2016 Axle Standards, Part 2: Mountain bikes get 15×110 – Road gets 12mm thru…
Alongside the changes coming to rear wheels with the new Boost 148 standard, two new options will be offered up front in 2016: 15×110 for mountain bikes and 12×100 for road and cyclocross.Starting with the new MTB standard, the goal here is much simpler. Where Boost 148 allows for a wide array of geometry and suspension benefits on top of the stiffer wheel platform, the front has just two missions: : Stiffer wheels and better tire clearance.The current hub standard for mountain bikes is 100mm wide, so going to 110mm is a bigger overall change than the 6mm change in the rear. Presumably, that’ll benefit front wheel stiffness even more.“15×110 can be taken almost as a parallel to the 148, it’s like Boost Front,” says Mike Gann, Niner’s COO. “If people are paranoid about wheel deflection and wheel stiffness, it’s going to make a larger format wheel (read: 29ers) feel different. And it seems like it’s really going to be pursued by a good chunk of the industry.”The change also opens up tire clearance by about 0.4 inches. That’s the difference between shoehorning a 2.5 or almost a full 3.0 tire in the fork. That 3.0 figure, coincidentally, seems to be the poster boy for the upcoming “plus” sized wave of bikes, made much more possible thanks to these new axle standards…Black shows current 100mm spacing, Red shows what 110mm will add.Wheel stiffness will increase thanks to the wider hub base allowing for wider flange spacing, which increases the spoke angle triangulation with the rim. The graphic above shows just how much more room there’ll be by adding 10mm (click to enlarge for a better approximation of what 10mm looks like).Norco’s marketing manager Chris Cook says “15×110 will make stiffer wheels and the see the rider benefit from improved control and handling. This is in consideration to be applied on a new hardtail model. Current spec for full suspension bikes is still 15×100.”And Industry Nine, who already has 148 rear hubs on the market, says “We do have intentions to have 15×110 when the industry as a whole is ready to release those forks.”We reached out to several major suspension manufacturers since you’ll need a new fork to fit the wider wheel, but none were ready to comment on the record. From our conversations with a lot of other folks, though, we’d say springtime should have plenty of announcements.At this point, we’d be remiss if we didn’t give a nod to SRAM for quietly introducing the 110mm width to XC-level forks with the new RS-1 fork. Sure, 20mm thru axles have used 110mm spacing for years. And sure, it needs their special 27mm “Torque Tube” internal axle, but it’s almost as if they knew what was coming (and yes, that’s tongue in cheek…they absolutely knew what was coming). Considering everyone will be remaking their hubs to fit the new 15×110 standard, perhaps some will take the opportunity to build in compatibility with the RS-1 and increase wheel options usable with this inverted super fork. DT Swiss and American Classic already have RS-1 hubs in the works or on the market.For what it’s worth, American Classic’s Bill Shook told us they’re going to make a separate 15×110 hub (that’s in testing now) rather than make end caps to work with the RS-1 version because the RS-1 hub is so overbuilt to handle the additional stresses. Their 15×110 will be based on current designs.12mm Thru Axle for Road12mm thru axles will split the difference between current 15mm and 9mm QR.Perhaps less exciting, and certainly less controversial, is the likelihood of 12mm thru axles for road and cyclocross applications. There’s simply no denying the increased stiffness and potentially quicker wheel changes afforded by thru axles. And theoretically they’re a safer, more secure option for use with disc brakes, too. But unlike so many road standards that were borrowed by mountain bikes, the current 15mm front thru axle used on road bikes came from the dirt. As such, it’s quite possibly overbuilt for road bikes. It’s also quite possible some brands are simply looking for a way to spin a marketing web about how their new 12mm thru axle is optimized for road.Niner, who has both a gravel and cyclocross bike now, gave us a pretty straightforward look into what brands are thinking on this one:“Ah yes, 12mm thru – this one has the most internal debate,” says Gann. “If you ask the hardcore racer and more road inspired customer, there are concerns about wheel change speed or having a new frame that’s not compatible with existing high end wheels. That said, there are improvements to be had in fork stiffness over a QR.“The benefit to the 12×100 standard is that there is no change, except for the axle diameter. This means even if companies have already established a 15×100 carbon road or cross fork, they can easily change it over, as most of those forks have the axle hole as an alloy insert or post-machining process, so it is quite easy just to make that hole 12mm in diameter instead of 15mm for future production.”“The front seems to be just half way between QR and 15, which may have compromises off either, but it seems like the road players just want to have their own thing. And it may be an aesthetic thing, where some folks have a real spindly, svelte looking fork ending in this big thru axle, so a 12mm one might make it look better. And the stiffness thing is there. To put it bluntly, we gotta look at everything that’s coming down the pipeline, but we only seriously contemplate the ones that have a real performance gain and are the right tech for the application, or whether it’s just marketing spin. That said, we’re pretty close to having 100% of our bikes running 15mm thru axles on the front and we don’t have any complaints. Plus, I don’t think bike shops are screaming for more standards.”Keeping in mind that Niner is much more off-road oriented, brands with an actual road line are already committing to it. Some of our (anonymous) sources say two dominant California-based bike brands will be hitting 12×100 front axles HARD for 2016.Norco’s Cook said there’s always the possibility of incorporating these new standards into future products, and they’re assessing 12mm thru axles for a new road platform, adding “12×100 is the lightest of the thru axle systems, making it ideal for performance oriented road bikes.”How much lighter is it? Don’t expect much savings over a 15mm thru axle. As diameters decrease, wall thicknesses must usually increase to maintain the same strength. We’re likely looking at just a few grams. So, maybe it’s mostly about aesthetics, but combined with Shimano’s new flat-mount caliper standard, that could make for some pretty lithe forks.The nice thing about this new standard is that a huge percentage of modern wheels will already work with it. For most, it’s just a switch of the end caps to go from QR or 15mm thru axle to 12mm. I9’s Jacob McGahey says they haven’t seen a whole lot of demand for them yet, but they’ll offer 12mm end caps when they’re needed.So, ready for some new wheels and forks?
People’s United Bank,People’s United Financial, Inc (NASDAQ: PBCT) today reported net income of $58.5 million, or $0.19 per share, for the third quarter of 2013, compared to $62.2 million, or $0.18 per share, for the third quarter of 2012, and $62.1 million, or $0.20 per share, for the second quarter of 2013. Operating earnings were $60.8 million, or $0.20 per share, for the third quarter of 2013, compared to $64.4 million, or $0.19 per share, for the third quarter of 2012, and $62.4 million, or $0.20 per share, for the second quarter of 2013.The Company’s Board of Directors declared a $0.1625 per share quarterly dividend, payable November 15, 2013 to shareholders of record on November 1, 2013. Based on the closing stock price on October 16, 2013, the dividend yield on People’s United Financial common stock is 4.4 percent.During the third quarter of 2013 the Company repurchased 2.1 million shares of People’s United Financial common stock at a weighted average price of $14.33 per share and, during the first nine months of 2013, the Company repurchased 24.5 million shares of common stock at a weighted average price of $13.39 per share. Under the existing share repurchase authorization, 8.9 million shares of common stock remain available for repurchase.”Our performance this quarter reflects the continued benefits from strategic investments in people, products and services, as well as an expanded geographic footprint developed over the past three years,” stated Jack Barnes, President and Chief Executive Officer. “Ongoing progress in loan and deposit growth, both this quarter and over the past 12 quarters, is a tribute to both our relationship managers and customers. We remain focused on delivering shareholder value by leveraging opportunities within existing markets, including strengthening our position in the Boston and New York MSAs.””On an operating basis, earnings were $61 million, or 20 cents per share, this quarter,” stated Kirk W. Walters, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. “The net interest margin reflects the impact of continued strong loan originations, while non-interest income demonstrates the ongoing improvement in most of our fee-based businesses. Cost control remains an important area of focus. The modest increase in operating expenses this quarter primarily reflects higher payroll-related costs, professional and outside service fees, and real estate owned expenses.”Walters concluded, “We certainly are pleased with the sustained improvement in asset quality. Our low loan charge-off ratio is a reflection of the Company’s historically strong underwriting standards, the economic strength of the geography in which we operate and the resilience of our customers. Of particular note, acquired non-performing loans have declined $27 million, or 20 percent annualized, and originated non-performing loans have declined $16 million, or 8 percent annualized, from December 31, 2012.”Net loan charge-offs as a percentage of average total loans on an annualized basis were 0.17 percent in the third quarter of 2013 compared to 0.19 percent in the second quarter of 2013 and 0.18 percent in the third quarter of 2012. For the originated loan portfolio, non-performing loans equaled 1.10 percent of loans at September 30, 2013, compared to 1.18 percent at June 30, 2013 and 1.45 percent at September 30, 2012. Non-performing assets (excluding acquired non-performing loans) equaled 1.26 percent of originated loans, REO and repossessed assets at September 30, 2013, compared to 1.33 percent at June 30, 2013 and 1.59 percent at September 30, 2012.Operating return on average assets was 0.78 percent for the third quarter of 2013, compared to 0.81 percent for the second quarter of 2013 and 0.91 percent for the third quarter of 2012. Operating return on average tangible stockholders’ equity was 9.8 percent for the third quarter of 2013, compared to 9.3 percent for the second quarter of 2013 and 8.6 percent for the third quarter of 2012.At September 30, 2013, People’s United Financial’s tier 1 common and total risk-based capital ratios were 11.4 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively, and the tangible equity ratio stood at 8.5 percent. People’s United Bank’s tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios were 11.8 percent and 13.2 percent, respectively, at September 30, 2013.People’s United Financial, a diversified financial services company with $32 billion in assets, provides commercial and retail banking, as well as wealth management services through a network of 410 branches in Connecticut, New York,Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Through its subsidiaries, People’s United Financial provides equipment financing, brokerage and insurance services. Assets managed and administered, which are not reported as assets of People’s United Financial, totaled $15.5 billion at September 30, 2013.3Q 2013 Financial HighlightsSummaryNet income was $58.5 million, or $0.19 per share.Operating earnings were $60.8 million, or $0.20 per share.Net interest income totaled $223.5 million in 3Q13 compared to $220.9 million in 2Q13.Interest income on acquired loans decreased $4.6 million from 2Q13 to $29.4 million.Net interest margin decreased 3 basis points from 2Q13 to 3.30%.The effect of one more calendar day in 3Q13 benefited the margin by 2 basis points.The effect of new loan volume at lower rates reduced the margin by 6 basis points.Provision for loan losses totaled $12.1 million.Net loan charge-offs totaled $9.6 million, of which $6.4 million related to loans with specific reserves established in prior periods.Reflects a $6.3 million increase in the originated allowance for loan losses due to loan growth.Includes a provision for loan losses on acquired loans of $2.6 million, relating almost entirely to a single credit.Non-interest income was $84.0 million in 3Q13 compared to $86.1 million in 2Q13.Insurance revenue increased $2.0 million from 2Q13, primarily reflecting the seasonal nature of insurance renewals.Bank service charges increased $1.2 million from 2Q13, in part due to the seasonal nature of certain fee categories.Operating lease income increased $0.6 million from 2Q13.Net gains on sales of acquired loans totaled $5.8 million in 2Q13 (none in 3Q13).Assets under administration and those under full discretionary management, neither of which are reported as assets of People’s United Financial, totaled $10.5 billion and $5.0 billion, respectively, at September 30, 2013.Non-interest expense totaled $212.5 million in 3Q13 compared to $205.8 million in 2Q13.Operating non-interest expense was $209.2 million in 3Q13 compared to $205.4 million in 2Q13. Excluding operating lease expense and amortization of acquisition-related intangible assets, operating non-interest expense totaled $194.9 million in 3Q13 compared to $191.2 million in 2Q13.Compensation and benefits expense increased $2.5 million from 2Q13, primarily reflecting higher payroll-related costs in 3Q13.Compared to 2Q13, professional and outside service fees increased $1.2 million and real estate owned expenses increased $0.5 million.Efficiency ratio in 3Q13 increased to 63.6% from 62.7% in 2Q13, primarily reflecting the increase in total operating expenses.Effective income tax rate was 29.5% for 3Q13 and 31.5% for the first nine months of 2013, compared to 32.4% for the full-year of 2012.Commercial BankingCommercial banking loans increased $212 million, or 5% annualized, from June 30, 2013.Average commercial banking loans totaled $16.6 billion in 3Q13, an increase of $436 million, or 11% annualized, from 2Q13.The ratio of originated non-performing commercial banking loans to originated commercial banking loans was 1.01% at September 30, 2013 compared to 1.10% at June 30, 2013.Non-performing commercial banking assets, excluding acquired non-performing loans, totaled $177.1 millionat September 30, 2013 compared to $183.8 million at June 30, 2013.Net loan charge-offs totaled $7.2 million, or 0.17% annualized, of average commercial banking loans in 3Q13, compared to $6.9 million, or 0.17% annualized, in 2Q13.For the originated commercial banking portfolio, the allowance for loan losses as a percentage of loans was 1.02% atSeptember 30, 2013 compared to 1.05% at June 30, 2013.The commercial banking originated allowance for loan losses represented 101% of originated non-performing commercial banking loans at September 30, 2013, compared to 96% at June 30, 2013.Commercial deposits totaled $6.3 billion at September 30, 2013 compared to $5.8 billion at June 30, 2013.Retail BankingResidential mortgage loans increased $152 million, or 15% annualized, from June 30, 2013.Average residential mortgage loans totaled $4.1 billion in 3Q13, an increase of $109 million, or 11% annualized, from 2Q13.The ratio of originated non-performing residential mortgage loans to originated residential mortgage loans was 1.51% at September 30, 2013 compared to 1.58% at June 30, 2013.Net loan charge-offs totaled $0.4 million, or 0.04% annualized, of average residential mortgage loans in 3Q13, compared to $2.3 million, or 0.23% annualized, in 2Q13.Home equity loans increased $5 million from June 30, 2013.Average home equity loans totaled $2.0 billion in 3Q13, unchanged from 2Q13.The ratio of originated non-performing home equity loans to originated home equity loans was 1.00% atSeptember 30, 2013 compared to 1.06% at June 30, 2013.Net loan charge-offs totaled $1.6 million, or 0.30% annualized, of average home equity loans in 3Q13, compared to $1.4 million, or 0.28% annualized, in 2Q13.Retail deposits totaled $15.9 billion at September 30, 2013 compared to $16.2 billion at June 30, 2013.Conference CallOn October 17, 2013, at 5 p.m., Eastern Time, People’s United Financial will host a conference call to discuss this earnings announcement. The call may be heard through www.peoples.com(link is external) by selecting “Investor Relations” in the “About Us” section on the home page, and then selecting “Conference Calls” in the “News and Events” section. Additional materials relating to the call may also be accessed at People’s United Bank’s web site. The call will be archived on the web site and available for approximately 90 days.Certain statements contained in this release are forward-looking in nature. These include all statements about People’s United Financial’s plans, objectives, expectations and other statements that are not historical facts, and usually use words such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “should” and similar expressions. Such statements represent management’s current beliefs, based upon information available at the time the statements are made, with regard to the matters addressed. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause People’s United Financial’s actual results or financial condition to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by such statements. Factors of particular importance to People’s United Financial include, but are not limited to: (1) changes in general, national or regional economic conditions; (2) changes in interest rates; (3) changes in loan default and charge-off rates; (4) changes in deposit levels; (5) changes in levels of income and expense in non-interest income and expense related activities; (6) residential mortgage and secondary market activity; (7) changes in accounting and regulatory guidance applicable to banks; (8) price levels and conditions in the public securities markets generally; (9) competition and its effect on pricing, spending, third-party relationships and revenues; (10) the successful integration of acquisitions; and (11) changes in regulation resulting from or relating to financial reform legislation. People’s United Financial does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.Access Information About People’s United Financial at www.peoples.com(link is external). Commercial real estate7,771.2262.74.517,027.3279.45.30 Short-term investments$ 159.5$ 0.20.20%$ 400.7$ 0.70.24% People’s United Financial, Inc. Three months endedAverage operating net interest income (annualized) by average total earning assets. Residential mortgage3,906.037.63.84 Loans: September 30, 2013, June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012, respectively. Net interest income$ 223.5$ 220.9$ 219.3$ 225.1$ 234.8 Provision for loan losses12.19.212.412.015.1 Non-interest income84.086.182.984.381.4 Non-interest expense212.5205.8212.0207.4208.9 Operating non-interest expense (1)209.2205.4204.0204.5205.7 Income before income tax expense82.992.077.890.092.2 Net income58.562.152.561.262.2 Operating earnings (1)60.862.457.963.264.4 Three Months EndedNine Months Ended Retail repurchase agreements548.70.30.20492.30.20.19 Residential mortgage4,047.2104.83.453,830.5110.53.84 (2) Annualized. Operating earnings exclude from net income those items that management considers to be of such a non-recurringor infrequent nature that, by excluding such items (net of income taxes), People’s United Financial’s results can bemeasured and assessed on a more consistent basis from period to period. Items excluded from operating earnings,which include, but are not limited to: (i) merger-related expenses, including acquisition integration and other costs;(ii) charges related to executive-level management separation costs; (iii) severance-related costs; and FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS – Continued General: September 30,(dollars in millions, except per share data)20132012Earnings Data: $711.83.90% NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND RECONCILIATION TO GAAP – continued Total funding liabilities25,485.9$ 87.30.46%22,253.1$ 79.30.48% Time4,567.036.91.085,105.538.71.01 Liabilities and stockholders’ equity: (3) See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP. Non-interest-bearing$ 4,973.0$ — %$ 4,576.5$ — % Federal Home Loan Bank advances2,387.82.20.371,778.32.00.44 average assets (annualized)0.78%0.81%0.77%0.87%0.91%0.79%0.91% Yield/ Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)2013201320132012201220132012Operating earnings$ 60.8$ 62.4$ 57.9$ 63.2$ 64.4$ 181.1$ 190.7 Commercial banking originated allowance Trading account securities, at fair value6.36.46.56.3 Securities available for sale, at fair value4,194.84,439.94,532.33,651.0 Securities held to maturity, at amortized cost56.156.156.256.2 Federal Home Loan Bank stock, at cost121.9115.473.773.7 Total securities4,379.14,617.84,668.73,787.2Loans held for sale28.568.377.060.0Loans: Other assets3,689.4 TANGIBLE EQUITY RATIO Common shares307.72309.59320.65331.27335.95 Total loans22,341.4690.64.1220,573.6731.14.74 Net loan charge-offs to average total loans (annualized)0.17%0.19%0.24%0.19%0.18% Non-performing assets to originated loans, non-interest expense: (dollars in millions)BalanceInterestRateBalanceInterestRate Stockholders’ equity5,160.8 Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30, Total loans20,759.0241.84.66 Consumer2,163.219.83.67 AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET, INTEREST AND YIELD/RATE ANALYSIS (1) Operating return on People’s United Financial, Inc. (3) Includes commercial and industrial loans and equipment financing loans. Operating earnings$ 60.8$ 62.4$ 57.9$ 63.2$ 64.4$ 181.1$ 190.7 Notes and debentures639.05.93.69653.16.13.75 (iv) writedowns of banking house assets, are generally also excluded when calculating the efficiency ratio. Total borrowings3,462.92.70.313,059.62.60.34 Federal Home Loan Bank advances2,370.62,206.41,178.3629.3 Federal funds purchased704.0931.0619.0479.0 Retail repurchase agreements539.5487.7588.2415.0 Other borrowings7.31.01.01.0 Total borrowings3,621.43,626.12,386.51,524.3Notes and debentures639.0638.9659.0160.4Other liabilities 423.0420.2489.6421.3 Total liabilities26,873.026,667.025,285.623,468.6 Savings, interest-bearing checking and money market12,281.924.50.2711,454.030.10.35 Operating net interest margin (5) TANGIBLE BOOK VALUE PER SHARE Operating dividend payout ratio82.7%83.2%91.2%84.8%84.3%85.6%86.2% operating earnings for the respective period. (in millions, except per share data)20132013201320122012 Three Months Ended Borrowings: Federal funds purchased295.90.20.23 Compensation and benefits 106.9104.4108.297.4106.7 Occupancy and equipment 36.736.937.937.936.5 Professional and outside service fees16.114.913.916.815.8 Operating lease expense7.87.67.57.56.8 Amortization of other acquisition-related intangible assets6.56.66.56.76.7 Other non-interest expense38.535.438.041.136.4 Total non-interest expense (1)212.5205.8212.0207.4208.9 Income before income tax expense82.992.077.890.092.2Income tax expense 24.429.925.328.830.0 Net income$ 58.5$ 62.1$ 52.5$ 61.2$ 62.2 Three months endedAverage Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions, except per share data)2013201320132012201220132012Net income, as reported$ 58.5$ 62.1$ 52.5$ 61.2$ 62.2$ 173.1$ 184.1Adjustments to arrive at operating earnings: (1) Total non-interest expense includes $3.3 million, $0.4 million, $8.0 million, $2.9 million and $3.2 million of non-operating expenses for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2013, June 30, 2013, March 31, 2013, Dec. 31, 2012 and Sept. 30, 2012, respectively. See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME Net loan charge-offs to NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND RECONCILIATION TO GAAP – continued $227.83.27% 22,629.7 and money market11,661.79.00.31 (3) Includes commercial and industrial loans and equipment financing loans. 3.82% Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)20132013201320122012Commercial Banking: Total deposits21,372.222.10.41 Three Months EndedNine Months Ended net interest income: September 30, 2013June 30, 2013 Yield/Average Tangible assets$ 29,377$ 29,205$ 28,451$ 28,170$ 26,416 OPERATING NON-INTEREST EXPENSE AND EFFICIENCY RATIO Assets: Total loans22,915.6232.54.0622,369.2230.04.11 Securities (2)4,528.924.02.124,556.924.32.13 Consumer2,140.918.63.482,138.618.73.49 September 30, 2012 earnings per share: Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,(in millions, except per share data)20132013201320122012Interest and dividend income: Securities (2)4,544.572.82.133,109.459.32.54 Commercial real estate$ 69.8$ 70.2$ 86.5$ 84.4$ 88.5 Commercial and industrial66.768.650.954.864.6 Equipment financing21.227.824.827.237.4 Total157.7166.6162.2166.4190.5Retail: margin is cost recovery income on acquired loans. Operating net interest margin is calculated by dividing Other assets3,592.3 stockholders’ equity$ 31,216.2 Total assets$ 31,216.2 charges, amortization of other acquisition-related intangible assets, losses on real estate assets and non-recurringexpenses) (the numerator) to (ii) net interest income on a fully taxable equivalent (“FTE”) basis plus total Federal Home Loan Bank advances390.71.31.31 Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)2013201320132012201220132012Dividends paid$ 50.3$ 51.9$ 52.8$ 53.6$ 54.3$ 155.0$ 164.3 Non-interest-bearing$ 5,077.0$ — %$ 4,960.8$ — % Savings, interest-bearing checking and money market12,482.38.20.2612,316.48.30.27 Time4,507.111.91.054,558.212.21.07 Net interest margin Deposits 20.120.520.821.922.1 Borrowings 2.72.62.32.01.8 Notes and debentures5.96.16.33.01.6 Total interest expense28.729.229.426.925.5 Net interest income223.5220.9219.3225.1234.8Provision for loan losses 12.19.212.412.015.1 Net interest income after provision for loan losses211.4211.7206.9213.1219.7Non-interest income: Residential mortgage59.559.666.865.060.6 Home equity19.921.022.221.014.6 Other consumer0.10.10.20.30.3 Total79.580.789.286.375.5 Total originated non-performing loans (1)237.2247.3251.4252.7266.0REO: Assets: Commercial (3)8,470.288.74.198,424.689.44.25 Retail repurchase agreements478.40.20.23 Total assets$ 28,234.3 Nine Months Ended NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND RECONCILIATION TO GAAP – continued Other liabilities425.8 September 30, 2013September 30, 2012 Yield/ AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET, INTEREST AND YIELD/RATE ANALYSIS (1) of originated loans1.10%1.18%1.25%1.30%1.45%Non-performing assets as a percentage of: Less: Goodwill and other Total stockholders’ equity$ 4,638$ 4,678$ 4,886$ 5,039$ 5,107 Average total assets$ 31,216$ 30,799$ 30,178$ 28,991$ 28,234$ 30,735$ 27,818 Basic and diluted earnings per common share$ 0.55$ 0.54 Short-term investments$ 179.4$ -0.21%$ 152.4$ 0.10.18% Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)2013201320132012201220132012Net interest income (FTE basis)$ 227.8$ 225.2$ 223.3$ 228.6$ 237.8$ 676.3$ 711.8Adjustments to arrive at operating (2) Average balances and yields for securities available for sale are based on amortized cost. The tangible equity ratio is the ratio of (i) tangible stockholders’ equity (total stockholders’ equity less goodwill and other acquisition-related intangible assets) (the numerator) to (ii) tangible assets (total assets less goodwill andother acquisition-related intangible assets) (the denominator). Tangible book value per share is calculated by People’s United Financial, Inc. 3.33% 425.8 3.30% Commercial real estate6,952.291.35.25 Tangible equity ratio8.5%8.7%9.6%10.2%11.2% (2) Represents acquired loans that meet People’s United Financial’s definition of a non-performing loan but are not, under the accounting model for acquired loans, subject to classification as non-accrual in the same manner as originated loans. Because acquired loans are initially recorded at an amount estimated to be collectible, losses on such loans, when incurred, are first applied against the non-accretable difference established in purchase accounting and then to any allowance for loan losses recognized subsequent to acquisition. Residential mortgage0.42.31.91.71.3 Home equity1.61.41.51.70.6 Other consumer0.40.20.30.40.3 Total2.43.93.73.82.2 Total$ 9.6$ 10.8$ 13.1$ 10.0$ 9.4 (4) The fully taxable equivalent adjustment was $4.3 million, $4.3 million and $3.0 million for the three months ended AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET, INTEREST AND YIELD/RATE ANALYSIS (1) Allowance for loan losses on acquired loans: Residential14.616.016.917.27.2 Commercial13.310.99.611.412.6 Total REO27.926.926.528.619.8Repossessed assets6.16.37.28.38.2 Total non-performing assets$ 271.2$ 280.5$ 285.1$ 289.6$ 294.0 for loan losses as a percentage of (1) See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP. Notes and debentures650.318.33.75160.05.44.53 3,734.5 Commercial real estate$ (0.1)$ 4.7$ 6.1$ 2.5$ 3.5 Commercial and industrial6.41.53.72.72.6 Equipment financing0.90.7(0.4)1.01.1 Total7.26.99.46.27.2Retail: Assets: Liabilities and stockholders’ equity: Securities (2)3,607.721.52.38 3,720.3 Time4,985.913.11.05 Net interest margin (2)3.30%3.33%3.38%3.63%3.89% Operating net interest margin (1), (2)3.303.333.383.633.82 Return on average assets (2)0.750.810.700.850.88 Operating return on average assets (1), (2)0.780.810.770.870.91 Return on average tangible assets (2)0.800.870.750.910.95 Return on average stockholders’ equity (2)5.15.24.24.84.8 Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity (2)9.49.37.48.38.3 Operating return on average tangible Short-term investments$ 107.7$ -0.17% Originated loans, REO and repossessed assets1.261.331.421.481.59 Tangible stockholders’ equity and originated Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity$ 30,734.8 (1) Reported net of government guarantees totaling $19.8 million at Sept. 30, 2013, $20.4 million at June 30, 2013, $9.9 million at March 31, 2013, $9.7 million at Dec. 31, 2012 and $14.1 million at Sept. 30, 2012. Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions, except per share data)20132013201320122012Earnings Data: (dollars in millions)20132013201320122012 Notes and debentures160.31.64.07 Deposits: (5) See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP. Savings, interest-bearing checking Tangible stockholders’ equity$ 2,504$ 2,538$ 2,739$ 2,885$ 2,947 The efficiency ratio, which represents an approximate measure of the cost required by People’s United Financialto generate a dollar of revenue, is the ratio of (i) total non-interest expense (excluding goodwill impairment High15.6713.79 Low12.2211.20 Close (end of period)14.3812.14 Common shares (end of period) (in millions)307.72335.95 Weighted average diluted common shares (in millions)315.37340.69 Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30, Other borrowings 2.7-0.7021.60.20.99 Other borrowings 11.10.11.03 Ratios: stockholders’ equity$ 28,234.3 September 30,(in millions, except per share data)20132012Interest and dividend income: Commercial (3)7,737.693.14.81 (4) The fully taxable equivalent adjustment was $12.6 million and $8.2 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. $676.33.30% Total funding liabilities22,708.6$ 25.50.45% Other liabilities364.9 Net interest margin Other borrowings 5.9-0.371.0-1.75 Unallocated ESOP shares8.108.198.288.368.45 Compensation and benefits 319.5321.5 Occupancy and equipment 111.5104.0 Professional and outside service fees44.948.6 Operating lease expense22.918.8 Amortization of other acquisition-related intangible assets19.620.1 Other non-interest expense111.9110.2 Total non-interest expense (1)630.3623.2 Income before income tax expense252.7272.7Income tax expense 79.688.6 Net income$ 173.1$ 184.1 Total earning assets27,045.4$763.63.76%24,083.7$791.14.38% In light of diversity in presentation among financial institutions, the methodologies used by People’s United (1) Total non-interest expense includes $11.7 million and $9.8 million of non-operating expenses for the nine months ended September 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP. stockholders’ equity (1), (2)9.08.4 Efficiency ratio (1)63.562.1 Net interest income/spread (4) NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND RECONCILIATION TO GAAP 3.89% Federal Home Loan Bank advances1,840.55.90.43351.33.71.42 People’s United Financial, Inc. 4,824.9
In addition to evaluating People’s United Financial’s results of operations in accordance with U.S. generally People’s United Financial, Inc. (1) Items classified as “other” and deducted from non-interest expense for purposes of calculating the efficiency ratio include, as applicable, certain franchise taxes, real estate owned expenses, contract termination costs and non-recurring expenses.(2) Items classified as “other” and added to (deducted from) total revenues for purposes of calculating the efficiency ratio include, as applicable, asset write-offs and gains associated with the sale of branch locations. Total liabilities26,594.1 BOLI FTE adjustment0.60.40.40.60.71.42.2 Other (2)-(0.2)(0.7)(0.7)-(0.9)- Total$ 312.4$ 311.5$ 305.9$ 312.8$ 319.9$ 929.8$ 943.5 Efficiency ratio63.6%62.7%64.1%63.0%61.4%63.5%62.1% as a percentage of originated retail loans0.310.310.320.360.35Total originated allowance for loan losses NET LOAN CHARGE-OFFS (RECOVERIES) $ 27,818.2 acquisition-related intangible assets2,1342,1402,1472,1542,160 Loans: OPERATING EARNINGS average total loans (annualized)0.17%0.19%0.24%0.19%0.18%People’s United Financial, Inc. Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)20132013201320122012Originated non-performing loans: 3.33% People’s United Financial, Inc. Non-interest-bearing$ 4,724.6$ — % Total assets$ 31,511$ 31,345$ 30,598$ 30,324$ 28,576 Loans 23,22722,86622,16121,73721,040 Securities4,3794,6184,7164,6693,787 Short-term investments14812012713164 Allowance for loan losses188186187188186 Goodwill and other acquisition-related intangible assets2,1342,1402,1472,1542,160 Deposits22,19021,98221,79221,75121,363 Borrowings3,6213,6262,8492,3861,524 Notes and debentures639639659659160 Stockholders’ equity4,6384,6784,8865,0395,107 Total risk-weighted assets (1)23,73123,49822,91822,76421,682 Non-performing assets (2)271281285290294 Net loan charge-offs9.610.813.110.09.4 376.6 Total assets$ 30,734.8 arrive at operating earnings and adding (subtracting) such amounts to (from) GAAP earnings per share. Operatingreturn on average assets is calculated by dividing operating earnings (annualized) by average total assets. Operatingreturn on average tangible stockholders’ equity is calculated by dividing operating earnings (annualized) by averagetangible stockholders’ equity. The operating dividend payout ratio is calculated by dividing dividends paid by Average Balances: People’s United Financial, Inc. Bank service charges95.595.8 Investment management fees27.626.0 Insurance revenue24.525.1 Brokerage commissions10.09.3 Operating lease income25.122.7 Net gains on sales of residential mortgage loans13.810.0 Net gains on sales of acquired loans5.80.7 Merchant services income, net3.83.6 Bank-owned life insurance3.04.3 Other non-interest income43.932.0 Total non-interest income253.0229.5Non-interest expense: People’s United Financial, Inc. $ 30,798.8 Loans: 5,188.5 Consumer2,142.556.13.492,180.260.53.71 Basic and diluted earnings per share$ 0.19$ 0.20$ 0.16$ 0.18$ 0.18 Operating earnings per share (1)0.200.200.180.190.19 Dividends paid per share0.16250.16250.160.160.16 Dividend payout ratio86.0%83.6%100.6%87.4%87.3% Operating dividend payout ratio (1)82.783.291.284.884.3 Book value per share (end of period)$ 15.07$ 15.11$ 15.24$ 15.21$ 15.20 Tangible book value per share (end of period) (1)8.148.208.548.718.77 Stock price: Retail repurchase agreements533.50.80.20479.61.00.27 3.94% Total borrowings3,013.77.60.34957.15.10.70 Net interest margin, as reported (1)3.30%3.33%3.38%3.63%3.89%3.33%3.94%Adjustments to arrive at operating Common stock3.93.93.93.9Additional paid-in capital 5,272.75,268.85,261.35,263.9Retained earnings770.5763.1756.2750.1Treasury stock, at cost(1,039.0)(1,009.3)(712.2)(656.2)Accumulated other comprehensive loss(202.5)(178.8)(96.9)(79.0)Unallocated common stock of Employee Stock Ownership Plan, at cost(168.0)(169.8)(173.5)(175.3) Total stockholders’ equity4,637.64,677.95,038.85,107.4 Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity$ 31,510.6$ 31,344.9$ 30,324.4$ 28,576.0 Average total earning assets$ 27,624$ 27,079$ 26,421$ 25,206$ 24,474$ 27,045$ 24,084(1) Annualized. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Deposits 61.468.8 Borrowings 7.65.1 Notes and debentures18.35.4 Total interest expense87.379.3 Net interest income663.7703.6Provision for loan losses 33.737.2 Net interest income after provision for loan losses630.0666.4Non-interest income: Total earning assets27,623.9$256.53.71%27,078.5$254.43.76% Stockholders’ equity4,815.8 Basic and diluted earnings per common share$ 0.19$ 0.20$ 0.16$ 0.18$ 0.18 Average stockholders’ equity$ 4,622$ 4,825$ 5,005$ 5,107$ 5,161$ 4,816$ 5,188Less: Average goodwill and average other Balance at beginning of period8.29.810.510.54.8 Charge-offs(0.1)(0.7)(3.3)– Provision for loan losses2.6(0.9)2.6-5.7 Balance at end of period10.78.29.810.510.5 Total allowance for loan losses$ 188.2$ 185.7$ 187.3$ 188.0$ 186.0 Sept. 30,June 30,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,(in millions)2013201320122012Assets Loans acquired in connection with business combinations are initially recorded at fair value, determined basedupon an estimate of expected cash flows, including a reduction for estimated credit losses, and without carryoverof the respective portfolio’s historical allowance for loan losses. A decrease in expected cash flows in subsequentperiods may indicate that a loan is impaired, which would require the establishment of an allowance for loanlosses. As such, selected asset quality metrics have been highlighted to distinguish between the ‘originated’portfolio and the ‘acquired’ portfolio. Deposits: Nine Months Ended Acquired non-performing loans (contractual amount) (2)$ 154.2$ 159.0$ 180.7$ 181.6$ 202.0 3.30% Commercial real estate8,148.390.04.427,757.587.24.50 Net interest margin Basic and diluted earnings per share$ 0.55$ 0.54 Operating earnings per share (1)0.580.57 Dividends paid per share0.48500.4775 Dividend payout ratio89.5%89.3% Operating dividend payout ratio (1)85.686.2 Book value per share (end of period)$ 15.07$ 15.20 Tangible book value per share (end of period) (1)8.148.77 Stock price: (4) The fully taxable equivalent adjustment was $4.3 million, $4.3 million and $3.0 million for the three months ended September 30, 2013, June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012, respectively. (2) Average balances and yields for securities available for sale are based on amortized cost. Operating return on average tangible Three Months EndedNine Months Ended (3) Includes commercial and industrial loans and equipment financing loans. Originated loans (2)0.820.850.880.910.95 Originated non-performing loans (2)74.871.870.670.366.0 Average stockholders’ equity to average total assets14.815.716.617.618.3 Stockholders’ equity to total assets14.714.916.016.617.9 Tangible stockholders’ equity to tangible assets (3)8.58.79.610.211.2 Total risk-based capital (1)12.612.813.714.715.6 (1) Average yields earned and rates paid are annualized. OPERATING RETURN ON AVERAGE TANGIBLE STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY Total liabilities25,919.0 Yield/Average (dollars in millions)BalanceInterestRateBalanceInterestRate (1) See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP.(2) Annualized. Common Share Data: Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)2013201320132012201220132012Total non-interest expense$ 212.5$ 205.8$ 212.0$ 207.4$ 208.9$ 630.3$ 623.2Adjustments to arrive at operating OPERATING DIVIDEND PAYOUT RATIO Total liabilities and Tangible book value per share$ 8.14$ 8.20$ 8.54$ 8.71$ 8.77 allowance for loan losses10.1210.339.789.459.41 Operating net interest margin excludes from the net interest margin those items that management considers tobe of such a discrete nature that, by excluding such items, People’s United Financial’s net interest margin can bemeasured and assessed on a more consistent basis from period to period. Excluded from operating net interest Other assets3,759.9 People’s United Financial, Inc. Federal funds purchased637.00.90.19104.60.20.23 Three Months Ended Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)20132013201320122012Allowance for loan losses on originated loans: Common Share Data: Total deposits22,066.420.10.3621,835.420.50.38 Borrowings: Writedowns of banking house assets0.01-0.02–0.03- Severance-related costs—0.01–0.01 Acquisition integration and other costs—-0.01-0.02 Total adjustments per share0.01-0.020.010.010.030.03 Operating earnings per share$ 0.20$ 0.20$ 0.18$ 0.19$ 0.19$ 0.58$ 0.57 Stockholders’ equity4,622.1 Net interest income/spread (4) (1) Average yields earned and rates paid are annualized. originated commercial banking loans1.02%1.05%1.11%1.13%1.22%Retail originated allowance for loan losses Three Months EndedNine Months Ended Three Months Ended Originated non-performing loans as a percentage CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CONDITION (5) See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP. Net interest income/spread (4) (dollars in millions)BalanceInterestRate Three Months Ended acquisition-related intangible assets2,1372,1442,1512,1572,1642,1442,167Average tangible stockholders’ equity$ 2,485$ 2,681$ 2,854$ 2,950$ 2,997$ 2,672$ 3,021 Total liabilities and accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), management routinely supplements their evaluation with an analysis ofcertain non-GAAP financial measures, such as the efficiency and tangible equity ratios, tangible book value per Selected Statistical Data: of People’s United Financial’s capital position. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME share and operating earnings metrics. Management believes these non-GAAP financial measures provide informationuseful to investors in understanding People’s United Financial’s underlying operating performance and trends, andfacilitates comparisons with the performance of other banks and thrifts. Further, the efficiency ratio and operatingearnings metrics are used by management in its assessment of financial performance, including non-interest expensecontrol, while the tangible equity ratio and tangible book value per share are used to analyze the relative strength non-interest income (including the FTE adjustment on bank-owned life insurance (“BOLI”) income, and excludinggains and losses on sales of assets other than residential mortgage loans and acquired loans, and non-recurring income) (the denominator). People’s United Financial generally considers an item of income or expense to be non-recurring ifit is not similar to an item of income or expense of a type incurred within the last two years and is not similar to anitem of income or expense of a type reasonably expected to be incurred within the following two years. $ 30,798.8 25,973.9 Operating earnings per share is derived by determining the per share impact of the respective adjustments to $237.83.85% Cost recovery income—-(0.07)-(0.05) Total adjustments—-(0.07)-(0.05) Operating net interest margin (1)3.30%3.33%3.38%3.63%3.82%3.33%3.89% classified as treasury shares and unallocated Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) common shares). OPERATING NET INTEREST MARGIN High15.6715.0013.6112.5012.55 Low14.0712.6212.2211.3611.20 Close (end of period)14.3814.9013.4212.0912.14 Common shares (end of period) (in millions)307.72309.59320.65331.27335.95 Weighted average diluted common shares (in millions)307.56313.52325.21331.39336.48 $ 27,818.2 As of and for the Three Months Ended Financial for determining the non-GAAP financial measures discussed above may differ from those used by otherfinancial institutions. 3.89% 3.33% People’s United Financial, Inc. Total funding liabilities26,168.3$ 28.70.44%25,548.1$ 29.20.46% Other liabilities433.1 Federal funds purchased520.50.20.17788.00.40.19 Commercial$ 86.4$ 87.2$ 86.7$ 90.7$ 91.3 Commercial real estate90.087.285.586.091.3 Residential mortgage34.734.334.534.637.1 Consumer18.618.718.819.519.8 Total interest on loans229.7227.4225.5230.8239.5 Securities22.022.222.720.720.3 Loans held for sale0.50.40.40.40.5 Short-term investments-0.10.10.1- Total interest and dividend income252.2250.1248.7252.0260.3Interest expense: real estate owned and repossessed assets (2)1.261.331.421.481.59 Originated allowance for loan losses to: People’s United Financial, Inc. $225.23.30% intangible assets(6.5)(6.6)(6.5)(6.7)(6.7)(19.6)(20.1) Other (1)(4.0)(3.4)(1.5)(0.6)(2.7)(8.9)(7.2) Total$ 198.7$ 195.4$ 196.0$ 197.2$ 196.3$ 590.1$ 586.1 Net interest income (FTE basis)$ 227.8$ 225.2$ 223.3$ 228.6$ 237.8$ 676.3$ 711.8Total non-interest income84.086.182.984.381.4253.0229.5 Total revenues311.8311.3306.2312.9319.2929.3941.3Adjustments: Cash and due from banks$ 447.3$ 379.6$ 470.0$ 358.3Short-term investments147.9119.5131.463.7 Total cash and cash equivalents595.2499.1601.4422.0Securities: Amortization of other acquisition-related People’s United Financial, Inc. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS – Continued Commercial (3)8,380.5267.04.257,535.6280.74.97 Originated loans0.820.850.880.910.95 Originated non-performing loans74.871.870.670.366.0 PROVISION AND ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES Bank service charges33.332.130.131.433.0 Investment management fees9.29.49.08.98.7 Insurance revenue9.17.18.36.79.5 Brokerage commissions3.33.43.32.92.8 Operating lease income8.78.18.38.58.3 Net gains on sales of residential mortgage loans3.94.25.76.13.6 Net gains on sales of acquired loans-5.8-0.3- Merchant services income, net1.41.21.21.31.2 Bank-owned life insurance1.20.90.91.11.3 Other non-interest income13.913.916.117.113.0 Total non-interest income84.086.182.984.381.4Non-interest expense: Earnings per share, as reported$ 0.19$ 0.20$ 0.16$ 0.18$ 0.18$ 0.55$ 0.54Adjustments to arrive at operating Balance at beginning of period$ 177.5$ 177.5$ 177.5$ 175.5$ 175.5 Charge-offs(10.7)(12.0)(11.3)(11.6)(11.1) Recoveries1.21.91.51.61.7 Net loan charge-offs(9.5)(10.1)(9.8)(10.0)(9.4) Provision for loan losses9.510.19.812.09.4 Balance at end of period177.5177.5177.5177.5175.5 Writedowns of banking house assets(2.8)-(6.2)–(9.0)- Severance-related costs(0.5)(0.4)(1.5)(2.9)(0.9)(2.4)(4.4) Acquisition integration and other costs–(0.3)-(2.3)(0.3)(5.4) Total(3.3)(0.4)(8.0)(2.9)(3.2)(11.7)(9.8) Operating non-interest expense209.2205.4204.0204.5205.7618.6613.4 Selected Statistical Data: Total liabilities23,073.5 Less: Goodwill and other (5) See Non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliation to GAAP. Three Months EndedNine Months Ended acquisition-related intangible assets2,1342,1402,1472,1542,160 Net interest margin (2)3.33%3.94% Operating net interest margin (1), (2)3.333.89 Return on average assets (2)0.750.88 Operating return on average assets (1), (2)0.790.91 Return on average tangible assets (2)0.810.96 Return on average stockholders’ equity (2)4.84.7 Return on average tangible stockholders’ equity (2)8.68.1 Operating return on average tangible stockholders’ equity (annualized)9.8%9.3%8.1%8.6%8.6%9.0%8.4% People’s United Financial, Inc. Loans$ 22,916$ 22,369$ 21,727$ 21,211$ 20,758 Securities4,5294,5574,5483,8673,608 Short-term investments179153146128108 Total earning assets27,62427,07926,42125,20624,474 Total assets31,21630,79930,17828,99128,234 Deposits22,06621,83521,55821,55721,372 Total funding liabilities26,16825,54824,72623,48722,709 Stockholders’ equity4,6224,8255,0055,1075,161 Liabilities and stockholders’ equity: 3.33% Non-interest-bearing$ 5,105.7$ 5,116.0$ 5,084.3$ 4,746.9 Savings, interest-bearing checking and money market12,657.512,278.611,959.811,729.0 Time4,426.44,587.24,706.44,886.7 Total deposits22,189.621,981.821,750.521,362.6Borrowings: Tangible stockholders’ equity$ 2,504$ 2,538$ 2,739$ 2,885$ 2,947 Total borrowings1,176.11.80.60 NON-PERFORMING ASSETS Total earning assets24,474.4$263.34.30% Net interest income$ 663.7$ 703.6 Provision for loan losses33.737.2 Non-interest income253.0229.5 Non-interest expense630.3623.2 Operating non-interest expense (1)618.6613.4 Income before income tax expense252.7272.7 Net income173.1184.1 Operating earnings (1)181.1190.7 Liabilities Operating net interest margin (5) Cost recovery income—-(4.1)-(8.8) Total adjustments—-(4.1)-(8.8) Operating net interest income$ 227.8$ 225.2$ 223.3$ 228.6$ 233.7$ 676.3$ 703.0 (1) Average yields earned and rates paid are annualized. Nine months endedAverage Writedowns of banking house assets2.8-6.2–9.0- Severance-related costs0.50.41.52.90.92.44.4 Acquisition integration and other costs–0.3-2.30.35.4 Total pre-tax adjustments3.30.48.02.93.211.79.8Tax effect(1.0)(0.1)(2.6)(0.9)(1.0)(3.7)(3.2) Total adjustments, net of tax2.30.35.42.02.28.06.6 Operating earnings$ 60.8$ 62.4$ 57.9$ 63.2$ 64.4$ 181.1$ 190.7 Commercial8,457.28,560.88,400.07,951.7 Commercial real estate8,393.18,077.37,294.27,032.8 Residential mortgage4,235.84,084.23,886.13,891.3 Consumer2,141.32,143.92,156.32,164.2 Total loans23,227.422,866.221,736.621,040.0 Less allowance for loan losses(188.2)(185.7)(188.0)(186.0) Total loans, net23,039.222,680.521,548.620,854.0Goodwill and other acquisition-related intangible assets2,133.82,140.42,153.52,160.3Premises and equipment314.2320.1330.4334.7Bank-owned life insurance338.3337.2336.5335.5Other assets682.3681.5608.3622.3 Total assets$ 31,510.6$ 31,344.9$ 30,324.4$ 28,576.0 Operating net interest margin (5) Yield/ (2) Average balances and yields for securities available for sale are based on amortized cost. Commercial Banking: (1) Consolidated. Residential mortgage4,156.235.23.384,048.534.73.43 stockholders’ equity (1), (2)9.89.38.18.68.6 Efficiency ratio (1)63.662.764.163.061.4 Commercial$ 260.3$ 279.4 Commercial real estate262.7275.2 Residential mortgage103.5109.1 Consumer56.160.5 Total interest on loans682.6724.2 Securities66.956.6 Loans held for sale1.31.4 Short-term investments0.20.7 Total interest and dividend income751.0782.9Interest expense: Total assets$ 31,511$ 31,345$ 30,598$ 30,324$ 28,576 dividing tangible stockholders’ equity by common shares (total common shares issued, less common shares Stockholders’ Equity Total deposits21,821.961.40.3721,136.068.80.43 Deposits: Sept. 30,June 30,March 31,Dec. 31,Sept. 30,(dollars in millions)20132013201320122012Financial Condition Data: (2) Excludes acquired loans. as a percentage of: Borrowings: Common shares issued396.44396.32396.24395.81395.88 Less: Shares classified as treasury shares80.6278.5467.3156.1851.48 Deposits: net interest margin (1): People’s United Financial, Inc. SOURCE BRIDGEPORT, Conn., Oct. 17, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — People’s United Financial, Inc www.peoples.com(link is external)
County Appraiser Paul Welcome talked with attendees at a town hall meeting in Roeland Park after initial valuation notices went out earlier this year.The Johnson County Appraiser’s Office has completed its appeals review process for home valuation this year — and, perhaps not surprisingly given the sharp increases in value many area homeowners saw, the process marked a recent record for appeals volume.Register to continue
Update: Please see below a response from Eiki to this story.Things took a turn for the worse on Friday as Eiki laid off another round of greatness, including their 15-year general manager, Steve Rubery, and, according to one source, 50% of their tech and sales support teams. In addition, their dealer network was notified that, although future products will continue to be supported, it will come in the form of a third-party support company and not by Eiki.Eiki’s history in LCD projection is storied. Headquartered in Osaka, Japan and founded in the early 1950s, Eiki started out by making 16mm film projectors and was one of the first companies in the world to make an LCD projector — in fact, the first to enter one into the InfoComm Projection Shoot-Out. I remember that day as it was so bright that both Sony and Barco demanded we put up black pipe and drape to prevent the light coming from the Eiki projector’s screen — easily 10x that of all the CRT projectors in the room — from drowning out everyone else’s images. Yes, it was that bright. Not to mention, they set it up in less than two hours; this is notable as everyone else took at least 48-hours to set-up their, then, CRT projectors.Eiki made its mark in projectors in the late 1990s, however, by OEM’ing Sanyo LCD projectors and reselling them under the Eiki badge — along with Proxima. And, as Proxima was swallowed (and destroyed by InFocus), Eiki benefitted from that Sanyo relationship as they were the primary outlet for distributing Sanyo’s technology — until Panasonic cut them off after purchasing Sanyo back in 2009.Since then, Eiki has struggled to differentiate itself from the plethora of projector companies out there — eventually emerging as the leading K-12 supplier by 2013. That crown is now owned by Epson. Most of Eiki’s projectors, more recently, have been supplied by the same company making many of the other “undifferentiated LCD” products, Coretronic Corporation. But, as margins eroded in the educational space for projectors, Eiki didn’t seem to care in that they refused to differentiate or move beyond that market until last year when they launched a LED poster product.But that’s apparently too little, too late. One of the worst-kept secrets in the projector industry is that Eiki has been looking for a financial partner for almost two years and, according to one company insider I spoke to today, they continue to and hope to find one quickly to turn them around. Their best hope would likely come from their own supplier, Coretronic Corporation, who could use the Delta/Vivitek model of partner/owner — but that’s apparently unlikely to happen.All this considered, one thing is for sure: Eiki has great brand equity. The name, itself, is worth buying.Update: Eiki also announced recently that it’s hired John Schippers to the position of chief operating officer. Schippers sent the following comment on August 6 in response to our story:Eiki recognizes that Rave is a big part of the AV industry and have always enjoyed much of your work. Eiki also recognizes that Rave is a responsible and objective publication. Hence, we are taking this opportunity to positively respond to your recent editorial “Eiki’s Survival is Questionable.” It is our wish that our response will offer your readers a clearer understanding of Eiki and also help clarify Any misunderstandings. While Steve Rubery did work here for 15 years, he only had the title of general manager for a few months. Over a period of time, as in accordance with company policy, a performance review was conducted and it was subsequently decided that his position be revised to that of a GM of sales and marketing, as this would reflect his truer responsibility and job scope. Again, in accordance with company policy, his position was called for review sometime in the month of June. It is true that we did let go two of our technicians, but it was made for a specific and strategic reason and that is, to fulfill a more speedy and efficient local customers support service via an increased number of authorized service stations. Such a strategic move has been practiced and duplicated in our other global subsidiaries to good effect. Our authorized service centers are all trained by Eiki personnel and we work very close with each one of them. It is actually common practice for a manufacturer to use authorized service centers.It was erroneously reported that Eiki let 50% of the company’s sales team go. This is not true! In fact, we have actually hired a new regional sales manager based in Texas and have also added three new rep firms in the last month. Our sales administrator was let go due to our new restructuring plans. In fact, we are currently interviewing people for a newly created position that will address some critical needs and at the same time also help support other departments more efficiently. Eiki is continually making various changes in an effort to make the company stronger and better able to address the ever changing market challenges and conditions. It is a well-known “secret” that over the years, investors have been always knocking on our door for a viable partnership commitment. Eiki has always been looking for good business partners in order to move positively forward in the face of a more competitive market. All said, Eiki is on solid financial ground and always looking for good opportunities to go forward. We understand your “insider” may not be happy with our company. We all know that it is not fun looking for a new job and it is also not fun for those of us here to see a friend leave the company. We trust you understand that sentiment; however, it is our sincere hope that this update will help clarify matters and thus reflect a more accurate picture of the company.
Select Bar News stories to receive video treatment Select Bar News stories to receive video treatment Florida Bar News.TV begins with the Nov. 1 edition A project to produce and distribute video versions of Bar News articles has been approved by the Bar Board of Governors in accordance with a recommendation from its Communications Committee. Committee Chair Jay Cohen said a subcommittee studied the issue, meeting with the company TheLaw.TV to review a presentation on the program. The deal calls for TheLaw.TV to produce four videos a month based on stories in the Bar News. The company will be paid $3,500 a month, and although it is contemplated as a one-year effort, the Bar has the option to cancel the contract after six months. Cohen said the reports will appear like a televised newscast and the committee will monitor and evaluate the reports for the first six months. The project is part of the committee’s efforts to update and improve its communications both with Bar members and the public, he said. “It is the way news is presented today and it is the best method for receiving news today, as has been projected and analyzed by many sources,” Cohen told the board. The videos will be posted to the Bar’s website and social media outlets. Budget Committee Chair Paul SanGiovanni reported his committee reviewed the proposal and approved the funding, with the money coming from a reserve fund set aside for new Bar programs. The board unanimously approved the new program and the budget amendment to fund it. Cohen said the video effort is one of several aimed at improving the Bar’s internal and external communications. In addition to the subcommittee that vetted this project, there are subcommittees working on updating the website, improving relations with local bars and sections, and coordinating with the Young Lawyers Division on getting the word out on its many activities. He said the Communications Committee will have recommendations from those subcommittees at the board’s December meeting. November 1, 2016 Regular News
The Phoenix office of JLL has completed the $9 million sale of 5th Street Industrial, a 110,000-square-foot industrial building at 3405-3445 S. 5th Street in Phoenix. The deal bolsters the rapid recovery of Phoenix industrial space in the 50,000 – 150,000-square-foot range, as highlighted in the first quarter Phoenix Industrial Report released last week by JLL’s local research team.JLL Managing Directors Mark Detmer and Bo Mills were the industrial capital markets brokers involved with the sale between the property seller, Clarion Partners, and the property buyer, DCT Industrial Trust. JLL Executive Vice Presidents Pat Harlan and Steve Sayre, and Associate Kyle Westfall, are the project’s local market leasing brokers.“This size and type of Phoenix industrial space is definitely outperforming the larger blocks of space in the local industrial sector,” said Detmer. “That is not to say that other blocks of space haven’t entered the recovery cycle. They just haven’t done so at this same rapid clip.”“The 5th Street Industrial asset is irreplaceable for a number of reasons,” said Sayre. “It has an excellent location west of the I-10 in the heart of the Airport submarket. It is fully leased to a long-term credit tenant, and it was priced at a point that allows the new owner, DCT Industrial Trust, to take advantage of some strong investment upside potential. This is a compelling combination.”According to JLL’s most recent research report, Phoenix’s Q1 industrial absorption—totaling 829,777 square feet—was driven primarily by users in the 50,000 – 150,000-square-foot range. Leasing activity among this user type has increased in lockstep with the recovering economy. Built in 1986, 5th Street Industrial includes 26-foot clear height, grade- and dock-level loading, and A-2 zoning on 6.55 acres.“DCT is pleased to add 5th Street to our Phoenix portfolio, a 100 percent occupied building with a credit tenant,” said Mark Bowen, Regional Vice President at DCT Industrial. “This acquisition demonstrates DCT’s focus on continually upgrading our portfolio in our focus markets, with the acquisition of Class-A buildings in highly desirable submarkets.”For more news, videos and research resources on JLL, please visit the firm’s U.S. media center Web page: http://bit.ly/18P2tkv.
CBRE’s Tucson office has released the following recent transactions:Primadonna Linens has leased 3,216 square-feet of flex space at 3280 E. Hemisphere Loop from Tucson Property Investors. The tenant was represented by Mark Hays with Tierra Antigua Realty. The landlord was represented by Tim Healy and Bob DeLaney with CBRE’s Tucson office.Seneca Preparatory Academy Foundation has leased 13,000 square-feet at 601 E. Fort Lowell Rd. from Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Parish. The tenant was represented by Dave Blanchette with CBRE’s Tucson office. The landlord was represented by Rob Tomlinson with Cushman & Wakefield – PICOR.Farmers Insurance has leased 1,100 square-feet of retail space at 2040 W. Orange Grove Rd. from La Cholla Plaza. The tenant was represented by Bruce Suppes with CBRE’s Tucson office. The landlord was represented by David Carroll with Romano Real Estate.Roach Law Firm LLC has leased 1,065 square-feet of office space at 100 N. Stone Ave. from Holualoa Pioneer LLC. The tenant was not represented in the transaction. The landlord was represented by Bruce Suppes and David Volk with CBRE’s Tucson office.DHL Global Forwarding has renewed their 4,000 square-foot lease of flex space at 2901 E. Elvira Rd. from Holualoa Tucson Airport I, LLC. The landlord was represented by Bill DiVito and Jesse Blum with CBRE’s Tucson office.Johnson Controls Inc. has leased 7,380 square-feet of flex space at 3700-3716 E. Columbia St. from, Holualoa Columbia Industrial LLC. The landlord was represented by Bill DiVito and Jesse Blum with CBRE’s Tucson office.
Feb 11, 2011 (CIDRAP News) – A recent case-control study estimates that the adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine used in Canada was effective 93% of the time, a substantially higher figure than seen in several other studies and one that has raised some eyebrows among other flu vaccine researchers.In the study, patients who visited sentinel physicians for treatment of influenza-like illness were tested for the pandemic virus and asked whether or not they had been vaccinated. The virus was confirmed in 38% of those tested, and only 1% of those patients had been vaccinated, whereas 17% of those who tested negative had been vaccinated. That translated into an estimated effectiveness of 93%.The small number of vaccine failures limits the statistical strength of the results, but the findings nonetheless suggest that the vaccine was “highly effective in preventing medically attended, laboratory confirmed pandemic H1N1 illness,” says the report, published online Feb 3 by BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).The 93% effectiveness found in the study is well above what was seen in several other observational studies of H1N1 vaccine effectiveness, which have yielded results mostly in the 60% to 75% range. Some other researchers suggest that the findings may reflect the effects of confounding variables that the authors didn’t or couldn’t adjust for, such as the lateness of the vaccination campaign relative to the pandemic peak or a bias in the selection of patients for testing. They don’t doubt that the pandemic vaccine was generally effective but question whether its effectiveness really exceeded 90%.Study covered much of CanadaThe study was conducted by researchers from several universities and public health agencies in British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario, with Danuta Skowronski, MD, MHSc, of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control as the first author. They used a network of more than 500 community-based sentinel physicians who contribute to flu surveillance each year.The clinicians were given kits for providing respiratory specimens and were asked to test, at their discretion, consenting patients who presented for treatment within 7 days after getting sick with flu-like symptoms. Patients were asked for information on their immunization status, including receipt of the pandemic vaccine and seasonal flu vaccine, and whether they had any of several high-risk chronic conditions.The study focused on GlaxoSmithKline’s Arepanrix vaccine, a monovalent product that contains the company’s AS03 adjuvant. It constituted about 95% of the pandemic vaccine doses distributed in Canada in the fall of 2009, the report says.The researchers picked the period of Nov 8 through Dec 5—weeks 45 through 48—as their primary analysis period, because vaccine first became available in week 43, as the pandemic was peaking, and there was little flu activity after week 48. They considered patients to have been immunized if they were vaccinated at least 2 weeks before the onset of their illness, since it takes about that long for flu vaccines to induce a protective immune response.Effectiveness topped 90%After a paperwork problem forced the exclusion of about 300 specimens from Ontario patients, the researchers included 552 patients in their analysis. Of those, 209 (38%) tested positive for the pandemic virus. Adults 20 to 49 years old made up 46% of those who tested positive, while children 6 months to 9 years accounted for 24% and 10- to 19-year-olds for 19%.Just 1% (2 of 209) of the patients who tested positive for H1N1 reported receiving the pandemic vaccine at least 2 weeks before they got sick, versus 17% (58 of 343) of those who tested negative. One of the two “vaccine failures” was a healthy 9-year-old child, while the other was a young adult with an underlying illness.When the authors adjusted for differences between cases and controls in age, chronic conditions, week of illness onset, and other factors, overall vaccine effectiveness was 92.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.6-98.3). The fully adjusted effectiveness estimate was only slightly lower—91.1%—when participants aged 50 and older were excluded from the analysis.The team also ran sensitivity analyses involving a longer analysis period, varying definitions of vaccination status based on timing in relation to illness onset, and exclusion of participants who had chronic illnesses. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness remained above 90% in most of these analyses. The analyses also showed that receipt of 2008-09 or 2009-10 seasonal flu vaccine had little influence on the estimated effectiveness of the pandemic vaccine. (Administration of the 2009-10 seasonal vaccine was delayed in Canada until after pandemic vaccine became available, limiting the ability to assess this effect.)However, when a longer analysis period was used—weeks 44 to 52—the overall vaccine effectiveness was somewhat lower at 78.4% (95% CI, 52.6-90.2). During that period, 411 of 993 patients (41%) tested positive for H1N1, including eight vaccinated patients. (The number of controls who had been vaccinated was not listed.) The report says this lower estimate was expected, because the rollout of vaccine had only begun in week 43 and more controls with no opportunity to be vaccinated or to mount a protective antibody response were included in week 44.The authors say their findings are consistent with immunogenicity studies showing a high antibody response to AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 vaccines and with expectations given a good match between vaccine and virus. The findings also match up with a small study involving the same vaccine in New Brunswick, Canada, and a study of an AS03-adjuvanted vaccine used in Germany. But a seven-country study in Europe, involving a mix of adjuvanted and adjuvant-free vaccines, yielded an effectiveness estimate of 71.9% (95% CI, 45.6-85.5), the report notes.The researchers say that in an observational case-control study there is no foolproof method for eliminating all bias, but they carefully checked participants’ profiles against historical and expected demographic information and found the results reassuring. However, they acknowledge testing of patients was at their clinicians’ discretion, which could introduce some bias.Questions raised by other researchersOther flu vaccine researchers point out that several recent studies similar to the Canadian one came up with considerably lower estimates of H1N1 vaccine effectiveness. Some suggested that the high estimate in the present report may reflect undetected biases or other flaws in the study design.Nick Andrews of the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency enumerated other recent studies.He and his colleagues, in a study involving testing of ILI patients from hospitals and clinics in England, where an AS03-adjuvanted vaccine was widely used, came up with an effectiveness estimate of 62% (95% CI, 33-78).In a study published recently in Eurosurveillance, P. Hardelid and colleagues, using a network similar to the Canadian one, reported an estimate of 72% (95% CI, 21-90) for H1N1 vaccine effectiveness in England and Scotland.A similar study in Korea, published recently in Vaccine, estimated the effectiveness of an MF-59–adjuvanted vaccine at 73% (95% CI, 49-86).The aforementioned seven-country European study involving a mix of adjuvanted and unadjuvanted vaccines, which put the effectiveness at 72%.Andrews said that though the Canadian study came up with a higher estimate than these others, from the standpoint of the 95% CI, it is “not inconsistent” with those results. But he suggested that the 78% estimate the Canadian team found when they used the longer analysis period (weeks 44 to 52) might be closer to reality.The authors regarded this number as less valid because the analysis period began the week after the vaccine was rolled out, he noted, but added, “The authors state that week of illness is adjusted for in the analysis and this should therefore account for any confounding due to changing coverage and incidence over time. The estimate of 78% is very similar to the estimates reported from other studies. Therefore whilst the adjuvanted vaccine clearly is effective, it is not clear the vaccine gives very high protection as suggested in the Canadian paper.”For Lisa Jackson, MD, MPH, senior immunization investigator with the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, the timing of vaccination in relation to the pandemic peak presents a problem for the study. “The pandemic had waned prior to availability of vaccine, so persons who got the vaccine had very little risk of being exposed following vaccination,” she commented by e-mail. “Therefore, they did not get infected not because the vaccine worked but because there was no influenza around to get in that time period.”Jackson said the authors state that they controlled for time. “But if there is essentially no overlap between the timing of cases and the timing of vaccine availability, this cannot be adjusted for in the analysis. So, by definition, cases were not vaccinated because everyone (nearly) was infected before hardly anyone could have received vaccine. Very few controls were vaccinated, but the proportion was greater than zero, so this makes it look like the vaccine is highly effective.”The possibility of undetected bias in the selection of patients for testing in the study is a concern raised by Nick Kelley, MSPH, who has conducted an in-depth analysis of flu vaccine effectiveness studies in his capacity as assistant director of the CIDRAP Comprehensive Influenza Vaccine Initiative, a project funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Kelley is a research assistant at the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, publisher of CIDRAP News.”There’s no information on how many patients who presented for flu-like illness were actually tested, so it’s hard to gauge the population they estimated the effectiveness on,” Kelley said.He said that in previous studies by the Canadian authors and a group in Australia that did sentinel flu surveillance, about 40% to 50% of patients who presented with influenza-like illness were tested. “So if you’re missing half or more of the flu-like illness, it could introduce quite a bit of bias,” he commented.On the other hand, Kelley allowed that the Canadian study and the other recent reports “show that the pandemic vaccine worked. I think this one is just a little overestimated.”Roger Baxter, MD, co-director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in Oakland, Calif., suggested another possible source of undetected bias in the study. “In this case, I can imagine that people who are anxious would be more likely to present for their flu shot, and would also be more likely to come in with mild symptoms that are not flu and ask to be tested for flu,” he said.Baxter said a possible way to control for this would be to ask the physicians to grade the severity of the illness and rate the likelihood that the patient actually had flu.”I’m left wondering if this adjuvanted vaccine is really this good,” he said. “Effectiveness studies are difficult, that’s for sure.”Responses from first authorSkowronski, first author of the Canadian study, responded by e-mail to several of the concerns raised by other researchers. She is epidemiology chief in the Influenza and Emerging Respiratory Pathogens branch at British Columbia’s Centre for Disease Control.Concerning the timing issue, she observed that the study was an incident case-control design, not a cohort study, with cases and controls drawn from the same time period.”Although our primary analysis period was selected immediately after the [pandemic] peak in order to balance vaccine access and virus exposure opportunities, virus circulation did not stop suddenly,” she said. “It continued after the peak such that among our participants, 38% were still test-positive during the 4-week analysis period (55% in week 45, 40% in week 46, 22% in week 47, and 21% in week 48). Since cases and controls were drawn from the same period, what is most important is that they have comparable exposure opportunities.”Skowronski made several points about the possibility of undetected biases in the selection of patients who were vaccinated or were tested for H1N1:All participants presented to a physician with an acute febrile respiratory illness, and information on vaccine status was collected from the patients before either the physician or the patient knew the test result, thereby reducing the risk of recall bias.Medical care in Canada is free to patients at the point of care, and the vaccine was provided free, reducing the probability that decisions about testing and participation were influenced by factors related to access to care.As noted in the report, the researchers found the profile of participants to match well with what would be expected on the basis of factors known to influence the likelihood of being vaccinated and of testing positive.The large number of sentinel sites across Canada used in the study limits the risk that one or a few sites skewed the results by using a biased method for selecting patients for testing.All participants were community-based, limiting the biases that might be introduced by combining data from hospital patients with data from outpatients.The primary analysis period was chosen to optimize the period of vaccine access and virus exposure opportunities. Since the fall 2009 pandemic was evolving simultaneously with vaccine rollout in most countries of the Northern Hemisphere, this issue is a concern for all observational studies conducted during that period.Directly comparing vaccine effectiveness estimates across countries may not be appropriate, since the methods used, the population studied (hospitalized or clinic-based), and the types and mix of vaccines administered will influence estimates of vaccine protection overall.Skowronski DM, Janjua N, De Serres G, et al. Effectiveness of AS03 adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 vaccine: case-control evaluation based on sentinel surveillance sytem in Canada, autumn 2009. BMJ 2011;342 (early online publication Feb 3) [Full text]
Progress against Ebola in the two countries still battling the disease has stalled, with cases popping up in a wide swath of Guinea and from unidentified transmission chains, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported today in its weekly epidemiologic report on the outbreak.As Liberia passed the 1-month mark of being free of Ebola, neighboring countries last week reported 31 more lab-confirmed cases, up from 25 the week before. The WHO said cases last week were at their highest level since late March.The latest cases lift the overall number of confirmed, probable, and suspected cases to 27,237, including 11,158 deaths, the WHO said.None of the latest cases affected healthcare workers, which keeps that number over the course of the outbreak at 869, including 507 deaths.Patterns show community engagement gapsGuinea’s 16 cases last week were detected in five of its western districts, half of them from Forecariah district, an area near the border with Sierra Leone that has been a hot spot over the past several weeks. Two locations that had not reported a case in more than 40 days had infections: Conakry and Kindia district.Five of the country’s cases were from unknown transmission sources, including all three in Kindia district. In another sign that infected people are going undetected and posing a risk to the community, three of Guinea’s latest cases were among people whose infections were detected only after they died in their communities.One of Guinea’s other cases occurred in Boke district, in the northwestern part of the country near the border with Guinea-Bissau. The patient, a known contact of a previous case, was lost to tracking during civil unrest and was later found to have died from the disease in the community. The WHO said an intensive search for the individual’s many high-risk contacts is under way.Ebola deaths in the community, cases in undetected transmission chains, and unsafe burials are signs of the community engagement challenges that remain in both Guinea and Sierra Leone, the WHO said.Meanwhile, Sierra Leone reported 15 cases last week, 7 of them in Kaffu Bollum chiefdom, a densely populated area of Port Loko district. A cluster of three cases was reported in another of the district’s chiefdoms, two of them from unknown transmission chains that responders suspect are linked to neighboring Kambia district, which reported 5 cases last week.The WHO noted that community engagement is still a problem in several Kambia district chiefdoms and that better communication is needed to help health officials understand local concerns and why people aren’t reporting cases, deaths, and burials.One bright spot in Sierra Leone is that no cases were reported in Western Urban Area district, which includes Freetown. However, the WHO noted that 195 contacts in that area are still being monitored.Liberia reaches 1-month mark amid cautionThe United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER) today recognized Liberia for going 1 month without a new case since it was declared free of the virus. Peter Graaff, head of UNMEER, said in statement today that Liberia’s progress is exciting, but that risks remain. “The threat to the region remains so long as there is one single case of Ebola in any country,” he said.The group said it met with leaders of Guinea and Sierra Leone on Jun 5 to discuss cross-border cooperation needed to drive cases down to zero in both countries.Graaff said the key to success is community participation in battling the virus. “Communities are our front-line works in the fight against Ebola.”UNMEER said it is working on handing over its capacities to the three hardest hit countries and on May 31 closed its office in Liberia, after transferring its operations to local officials. It added that it is transitioning its operations in Sierra Leone and Guinea, as well, with goals of closing its Sierra Leone office on Jun 30 and its Guinea office on Jul 31.Graaff said increased international and national capacities for fighting Ebola have allowed UNMEER to scale back some of its operations, but he said measures are still in place to ensure that response activities continue until cases reach zero. “The UN family is committed to seeing this fight through to the end, even once UNMEER leaves.”Studies compare Ebola strains, assess lingering symptomsIn macaques, infections with the Ebola strain responsible for West Africa’s outbreak appear to be less virulent than infections with a virus that triggered the first known Ebola outbreak in 1976. A research team at the National Institutes of Health Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Mont., published its findings yesterday in Emerging Infectious Diseases. Though clinical symptoms and parameters were similar in animals infected with both viruses, the ones experimentally infected with the current Ebola Makona strain lagged behind in many, especially progression to end-stage disease. Though the disease was less virulent in the Ebola Makona-infected macaques, all the animals eventually died. The team concluded that the findings seem consistent with the lower case-fatality rate seen in the current outbreak, compared with the 1976 outbreak, and that the macaque model they developed can be useful for developing countermeasures against the current strain affecting West Africa.A survey of 105 Ebola survivors in Guinea found that anorexia and joint pain are common, according to a study by researchers in Minnesota, Guinea, and Senegal published yesterday in Clinical Infectious Diseases. The mean time between hospital discharge and when patients took the survey was about 103 days. Anorexia was reported by 103 respondents and varied by intensity, though 65 reported it as moderate. Joints were by far the most common pain site, reported in nearly 87% of participants. Most patients reported moderate or excellent recovery of functional status. Investigators found that joint pain was related to lower functional recovery, and they said there may be a role for targeted screening and symptom intervention in Ebola survivors.See also:Jun 10 WHO Ebola situation updateJun 10 UNMEER press releaseJun 9 Emerg Infect Dis studyJun 9 Clin Infect Dis abstract
Only half of the patients diagnosed as having one of three common bacterial infections are receiving the recommended first-line antibiotic treatment, according to new research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Pew Charitable Trusts.The findings also come with recommendations from a Pew panel on which outpatients should get first-line antibiotics.The research, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that, of the more than 44 million patients who receive outpatient antibiotic prescriptions for sinus infections, middle-ear infections, and pharyngitis (sore throat) each year, only 52% receive the recommended first-line antibiotics such as penicillin or amoxicillin.Instead, they are being treated with broader spectrum antibiotics like azithromycin, a finding experts say is problematic on several levels.Narrow-spectrum drugs like penicillin and amoxicillin are recommended as first-line therapy for sinus infections, middle-ear infections, and pharyngitis because they are the best treatment available. And one of the reasons they are better than macrolides like azithromycin for sinus and middle-ear infections is because of high rates of resistance to macrolides among Streptococcus pneumoniae, the most common bacterial cause of these infections.”We believe the first-line therapy is most likely the best therapy for the patient,” study author Lauri Hicks, DO, director of the CDC’s Office of Antibiotic Stewardship, told CIDRAP News. “So we have concerns about this from a patient safety perspective.”But beyond that, Hicks added, using broad-spectrum antibiotics that cover more types of bacteria can potentially fuel greater resistance to those drugs. And that could endanger treatment of more serious infections.”When we’re using those broad-spectrum agents for these conditions, we’re potentially losing the ability to use them in the more serious situations where we really need them,” Hicks said.Antibiotic selectionThis is the second report published by Pew and the CDC on outpatient antibiotic prescribing. The first, published in May, found that at least 30% of antibiotic prescriptions in outpatient settings are unnecessary—such as when antibiotics are prescribed for viral illnesses like the common cold. This study looked at antibiotic selection.The authors of the study focused on sinus infections, middle-ear infections, and pharyngitis because those three conditions account for nearly 30% of the antibiotics prescribed in outpatient settings—which includes doctor’s offices, emergency department, and hospital specialty clinics (but not urgent care clinics or retail clinics). Their analysis, based on US prescribing data from 2010 and 2011, distinguished between pediatric prescriptions and adult prescriptions.A breakdown of the study’s findings by type of infection shows that for sinus infections, only 52% of children were treated with the recommended antibiotic amoxicillin (or the alternative, amoxicillin with clavulanate), and only 37% of adults were prescribed these drugs. For pharyngitis, only 60% of kids and 37% of adults were treated with amoxicillin or penicillin. And only 67% of children received the proper antibiotics (amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanate) for middle-ear infections, which rarely occur in adults.Macrolides, the study found, were the most commonly prescribed non-first-line antibiotic.”This tells us that there’s a lot of room for improvement,” co-author David Hyun, MD, a pediatrician and senior officer for Pew’s antibiotic resistance project, told CIDRAP News. If there’s a lot of deviation from the recommended treatment guidelines, Hyun explained, that means there’s a higher chance that patients aren’t being treated effectively. In addition, using broad-spectrum antibiotics can put patients at higher risk of adverse events, such as Clostridium difficile.”When you don’t use a first-line agent, the benefit-to-risk ratio changes,” Hyun said.Convenience and perceptionAlthough the study does not explore the reasons providers are so frequently veering from the recommended treatments, both Hicks and Hyun have some ideas.Hicks said the simplest explanation may be the convenience factor. For example, azithromycin is a once-a-day drug, while some of the first-line drugs need to be taken twice or even three times a day. But Hicks believes there’s also a perception, shared by both provider and patient, that broader may be better, and that using drugs that cover more bacteria makes it less likely that something could be missed.Hyun suggests there’s also a social dynamic going between patients and doctors, where patient expectations—and how doctors perceive those expectations—are playing a role in antibiotic prescribing. “Physicians and providers feel, a lot of the time, that patients walk into their office with a certain level of expectation for antibiotics,” Hyun said.And that, along with the patient’s previous experience, can have an impact on antibiotic selection. So if a patient has previously received a broad-spectrum antibiotic and it worked well, they’ll probably ask for that same antibiotic again. “That can influence the prescriber,” Hyun said.Setting targetsIn an accompanying report on the Pew Web site, a panel of experts set targets for improving the selection of antibiotic prescribing, based on an estimate of how much of the population should be getting first-line antibiotics for these conditions.Their estimate, which took into account patients who might have allergies to first-line antibiotics or might not respond to the recommended therapy, was that at least 80% of outpatients should be getting first-line drugs. Hicks noted that this goal is very conservative, but said the panel “wanted to give doctors the benefit of the doubt,” since there are cases where first-line antibiotics may not be the best choice.Both Hicks and Hyun, who are members of the panel that set the targets, agree that reaching their goal will rely not only on better education for patients and providers but also on better communication between the two parties. That means patients need to be clear about their expectations, and doctors need to give patients as much information as they can about a given antibiotic and explain why the recommended antibiotics are the best treatment option.”I think having an open dialogue is going to be very important,” Hyun said.See also:Oct 24 JAMA Intern Med research letterOct 24 Pew Charitable Trusts reportMay 3 Pew report