    December 31, 2023
        Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate    		   Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate    		   Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate
    Average interest earning assets:                                    
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 26,197   $ 327   4.97 %   $ 25,187   $ 360   5.69 %   $ 16,699   $ 241   5.73 %
    Loans receivable     1,396,854     19,534   5.56 %     1,429,928     20,115   5.60 %     1,458,558     19,408   5.28 %
    Investment securities     235,268     1,940   3.28 %     236,960     1,966   3.30 %     243,705     2,102   3.42 %
    Other investments     12,318     160   5.17 %     12,553     71   2.25 %     15,760     275   6.92 %
    Total interest earning assets   $ 1,670,637   $ 21,961   5.23 %   $ 1,704,628   $ 22,512   5.25 %   $ 1,734,722   $ 22,026   5.04 %
    Average interest-bearing liabilities:                                    
    Savings accounts   $ 162,501   $ 383   0.94 %   $ 170,777   $ 450   1.05 %   $ 175,281   $ 323   0.73 %
    Demand deposits     346,411     1,891   2.17 %     357,201     2,152   2.40 %     329,096     1,680   2.03 %
    Money market accounts     351,566     2,720   3.08 %     381,369     3,126   3.26 %     326,981     2,217   2.69 %
    CD’s     374,087     4,279   4.55 %     379,722     4,437   4.65 %     368,110     3,631   3.91 %
    Total deposits   $ 1,234,565   $ 9,273   2.99 %   $ 1,289,069   $ 10,165   3.14 %   $ 1,199,468   $ 7,851   2.60 %
    FHLB advances and other borrowings     72,431     980   5.38 %     80,338     1,062   5.26 %     191,575     2,428   5.03 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   $ 1,306,996   $ 10,253   3.12 %   $ 1,369,407   $ 11,227   3.26 %   $ 1,391,043   $ 10,279   2.93 %
    Net interest income       $ 11,708           $ 11,285           $ 11,747    
    Interest rate spread           2.11 %           1.99 %           2.11 %
    Net interest margin           2.79 %           2.63 %           2.69 %
    Average interest earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities           1.28             1.24             1.25  
        Twelve Months Ended
    December 31, 2024    		   Twelve Months Ended
    December, 2023
        Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate    		   Average
    Balance    		   Interest
    Income/
    Expense    		   Average
    Yield/
    Rate
    Average interest earning assets:                        
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 20,864   $ 1,150   5.51 %   $ 18,469   $ 1,010   5.47 %
    Loans receivable     1,430,631     79,738   5.57 %     1,430,035     73,577   5.15 %
    Interest bearing deposits     —     —   — %     63     1   1.59 %
    Investment securities     238,851     7,977   3.34 %     257,020     8,606   3.35 %
    Other investments     12,816     750   5.85 %     16,274     1,054   6.48 %
    Total interest earning assets   $ 1,703,162   $ 89,615   5.26 %   $ 1,721,861   $ 84,248   4.89 %
    Average interest-bearing liabilities:                        
    Savings accounts   $ 171,069   $ 1,684   0.98 %   $ 200,087   $ 1,427   0.71 %
    Demand deposits     353,107     8,083   2.29 %     359,866     6,727   1.87 %
    Money market accounts     371,909     11,725   3.15 %     306,020     6,976   2.28 %
    CD’s     366,634     16,493   4.50 %     317,376     10,619   3.35 %
    Total deposits   $ 1,262,719   $ 37,985   3.01 %   $ 1,183,349   $ 25,749   2.18 %
    FHLB advances and other borrowings     99,731     5,156   5.17 %     208,373     10,150   4.87 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities   $ 1,362,450   $ 43,141   3.17 %   $ 1,391,722   $ 35,899   2.58 %
    Net interest income       $ 46,474           $ 48,349    
    Interest rate spread           2.09 %           2.31 %
    Net interest margin           2.73 %           2.81 %
    Average interest earning assets to average interest bearing liabilities           1.25             1.24  

    Wholesale Deposits
    (in thousands)

        Quarter Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   March 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Brokered certificate accounts   $ 14,123   $ 48,578   $ 54,123   $ 43,507   $ 58,209
    Brokered money market accounts     5,002     18,076     42,673     40,429     40,050
    Third party originated reciprocal deposits     14,125     26,266     17,237     13,178     8,047
    Total   $ 33,250   $ 92,920   $ 114,033   $ 97,114   $ 106,306

    Key Financial Metric Ratios:

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Ratios based on net income:                    
    Return on average assets (annualized)   0.61 %   0.72 %   0.79 %   0.76 %   0.71 %
    Return on average equity (annualized)   6.00 %   7.34 %   8.72 %   7.84 %   7.87 %
    Return on average tangible common equity4 (annualized)   7.72 %   9.38 %   11.29 %   10.03 %   10.26 %
    Efficiency ratio   76 %   72 %   72 %   72 %   68 %
    Net interest margin with loan purchase accretion   2.79 %   2.63 %   2.69 %   2.73 %   2.81 %
    Net interest margin without loan purchase accretion   2.77 %   2.61 %   2.67 %   2.69 %   2.78 %
    Ratios based on net income as adjusted (non-GAAP)                    
    Return on average assets as adjusted2 (annualized)   0.61 %   0.72 %   0.86 %   0.77 %   0.73 %
    Return on average equity as adjusted3 (annualized)   6.00 %   7.34 %   9.43 %   7.91 %   8.03 %

    Reconciliation of Return on Average Assets

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
           
    GAAP earnings after income taxes   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,693     $ 13,751     $ 13,059  
    Net income as adjusted after income taxes (non-GAAP) (1)   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,993     $ 13,883     $ 13,321  
    Average assets   $ 1,771,351     $ 1,810,826     $ 1,843,789     $ 1,808,256     $ 1,836,337  
    Return on average assets (annualized)     0.61 %     0.72 %     0.79 %     0.76 %     0.71 %
    Return on average assets as adjusted (non-GAAP) (annualized)     0.61 %     0.72 %     0.86 %     0.77 %     0.73 %

    (1) See Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)

    Reconciliation of Return on Average Equity

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    GAAP earnings after income taxes   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,693     $ 13,751     $ 13,059  
    Net income as adjusted after income taxes (non-GAAP) (1)   $ 2,702     $ 3,286     $ 3,993     $ 13,883     $ 13,321  
    Average equity   $ 179,242     $ 178,050     $ 168,058     $ 175,475     $ 165,968  
    Return on average equity (annualized)     6.00 %     7.34 %     8.72 %     7.84 %     7.87 %
    Return on average equity as adjusted (non-GAAP) (annualized)     6.00 %     7.34 %     9.43 %     7.91 %     8.03 %

    (1) See Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)

    Reconciliation of tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except per share data)

    Tangible book value per share at end of period   December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 179,084     $ 180,149     $ 176,045     $ 173,334  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )     (1,158 )     (1,336 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,607     $ 147,493     $ 143,211     $ 140,142  
    Ending common shares outstanding     9,981,996       10,074,136       10,297,341       10,440,591  
    Book value per share   $ 17.94     $ 17.88     $ 17.10     $ 16.60  
    Tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)   $ 14.69     $ 14.64     $ 13.91     $ 13.42  

    Reconciliation of tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except ratios)

    Tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets at end of period   December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   June 30, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 179,084     $ 180,149     $ 176,045     $ 173,334  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )   $ (31,498 )   $ (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )   $ (1,158 )   $ (1,336 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,607     $ 147,493     $ 143,211     $ 140,142  
    Total Assets   $ 1,748,519     $ 1,799,137     $ 1,802,307     $ 1,851,391  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )     (1,158 )     (1,336 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible Assets (non-GAAP)   $ 1,716,042     $ 1,766,481     $ 1,769,473     $ 1,818,199  
    Total stockholders’ equity to total assets ratio     10.24 %     10.01 %     9.77 %     9.36 %
    Tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)     8.54 %     8.35 %     8.09 %     7.71 %

    Reconciliation of Return on Average Tangible Common Equity (non-GAAP)

    (in thousands, except ratios)

        Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
        December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 179,084     $ 180,149     $ 173,334     $ 179,084     $ 173,334  
    Less: Goodwill     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )     (31,498 )
    Less: Intangible assets     (979 )     (1,158 )     (1,694 )     (979 )     (1,694 )
    Tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,607     $ 147,493     $ 140,142     $ 146,607     $ 140,142  
    Average tangible common equity (non-GAAP)   $ 146,676     $ 145,305     $ 134,776     $ 142,641     $ 132,409  
    GAAP earnings after income taxes     2,702       3,286       3,693       13,751       13,059  
    Amortization of intangible assets, net of tax     144       140       142       563       521  
    Tangible net income   $ 2,846     $ 3,426     $ 3,835     $ 14,314     $ 13,580  
    Return on average tangible common equity (annualized)     7.72 %     9.38 %     11.29 %     10.03 %     10.26 %

    Reconciliation of Efficiency Ratio

    (in thousands, except ratios)

      Three Months Ended   Twelve Months Ended
      December 31, 2024   September 30, 2024   December 31, 2023   December 31, 2024   December 31, 2023
    Non-interest expense (GAAP) $ 10,809     $ 10,421     $ 10,206     $ 42,306     $ 40,142  
    Less amortization of intangibles   (179 )     (178 )     (179 )     (715 )     (755 )
    Efficiency ratio numerator (GAAP) $ 10,630     $ 10,243     $ 10,027     $ 41,591     $ 39,387  
                       
    Non-interest income $ 2,009     $ 2,921     $ 2,480     $ 10,107     $ 10,250  
    Add back net losses on debt and equity securities   (287 )     (78 )     —       (856 )     —  
    Subtract net gains on debt and equity securities   —       —       277       —       459  
    Net interest income   11,708       11,285       11,747       46,474       48,349  
    Efficiency ratio denominator (GAAP) $ 14,004     $ 14,284     $ 13,950     $ 57,437     $ 58,140  
    Efficiency ratio (GAAP)   76 %     72 %     72 %     72 %     68 %

    1Net income as adjusted and net income as adjusted per share are non-GAAP financial measures that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the underlying business performance and trends related to core business activities. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of GAAP Net Income and Net Income as Adjusted (non-GAAP)”.

    2Return on average assets as adjusted is a non-GAAP measure that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the underlying business performance and trends relative to average assets. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of Return on Average Assets as Adjusted (non-GAAP)”.

    3Return on average equity as adjusted is a non-GAAP measure that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the underlying business performance and trends relative to average equity. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of Return on Average Equity as Adjusted (non-GAAP)”.

    4Tangible book value, tangible book value per share, tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets and return on tangible common equity are non-GAAP measures that management believes enhances investors’ ability to better understand the Company’s financial position. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial table “Reconciliation of tangible book value per share (non-GAAP)”, “Reconciliation of tangible common equity as a percent of tangible assets (non-GAAP)”, and “Reconciliation of return on average tangible common equity)”.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Byrna Technologies Partners with USCCA to Promote Less-Lethal Self-Defense Solutions

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ANDOVER, Mass., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Byrna Technologies Inc. (“Byrna” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: BYRN), a personal defense technology company specializing in the development, manufacture, and sale of innovative less-lethal personal security solutions, today announced that it is partnering with the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA). This collaboration will enable Byrna to highlight its less-lethal solutions to nearly one million USCCA members.

    The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) helps responsible Americans prepare for what happens before, during, and after an Act of Self-Defense. In addition to offering education and training, the USCCA has an insurance policy that provides the association’s members with self-defense liability insurance.

    “This collaboration further legitimizes our less-lethal launchers as viable alternatives to traditional firearms,” said Bryan Ganz, CEO of Byrna. “With nearly a million members, the USCCA also offers us a new channel to introduce our products to responsible gun owners, a key demographic for us. We encourage our customers to take advantage of the USCCA’s self-defense training and liability insurance to ensure they are well-prepared and protected.”

    USCCA Chairman and Co-Founder Tim Schmidt added: “Byrna is a leader in the less-lethal market, and we are proud to showcase their products to our members as an important self-defense option. We look forward to providing Byrna customers with access to best-in-class liability protection and important self-defense training lessons.”

    About Byrna Technologies Inc.
    Byrna is a technology company specializing in the development, manufacture, and sale of innovative less-lethal personal security solutions. For more information on the Company, please visit the corporate website here or the Company’s investor relations site here. The Company is the manufacturer of the Byrna® SD personal security device, a state-of-the-art handheld CO2 powered launcher designed to provide a less-lethal alternative to a firearm for the consumer, private security, and law enforcement markets. To purchase Byrna products, visit the Company’s e-commerce store.

    Forward-Looking Statements
    This news release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the securities laws. All statements contained in this news release, other than statements of current and historical fact, are forward-looking. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “plans,” “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” and “believes” and statements that certain actions, events or results “may,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “might,” “occur,” “be achieved,” or “will be taken.” Forward-looking statements include descriptions of currently occurring matters which may continue in the future. Forward-looking statements in this news release include, but are not limited to, our statements related to preliminary revenue results for the fourth fiscal quarter and fiscal year 2024, the timing of the release of full financial results for the quarter, trends regarding brand recognition and future sales potential, sales during the holiday season and during 2025, and the Company’s plans to open Company-owned retail stores. Forward-looking statements are not, and cannot be, a guarantee of future results or events. Forward-looking statements are based on, among other things, opinions, assumptions, estimates, and analyses that, while considered reasonable by the Company at the date the forward-looking information is provided, inherently are subject to significant risks, uncertainties, contingencies, and other factors that may cause actual results and events to be materially different from those expressed or implied.

    Any number of risk factors could affect our actual results and cause them to differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements in this news release, including, but not limited to, disappointing market responses to current or future products or services; prolonged, new, or exacerbated disruption of the Company’s supply chain; the further or prolonged disruption of new product development; production or distribution or delays in entry or penetration of sales channels due to inventory constraints, competitive factors, increased shipping costs or freight interruptions; prototype, parts and material shortages, particularly of parts sourced from limited or sole source providers; determinations by third party controlled distribution channels not to carry or reduce inventory of the Company’s products; determinations by advertisers to prohibit marketing of some or all Byrna products; the loss of marketing partners; potential cancellations of existing or future orders including as a result of any fulfillment delays, introduction of competing products, negative publicity, or other factors; product design defects or recalls; litigation, enforcement proceedings or other regulatory or legal developments; changes in consumer or political sentiment affecting product demand; regulatory factors including the impact of commerce and trade laws and regulations; import-export related matters or sanctions or embargos that could affect the Company’s supply chain or markets; delays in planned operations related to licensing, registration or permit requirements; and future restrictions on the Company’s cash resources, increased costs and other events that could potentially reduce demand for the Company’s products or result in order cancellations. The order in which these factors appear should not be construed to indicate their relative importance or priority. We caution that these factors may not be exhaustive; accordingly, any forward-looking statements contained herein should not be relied upon as a prediction of actual results. Investors should carefully consider these and other relevant factors, including those risk factors in Part I, Item 1A, (“Risk Factors”) in the Company’s most recent Form 10-K, should understand it is impossible to predict or identify all such factors or risks, should not consider the foregoing list, or the risks identified in the Company’s SEC filings, to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties, and should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. The Company assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable law.

    Investor Contact:
    Tom Colton and Alec Wilson
    Gateway Group, Inc.
    949-574-3860
    BYRN@gateway-grp.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeb Card, Associate Teaching Professor of Anthropology, Miami University

    The ‘black mailbox’ along Highway 375 near Rachel, Nev., a traditional spot for UFO hunters to meet and search the skies near Area 51. AP Photo/John Locher

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    “Investigating the Paranormal”

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.

    I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.

    The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.

    What does the course explore?

    The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.

    As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.

    In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.

    The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.

    As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.

    Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.

    One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.

    The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.

    Jeb Card 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. Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history – https://theconversation.com/understanding-paranormal-beliefs-and-conspiracy-theories-isnt-just-about-misinformation-this-course-unpacks-the-history-242007

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

    For more than a decade, Syrians have been the world’s largest refugee population.

    More than 6 million Syrians have fled the country since 2011, when an uprising against the regime of Bashar Assad transformed into a 13-year civil war. Most ended up in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, while a sizable minority wound up in Europe. But the overthrow of the Assad regime in late 2024 by opposition forces led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has seemingly opened a window for their return, and tens of thousands of former refugees have since made the decision to go back to their homeland.

    How many and who decides to go back, and the circumstances under which they reintegrate into Syrian society, will have enormous implications for both Syria and the countries they resettled in. It also provides an opportunity for migration scholars like ourselves to better understand what happens when refugees finally return home.

    Previous research has shown that Syrian refugees who are trying to decide whether to return are motivated more by conditions in Syria than by policy decisions where they’ve resettled. But individual experiences also play an important role. Counterintuitively, refugees who have been exposed to violence during the Syrian civil war are actually more tolerant of and better at assessing the risk of returning to Syria, research has shown.

    But such research was conducted while Assad was still in power, and it has only been several weeks since Assad fell. As a result, it’s unclear how many Syrians will decide to go back. After all, the current government is transitional, and the country is not fully unified.

    The risk of return

    In the month after Assad’s fall, about 125,000 Syrians headed home, primarily from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But for the majority of those yet to return, important questions and considerations remain.

    First and foremost, what will governance look like under the transitional government? So far, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s rule under Ahmed al-Sharaa has suggested the group will embrace inclusivity toward Syria’s diverse array of ethnic and religious minorities. Even so, some observers worry about the group’s prior connections to militant Islamist groups, including al-Qaida.

    Similarly, initial fears about restrictions on women’s participation in public life have mostly been assuaged, despite the transitional government appointing only two women to office.

    Syrians debating whether to return home must also confront the economic devastation wrought by years of war, government mismanagement and corruption, and international sanctions placed on the Assad regime.

    Sanctions blocking the entry of medications and equipment, along with Assad’s bombing of infrastructure throughout the war, have crippled the country’s medical system.

    In 2024, 16.7 million Syrians – more than half the country’s population – were in need of essential humanitarian assistance, even as very little was available. In early 2025, the U.S. announced that it was extending a partial, six-month reprieve of sanctions to allow humanitarian groups to provide basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity.

    But rebuilding the country’s infrastructure will take much longer, and Syrian refugees will have to weigh whether they are better off remaining in their host countries. This is especially true for those who have worked to build new lives over a long period in exile from Syria.

    The caretaker Syrian government will also have to address the issue of property restitution. Many individuals may want to return home only if they indeed have a home to return to. And the policy of forced property transfers and the settlement by Alawite and minority groups allied to the Assad regime in former Sunni areas vacated during the war complicates the issue.

    Continued welcome in Europe?

    Since the start of the civil war, approximately 1.3 million Syrians have sought protection in Europe, the majority of them arriving in 2015 and 2016 and settling in countries such as Germany and Sweden. As of December 2023, 780,000 individuals still held refugee status and subsidiary protection – an additional form of international protection – with the remainder having received either long-term residency or citizenship.

    Syria’s 13-year civil war reduced many homes to rubble.
    Ercin Erturk/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Subsidiary protection was granted to those who didn’t meet the stringent requirements for refugee status under the Geneva Conventions – which requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group – but “would face a real risk of suffering serious harm” if returned to their countries of origin.

    Recognition rates for Syrians have remained consistently high between 2015 and 2023, but the breakdown between subsidiary protection and refugee status has fluctuated over the years, with 81% receiving refugee status in 2015 versus 68% receiving subsidiary protection in 2023.

    For Syrians in the EU who hold refugee status or subsidiary protection, as well as for those with pending asylum claims, the future is very uncertain. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, EU law allows governments to revoke, end or refuse to renew their status if the reason to offer protection has ceased, which many countries believe is the case after Assad’s fall.

    Since then, at least 12 European countries have suspended asylum applications of Syrian nationals. Some nations, such as Austria, have threatened to implement a program of “orderly return and deportation.”

    Conditions in Turkey and Lebanon

    A much larger number of Syrians obtained protection in neighboring countries, namely Turkey (2.9 million), Lebanon (755,000) and Jordan (611,000), though estimates of unregistered Syrians are much higher. In Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees, Syrians are afforded only temporary protection status.

    In theory, this status allows them access to work, health care and education. But in practice, Syrian refugees in Turkey have not always been able to enjoy these rights. Coupled with anti-immigrant sentiments worsened by the 2023 earthquake and presidential election, life has remained difficult for many.

    And while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly stated that Syrians should return home according to their own timeline, his previous scapegoating of the refugee population indicates that he may ultimately like to see them returned – especially as many in Turkey now believe Syrian refugees have no reason to stay in the country.

    Syrians in Lebanon, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees per capita, face even greater economic and legal challenges. The country is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and its stringent domestic asylum law has granted residency to only 17% of the more than a million Syrians who live in the country.

    Lebanon has been pressuring Syrian refugees to leave the country for years through policies of marginalization and forced deportation, which have intensified in recent months with a government scheme to deport Syrians not registered with the United Nations. As of 2023, 84% of Syrian families were living in extreme poverty. Their vulnerability was exacerbated by the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, which led 425,000 Syrians to escape war once again and return to Syria even though conditions at the time were not safe.

    Testing the water

    Offering go-and-see visits – whereby one member of a family is allowed to return to a home country to evaluate the situation and subsequently permitted to reenter the host country without losing their legal status – is the norm in many refugee situations. The policy is being used at present for Ukrainians in Europe and was used in the past for Bosnian and South Sudanese refugees.

    The same policy could serve Syrian refugees now – indeed, Turkey recently implemented such a plan. But above all, we believe returns to Syria should be voluntary, not forced. Getting the conditions right for returning refugees will have enormous implications for rebuilding the country and keeping the peace – or not – in the years to come.

    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. Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision – https://theconversation.com/assads-fall-opens-window-for-syrian-refugees-to-head-home-but-for-many-it-wont-be-an-easy-decision-247051

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katie Scofield, Assistant Instructional Professor in Political Science, Texas A&M University-San Antonio

    Everything is bigger in Texas, except maybe its democracy. Luis Diaz Devesa/Moment via Getty

    While concerns about the future of American democracy dominate headlines worldwide, millions of Texans are already seeing a rapid decline in democratic standards.

    In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion-inducing medications to a woman in Collin County, Texas, alleging that the shipment violated Texas’ near-total ban on abortion.

    Two months earlier, Paxton’s office had sued to block a federal rule protecting women’s out-of-state medical records from criminal investigation. And in 2022, it sued the Biden administration over federal guidelines requiring doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.

    Paxton’s lawsuits – alongside the state’s restrictive abortion policies – raise troubling questions about individual privacy and women’s bodily autonomy in Texas, where I live and teach. And they’re indicative of a broader problem. As my research on democracy and human rights shows, the state government is becoming increasingly antidemocratic.

    Scholars examine a number of factors to determine the health of a democracy. Elections must be free and fair. There should be freedom of expression and belief, multiple competitive political parties and minimal corruption. A democratic government must also respect individual freedom.

    On many of these metrics, I believe Texas falls short.

    Are Texas elections free and fair?

    Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the United States, including strict voter ID laws, stringent limits on mail-in and absentee ballots and no online voter registration.

    Republicans, who passed each of these policies, claim their concern is a democratic one – election integrity. Yet, when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered a US$25,000 reward to anyone who could prove voter fraud in the 2020 election, it led to just one arrest.

    The Texas Legislature nonetheless pledged to pass an even more restrictive voting bill in 2021, referencing “purity of the ballot box,” an old Jim Crow phrase. Democratic lawmakers ended up fleeing the state to paralyze the state assembly and keep the most egregious parts of the bill from passing.

    Healthy democracies also have robust competition between multiple parties so that voters have real choices at the polls.

    Yet since its current constitution was written in 1876, Texas has effectively been a one-party state governed by conservatives. No Democrat has won statewide office since 1994 – the longest Democrats have been locked out of statewide office in any state.

    Money in politics

    Texas puts no limits on individual campaign contributions to the governor, one of just 12 U.S. states that lacks this common anti-corruption measure.

    This has allowed Texas’ current governor, Greg Abbott, who has been in office since 2015, to raise vast sums of money. In the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race – the most expensive in the state’s history at $212 million – Abbott outspent his Democratic opponent by almost $50 million. In 2018, he had 90 times more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent.

    Texas’ lack of effective campaign finance regulations has given big donors access to power in the form of gubernatorial appointments.

    An in-depth investigation by The Texas Tribune in 2022 revealed that 27 of the 41 members of the governor’s COVID-19 task force were campaign donors who had collectively paid $6 million toward the governor’s reelection. Many were business owners who had a vested interest in reopening the state.

    Freedom of expression

    Texas is also at the center of a national struggle over academic freedom, a key component of free expression.

    Texas passed a law in 2023 requiring public universities to close their diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, offices, depriving the most vulnerable student communities of resources such as scholarships, mental health programs and career workshops.

    The Texas Senate is considering expanding this legislation to prohibit “DEI curriculum and course content.”

    The mere threat appears to be squelching freedom of thought and intellectual exploration in Texas universities already. The University of North Texas in November started editing course titles and syllabi to remove identity-based topics.

    On Jan. 14, Abbott threatened to fire the president of Texas A&M University – a part of my university system – if faculty attended an academic conference showcasing the work of Black, Latino and Indigenous scholars.

    Human rights at the border

    Abbott’s campaign to control the U.S.-Mexico border has raised concerns among human rights groups about civil rights in the state.

    In March of 2021, Abbott declared a state of emergency in counties on the Texas border, allowing him to deploy the Texas National Guard there. The initiative, Operation Lone Star, was supposed to stop migrants from crossing the border outside official government checkpoints.

    Since border enforcement is a federal authority, however, the troops have mostly enforced state laws on trespassing or drugs and weapons possession. Guardsmen have also participated in busing migrants to Democratic-run cities such as New York and Chicago and built razor-wire barriers in the Rio Grande.

    The result is an $11 billion policing program that has largely targeted Latino American citizens – not immigrants. Fully 96% of those arrested on trespassing charges are Latino, and 75% of those facing court proceedings for that and other crimes as a result of Operation Lone Star are U.S. citizens.

    Gov. Greg Abbott, left, and Donald Trump greet Texas National Guard troops in Edinburg, Texas, on Nov. 19, 2023.
    Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images

    Women’s freedoms

    Finally, women’s right to bodily autonomy is under threat in Texas, which has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws.

    At least three women have died as a result of doctors being afraid to treat their miscarriages. Overall, maternal mortality rates have increased by 56% since the ban was imposed in 2021. Scary statistics haven’t stopped the state’s plans to tighten its ban.

    The 2025 Texas legislative session began with Republican legislators having prefiled several bills aimed at ending abortion by mail services, including one that would reclassify common abortion pills as controlled substances like Valium or Ambien. Doctors warn that this reclassification could also make it harder for them to disperse these medications quickly in life-threatening emergencies.

    And a handful of rural Texas counties have made it illegal to transport women seeking out-of-state abortions on their roads.

    As Texas goes, so goes the nation?

    The question of whether a government is democratic is often not black or white. It should be viewed on a sliding scale.

    Freedom House, a nonpartisan international democracy watchdog, ranks countries on a 100-point scale based on the factors I mentioned earlier, among others, and labels countries as “free,” “partly-free” and “not free.”

    The freest country in 2024, Finland, had a score of 100. The U.S. has been sliding down the rankings, receiving a score of 83 in 2024 – down from 94 in 2010. It’s still solidly in the “free” category, but U.S. democracy looks less like Germany’s and more like Romania’s. The antidemocratic policy changes made in Texas and a handful of other states contribute to this slide.

    Freedom House doesn’t rank states, but if it did, Texas would likely still rate as a “free” democracy. There is space for dissent, opposition and free speech. Democratic politicians have occasional political victories.

    But Texas is decidedly less democratic than the U.S. at large. Democracy here is not lost, but I fear Texas is in danger of becoming only “partly-free.”

    Katie Scofield 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. I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties – https://theconversation.com/i-study-democracy-worldwide-heres-how-texas-is-eroding-human-rights-free-expression-and-civil-liberties-246936

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Schumer, Murphy, Kim Lead 46 Senators in Introducing Resolution Condemning Pardons of Individuals Found Guilty of Assaulting Capitol Police Officers

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

    Resolution comes after Trump pardons 1,500 Jan 6 insurrectionists—including those convicted of violently assaulted police officers

    Murray will seek unanimous consent to pass the resolution this week

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Andy Kim (D-NJ) will lead a group of 46 senators in introducing a new resolution condemning the pardons of individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police Officers. The resolution follows the move by President Trump, on the first day of his second term, to grant full, complete, and unconditional pardons to over 1,500 people charged with committing crimes in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and to commute the sentences of 14 others, including leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, far-right militias. Among those pardoned by Trump were 169 people who pled guilty to assaulting police officers on January 6th.  During the siege of the Capitol that day, over 80 U.S. Capitol Police Officers were assaulted, as well as over 60 officers from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

    The senators’ resolution, Condemning the pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police Officers, simply states: “Resolved, That the Senate disapproves of any pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers.” This week, Senator Murray will seek unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass the resolution.

    In addition to Murray, Schumer, Murphy, and Kim, Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) also cosponsored the resolution. In total, 46 senators signed onto the resolution. A PDF of the resolution is HERE.


    “I refuse to allow President Trump to rewrite what happened on January 6th—armed insurrectionists, incited by Trump himself, broke into the U.S. Capitol and violently assaulted Capitol Police officers in their attempt to overthrow a free and fair election,”     said Senator Murray. “Insurrectionists cracked the ribs of police officers and smashed spinal disks. Donald Trump’s pardons are a wholesale endorsement of political violence—as long as it serves Donald Trump. Affirming that U.S. Senators condemn unconditional pardons for people who were found guilty of violently assaulting Capitol Police officers should be the easiest thing in the world. If Republicans care even the tiniest bit about law enforcement, they should be outraged by these pardons. I hope and expect my Republican colleagues will allow this very simple resolution to pass as a show of support for the officers who put their lives on the line to keep senators safe.”

    “The people who invaded the Capitol on January 6th, whether they committed violence or not, broke the law and attempted to thwart democracy. What they did is a serious crime. There’s no gray area here,” said Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “Donald Trump’s made it clear he’s more interested in rewarding lawbreakers and pardoning lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the Capitol, than standing up for law and order. Senate Republicans who experienced the same mayhem on January 6 should join us in condemning this dangerous signal to lawbreakers, so we can make clear that political violence of any kind is unacceptable.”

    “Trump’s pardons of January 6th rioters who viciously assaulted law enforcement officers send a dangerous message: if you’re willing to commit violence in his name, there are no consequences,” said Senator Murphy. “This endorsement of political violence not only undermines our justice system, but it also makes our nation less safe and emboldens those who would attack our democracy.”

    “On January 6th 2021, we witnessed an attack against our sacred Capitol and a brutal assault on police officers upholding their sworn duty. It is shameful for President Trump to issue the pardons and exalt political violence. We all resoundingly condemned the assassination attempts on Trump only to see him bless the violence against a different branch of government. Never should political violence be acceptable,” said Senator Kim.  

    “President Trump’s blanket pardons of armed insurrectionists, who were convicted by juries of everyday Americans, is the ultimate disrespect for police officers who were brutally assaulted on January 6,” said Senator Blumenthal. “These sickening pardons are a clear endorsement of political violence and discredit justice and the rule of law. I urge my Republican colleagues who were protected that terrible day—and who now stay silent—to join in condemning the violence that occurred and standing with the officers who put their lives on the line for their safety.”

    “By attacking law enforcement and trying to block the peaceful transfer of power, the people being pardoned did serious damage to our Capitol and democracy. Some of them attacked and hurt police officers, all received their day in court and were convicted of their crimes. These pardons are a mistake that I strongly disagree with,” said Senator Cantwell.

    “By putting hundreds of violent criminals back on the streets as one of his first acts back in office, President Trump is sending a clear message: it’s open season on law enforcement officers, as long as you’re committing a crime he approves of,” said Senator Coons, co-chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. “I pray that none of these criminals go on to commit further acts of violence, but President Trump’s pardons have made our police officers and our streets less safe.”

    “President Trump is pardoning violent criminals who assaulted police officers and attempted to overturn a fair and free election,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This is an insult to law enforcement across the country and an endorsement of political violence. The very least my Republican colleagues can do to back law enforcement is to support this resolution.”

    “On day one in office—after years of pushing the false narrative that Democrats are ‘soft on crime’ and Republicans truly ‘back the blue’— Donald Trump pardoned over 1,500 violent insurrectionists who assaulted law enforcement officers and stormed our nation’s Capitol in an effort to overturn a free and fair election,” said Senator Duckworth. “Not only are these pardons a gross endorsement of political violence, they’re also an insult to the heroic law enforcement officers who defended our democracy and those who died as a result of that fateful day. If Republicans really cared about upholding democracy and the rule of law, then they’d join us in supporting this simple resolution to condemn President Trump’s pardons.”

    “On January 6, 2021, a mob of Trump-inspired insurrectionists  descended on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election, wielding unspeakable violence against law enforcement officers.  A ‘full, complete, and unconditional’ pardon dishonors the lives of the five law enforcement officers who died as a result of this day, as well as those who are left with life-altering injuries inflicted by these thugs,” said Senator Durbin.  “This resolution ensures that what truly happened that day – the violent, egregious assault on law enforcement officers and the undermining of a Constitutional proceeding – will not be forgotten, even if President Trump has tried to absolve insurrectionists of their crimes.”

    “I was on the House floor, preparing myself and my colleagues for the mob to overrun the Capitol. President Trump’s pardons of these rioters, many of whom attacked policemen—my friends—is a gross misuse of power,” said Senator Gallego. “We must support law enforcement, not the ones who attacked them and tried to take our democracy.”

    “These criminals used flagpoles, fire extinguishers and bear spray to assault the police securing the Capitol on January 6. No one who assaults a police officer should be given a ‘get out of jail free card’ from the President,” said Senator Heinrich.

    “Instead of focusing on steps to strengthen our economy, lower costs, or make communities safer, Donald Trump’s day one priority was pardoning over 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in an attempt to overturn an election, including those convicted of assaulting police officers,” said Senator Kaine. “These deeply offensive pardons are a slap in the face of the law enforcement community—including five Virginians who died after protecting the Capitol that day—the Constitution, the rule of law, and our democracy. I’m joining together with my colleagues to introduce legislation to formally condemn these shameful pardons.”

    “We will never forget the truth of what happened on January 6: A violent mob attacked our democracy, our Capitol, and the brave men and women of the Capitol Police who were defending it, ” said Senator Klobuchar. “These officers deserve our respect, not the release and pardoning of those who assaulted them. Over the last four years, I have led hearings to examine the events leading up to the attack and have worked with Democrats and Republicans to ensure Capitol Police officers have our full support moving forward. The release of and pardons for those who assaulted them is simply wrong.”

    “The pardons that President Trump granted to insurrectionists who desecrated our Capitol and threatened our democracy on January 6 are not only condemnable – they are disrespectful of the law enforcement who show up every day to protect and serve us. When Republicans say they ‘back the blue,’ they are lauding the very violent criminals who left our officers back and blue on that day. Anyone who supports these pardons is supporting crime and violence,” said Senator Markey. 

    “I condemn in the strongest terms President Trump’s disgraceful pardon of more than 1,000 criminals, many of them violent, who overran the U.S. Capitol, desecrated the seat of our democracy, and assaulted law enforcement in their failed attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” Senator Ossoff said.

    “President Trump’s decision to pardon the people who attacked the U.S. Capitol and violently assaulted law enforcement officers, in an effort to overturn a free and fair election, is a clear abuse of power. A President’s allies should never receive special treatment when they’ve committed serious, violent crimes – crimes intended to undermine our democracy. To give these attackers a clean slate not only undermines the rule of law, it emboldens their extreme ideological views and it further erodes Americans’ trust in our government,” said Senator Peters.

    “These pardons were a slap in the face of the Capitol Police who stand up everyday to protect members of Congress.  They have our back; we should have theirs.  Failing to condemn the pardons of the criminals who attacked the Capitol would be a shameful betrayal of these dedicated officers,” said Senator Reed.

    “It’s unconscionable that one of President Trump’s first actions in office was to pardon criminals who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021,” said Senator Rosen. “A number of these convicted felons attacked police officers and injured them. It should not be a partisan issue to fully condemn these actions and President Trump’s pardons.”

    “Pardoning those who were convicted of assaulting police officers who were doing their duty during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is reckless and dangerous,” said Senator Shaheen. “No elected official, especially the President of the United States, should ever do anything that would justify, condone or excuse politically motivated violence. I hope all my colleagues will join us in supporting this resolution to condemn pardons for those found guilty of assaulting police officers on January 6, 2021.”

    “President Trump’s day one agenda was letting violent criminals who beat police officers out of prison. These are people who planned an insurrection, assaulted police officers with metal batons, fire extinguishers, wooden planks, and even admitted to these crimes and pled guilty in court. The brave Capitol Police officers who put themselves in danger to protect our democracy deserve better. We can’t let what actually happened on January 6th, 2021 be rewritten and whitewashed,” said Senator Smith.

    “On January 6, many rioters attacked our Capitol and assaulted, bludgeoned, and bloodied Capitol Police officers and officers from the District of Columbia. Donald Trump’s pardons of these convicted criminals are sickening – they are a gross insult to the brave officers who did their duty and a betrayal of all of law enforcement. I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in sending a simple message: celebrating criminals convicted of beating police officers is unacceptable,” said Senator Van Hollen.

    According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, approximately 1,572 defendants have been federally charged with crimes associated with the attack of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. This includes approximately 598 charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement agents or officers or obstructing those officers during a civil disorder, including approximately 171 defendants charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. As proven in Court, the weapons used and carried on Capitol grounds during the January 6th attack include firearms; OC spray; tasers; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, such as destroyed office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping, and reinforced knuckle gloves.

    Among others, the individuals who assaulted law enforcement officers and were granted full, unconditional pardons by President Trump this week include:

    • Taylor James Johnatakis, of Kingston, Washington, was convicted of three felonies in November 2023, including assaulting officers. Prosecutors said that he “coordinated a violent assault on a line of police officers defending” the Capitol and that video shows he “used a metal barricade to attack officers head on and grabbed one officer to prevent him from defending himself against other attacking rioters.”
    • Julian Khater, who assaulted a U.S. police office—Brian Sicknick—and later pled guilty to assaulting a police officer with a dangerous weapon.
    • Robert Palmer, who attacked police with a fire extinguisher, a wooden plank, and a pole.
    • Tyler Bradley Dykes of Bluffton, South Carolina, who was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for stealing a police riot shield and twice using it against officers. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers.
    • Devlyn Thompson, who hit a police officer with a metal baton.
    • Andrew Taake, of Houston, Texas, who was sentenced to a little more than six years for assaulting law enforcement officers with bear spray and a metal whip.
    • Christopher Quaglin, who federal prosecutors said “viciously assaulted numerous officers” and was one of the most violent rioters, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison.
    • David Dempsey, who, according to prosecutors, “was one of the most violent rioters,” and received 20 years in prison. Prosecutors also said Dempsey had a “very significant history of arrests and convictions” prior to the January 6th attack.
    • Daniel Rodriguez, of Fontana, California, who plunged a stun gun into the neck of Washington Police Officer Michael Fanone multiple times.
    • Ryan Nichols, of Longview, Texas, who assaulted officers with pepper spray, and later on Jan. 6, at his hotel room, he called for additional violence.
    • Howard Richardson, of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, who struck a police officer three times with a flagpole, hard enough to break the flagpole.
    • Robert Sanford, from Chester, Pennsylvania, who hit two police officers in the head with a fire extinguisher and threw a traffic cone at another officer.
    • Jonathan Munafo, of Albany, New York, who punched a police officer, stole the officer’s riot shield, and struck a Capitol office window with two poles.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, McGovern, Lawmakers Blast Trump’s Inaction on High Egg Prices

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    January 27, 2025
    Lawmakers lay out six executive actions that could lower costs.
    “We urge you to make good on your campaign promise to lower food prices for American families.”
    Text of Letter (PDF)
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) led 19 of their colleagues, writing to President Donald Trump, pushing him to take meaningful steps to lower the prices of eggs and other groceries—a problem he largely ignored during his entire first week in office. 
    During his campaign for president, Mr. Trump repeatedly promised he would lower food prices “immediately” if elected. Trump even told the press, “I won on groceries.” But during his first week, he instead focused on attempting to end birthright citizenship, firing inspectors general, and pardoning January 6 attackers, including those who assaulted Capitol police officers. 
    “Your sole action on costs was an executive order that contained only the barest mention of food prices and not a single specific policy to reduce them,” wrote the lawmakers. “You have tools you can use to lower grocery costs and crack down on corporate profiteering, and we write to ask if you will commit to using those tools to make good on your promises to the American people.”
    “To make food more affordable, you should look to the dominant food and grocery companies that have made record profits on the backs of working families who have had to pay higher prices,” continued the lawmakers. 
    For example, last year a Kroger executive admitted in federal court that the company raised the price of eggs and milk “significantly higher than the cost of inflation” in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, a federal court found that the country’s largest egg producers had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy in the mid-2000s as well. Now, egg producers and grocery stores may leverage the current avian flu outbreak as an opportunity to further constrain supply or hike up egg prices to increase profits.
    “If you are indeed committed to lowering food prices, we stand ready to work with you,” wrote the lawmakers. 
    The lawmakers laid out six recommendations for executive actions to lower prices by encouraging competition and fighting price-gouging at each level of the food supply chain:
    Encourage the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prohibit exclusionary contracting by dominant firms in the food industry, making it harder for major retailers and food brands to shut out smaller suppliers and drive up prices at smaller stores.
    Encourage the FTC to issue guidance on potential violations of the Robinson Patman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act within the food industry and take enforcement action where merited. 
    Work with the USDA to increase the number of government contract recipients that are very small businesses and to ensure that government contracting considers the long-term costs of food sector consolidation. 
    Help the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FTC scrutinize, and where appropriate, block mergers and acquisitions in the food and agricultural sectors.
    Encourage the DOJ to prosecute actors in the agricultural and food sectors for price-fixing and other anticompetitive behavior.
    Direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and FTC to form a joint task force to investigate food price manipulation throughout the supply chain. 
    “Americans are looking to you to lower food prices. Instead of working to lower their grocery bills, however, you have used the first week of your administration on attempting to end birthright citizenship, pardoning individuals who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, and renaming a mountain,” concluded the lawmakers. “We urge you to make good on your campaign promise to lower food prices for American families.”

    MIL OSI USA News –