text:
Crews stabilize cap that covers San Jacinto Waste Pits
Perla Trevizo June 20, 2019 Updated: June 20, 2019 7:24 p.m.
1of4The San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site sits under floodwater as members of the Army National Guard travel to Beaumont in Chinook helicopters to deliver hay to cattle stranded by Tropical Storm Harvey Tuesday, Sept. 5, 2017.Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Staff / Houston Chronicle
2of4A sign warns the public about the EPA Superfund Site and not to eat contaminated seafood caught from the water along I-10 near the San Jacinto River east of Houston, Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, in Channelview. TexansPhoto: Michael Paulsen, Staff / Houston Chronicle
3of4An articulated concrete block mat is being installed in the area shown in blue. It will extend from the surface of the capped area to the floor of the San Jacinto River. About 4,100 square yards of the material will be installed over the existing cap on a steep slope in the northwest area of the northern impoundment.Photo: Contributed image: Environmental Protection Agency
4of4Signs south of the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site warn people not to consume fish from the area Friday, August 26, 2016 in Channelview.Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Staff / Houston Chronicle
With hurricane season underway, contractors this week secured a sloped area of the San Jacinto Waste Pits that has needed multiple repairs over the years — an interim fix while officials continue to work on a design to remove cancer-causing toxic substances from the site.
The pits became a federal Superfund site in 2008 and were capped in 2011, partly in response to prior reports of leaks and fears of damage from hurricanes. But the northwest side has been a source of trouble, especially during heavy storms and hurricanes, because it includes a steep slope.
After Hurricane Harvey in 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency found dioxin sediment near the pits at a level that was more than 2,000 times the agency's standard for cleanup. While rocks have been used to help keep the cap on the flat parts of the site, the rocks would slide off the northwest side, said Gary Baumgarten, project manager with the EPA.
On May 20, a team of divers and workers began placing what's called an articulated concrete block mat to extend from the surface of the capped area to the floor of the San Jacinto River. Once the mat was in place, they brought out a special mix of concrete and pumped it into tubes that are part of the block mat, Baumgarten said. Work was finished Wednesday.
The plan involved installing about 4,100 square yards of this material over the existing cap in the northwest area to help stabilize it while the design for the remedy is completed, he said.
It's an area where the responsible parties had to do repairs on several occasions, and given that the remedial design process was going to take about two and a half years to complete, they decided it was best to shore up that section of the site, Baumgarten said.
The pits, on the western bank of the San Jacinto River near the Interstate 10 bridge, were used into the 1960s to store waste that was taken by barge from a nearby paper mill. The site was originally on the riverbank in eastern Harris County, but it became partially submerged over time due to subsidence, dredging and construction of the I-10 bridge near Channelview, which altered the path of the river. The site is about 60 percent underwater on a normal tide.
Dioxins are linked to birth defects, cancer and reproductive problems even in microscopic doses.
The EPA announced plans in October 2017 to remove about 212,000 cubic yards of material containing the dangerous compounds from the waste pits. And in April 2018, it reached a long-awaited agreement with International Paper Co. and McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corp. to clean up the pits.
The estimated cost of the plan is $115 million and the design is expected to be completed by November, after which the actual cleanup can begin.
The cap, even though at one point sold as a potential final remedy to the waste pits, was never applicable for that location, said Jackie Young, who leads the Texas Health and Environment Alliance.
"Here we have a dynamic river with varying depths and the pits are located right where the river bottlenecks and goes under I-10, so the flow velocity rates are among the highest in that location of the entire river," said Young, who grew up around the site.
"But something had to be done to stop or slow the release from the site because there was nothing protecting it from the river," she said.
In late December 2015, Young said, an EPA dive team discovered a 22-foot-by-25-foot hole in the northwest portion of the site, which is also a place that has shown some of the highest concentrations of dioxins over the years.
"The cap has needed repeated repairs nearly every year since it was constructed in 2011. Some years numerous repairs, and most of those repairs occur in the northwest quadrant where they are now putting the concrete block mat," she said.
While Young and her organization preferred the work be done sooner, she said, it is a move in the right direction.
"Without it being properly covered, we can't have any confidence the waste is safely contained," she said. "And this matting system has given us the confidence that we have never had."
At the same time, they understand this is a temporary fix.
"If our coast were to be struck by a hurricane, I don't know how this site would fare," she said. "None of this man-made construction is for sure when it comes to dealing with forces of Mother Nature."
As opposed to dealing with an oil spill, dioxin is colorless. "If they were released from the site, we likely would not know unless it was picked up in a quarterly inspection."
The waste pits are a sore reminder of everything the community has gone through, Young said.
"Getting that site out of the river cannot happen fast enough," she said. "However, it is an incredibly delicate process when we have a river as dynamic as the San Jacinto River on a hurricane and flood-prone coast. We have to take every step possible to mitigate any potential releases or accidents during construction and removal."
Even though the design process is scheduled to take more than two years, the group is not pushing to speed it up, she said.
"At every other part of this process we have pushed to go faster," she said, "but not this design process because we understand the work that has to go into figuring out exactly how this waste is going to be removed and how it's going to be transported and where it's ultimately going to go."
perla.trevizo@chron.com
twitter.com/perla_trevizo
Perla Trevizo
Follow Perla on:
Perla_Trevizo
Perla Trevizo covers the environment for the Houston Chronicle. She previously was a member of the Arizona Daily's Star investigative team, focusing on border and immigration. Perla has covered a range of topics, from county politics to higher education in Texas and Tennessee, and reported from nearly a dozen countries. She has a political science degree from the University of Texas at Austin and a Master's in journalism from Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain.
Feeling the heat: Climate change could mean more extreme heat days for Houston and Texas, report concludes
The city of South Houston wants to remove mercury limits from its wastewater plant permit. Residents are fighting to keep them.
KMCO fined for pattern of environmental violations at Crosby plant


text:
Q: Plotting in matplotlib I wrote the following code,
import numpy as np
from random import gauss
from random import seed
from pandas import Series
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import math
###variable declaration
R=0.000001 #radiaus of particle
beta=0.23 # shape factor
Ad=9.2#characteristic nanoscale defect area
gamma=4*10**-2 #surface tension
tau=.0001 #line tension

phi=-(math.pi/2)#spatial perturbation
lamda=((Ad)/(2*3.14*R)) #averge contcat line position

mu=0.001#viscosity of liquid
lamda_m=10**-9# characteristic size of adsorption site
KbT=(1.38**-24)*293 # boltzman constant with tempartaure
nu=0.001#moleculer volume in liquid phase 1
khi=3 #scaling factor
#deltaF=(beta*gamma*Ad)#surface energy perturbation
deltaF=19*KbT
# seed random number generator
seed(0)
# create white noise series
series = [gauss(0.0, 1.0) for i in range(1)]
series = Series(series)
#########################################
Z=0.0000001 #particle position
time=1
dt=1
for time in np.arange(1, 100, dt):
#####simulation loop#######
    theta=np.arccos(-Z/R) #contact angle
    theta_e=((math.pi*110)/180) #equilibrium contact angle
    Z_e=-R*np.cos(theta_e)#equilibrium position of particle
    C=3.14*gamma*(R-Z_e) #additive constant
    Fsz= (gamma*math.pi*(Z-Z_e)**2)+(tau*2*math.pi*math.sqrt(R**2-Z**2))+C
    Fz=Fsz+(0.5*deltaF*np.sin((2*math.pi/lamda)*(Z-Z_e)-phi))#surface force
    #dFz=(((gamma*Ad)/2)*np.sin(2*math.pi/lamda))+((Z-Z_e)*(2*gamma*math.pi))-((tau*2*math.pi*Z)/(math.sqrt(R**2-Z**2)))
    dFz=(deltaF*np.sin(2*math.pi/lamda))+((Z-Z_e)*(2*gamma*math.pi))-((tau*2*math.pi*Z)/(math.sqrt(R**2-Z**2)))
    w_a=gamma*lamda_m**2*(1-np.cos(theta_e)) #work of adhesion
    epsilon_z=2*math.pi*R*np.sin(theta)*mu*(nu/(lamda_m**3))*np.exp(w_a/KbT)#transitional drag
    epsilon_s=khi*mu*((4*math.pi**2*R**2)/math.sqrt(Ad))*(1-(Z/R)**2)
    epsilon=epsilon_z+epsilon_s
    Ft=math.sqrt(2*KbT*epsilon)*series #thermal force
    v=(dFz+Ft)/epsilon ##new velocity
    Z=Z+v*dt #new position
    print('z=',Z)
    print('v=',v)
    print('Fz=',Fz)
    print('dFz',dFz)
    print('time',time)
plt.plot(Z,time)
plt.show()

According to my code I suppose to have 99 values for everything (Fz, Z, v , time). While I print , I can see all the values but while I was trying to plot them with different parameters with respect to each other for analyzing, I never get any graph. Can anyone tell me, what is missing from my code with explanation?

A: I suppose, you will get plot anyway, y-values are probably from 94 to 104.
Now you are plotting line with one point. Its length is zero, that's why you cannot see it, try: plt.plot(Z,time,'*').
Now you should get graph with an asterix in the middle.
As Thomas suggested, you should use arrays instead of using last calculated value. If you prefer loops (sometimes they are easier to modify), modify the lines...
Before loop:

Z = [0.0000001] # Initialize Z for time 0
  time_vec = np.arange(1, 100, dt)

Inside loop:

Z.append(Z[-1] + v*dt) # new position

After loop:

plt.plot(Z[1:], time_vec)

Have no time to test it, hopefully works...
Note that first argument in plot command is x-axis values and second y-axis, I'd prefer time in x-axis.

A: @AnttiA's answer is basically correct, but can be easily misunderstood, as can be seen from the OP's comment. Therefore here the complete code altered such that a plot is actually produced. Instead of making Z a list, define another variable as list, say Z_all = [], and then append the updated Z-values to that list. The same can be done for the time variable, i.e. time_all = np.arange(1,100,dt). Finally, take the plot command out of the loop and plot the entire data series at once.
Note that in your example you don't really have a series of random numbers, you pull one fixed number for one fixed seed, thus the plot is not really meaningful (it appears to be producing a straight line). Trying to interpret your intentions correctly, you probably want a series of random numbers that is as long as your time series. This is most easily done using np.random.normal
There are a lot of other ways that your code could be optimised. For instance, all mathematical functions from the math module are also found in numpy, so you could just not import math at all. The same goes for pandas. Also, you define some constant values inside the for-loop, which could be computed once before the loop. Lastly, @AnttiA is probably right, that you want time on the x axis and Z on the y axis. I therefore generate two plots -- on the left time over Z and on the right Z over time. Now finally the altered code:
import numpy as np
#from random import gauss
#from random import seed
#from pandas import Series
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
#import math

###variable declaration
R=0.000001 #radiaus of particle
beta=0.23 # shape factor
Ad=9.2#characteristic nanoscale defect area
gamma=4*10**-2 #surface tension
tau=.0001 #line tension

phi=-(np.pi/2)#spatial perturbation
lamda=((Ad)/(2*3.14*R)) #averge contcat line position

mu=0.001#viscosity of liquid
lamda_m=10**-9# characteristic size of adsorption site
KbT=(1.38**-24)*293 # boltzman constant with tempartaure
nu=0.001#moleculer volume in liquid phase 1
khi=3 #scaling factor
#deltaF=(beta*gamma*Ad)#surface energy perturbation
deltaF=19*KbT

##quantities moved out of the for-loop:
theta_e=((np.pi*110)/180) #equilibrium contact angle
Z_e=-R*np.cos(theta_e)#equilibrium position of particle
C=3.14*gamma*(R-Z_e) #additive constant
w_a=gamma*lamda_m**2*(1-np.cos(theta_e)) #work of adhesion

#########################################
Z=0.0000001 #particle position
##time=1
dt=1

Z_all = []
time_all = np.arange(1, 100, dt)
# seed random number generator
# seed(0)
np.random.seed(0)
# create white noise series
##series = [gauss(0.0, 1.0) for i in range(1)]
##series = Series(series)
series = np.random.normal(0.0, 1.0, len(time_all))

for time, S in zip(time_all,series):
#####simulation loop#######
    Z_all.append(Z)
    theta=np.arccos(-Z/R) #contact angle
    Fsz= (gamma*np.pi*(Z-Z_e)**2)+(tau*2*np.pi*np.sqrt(R**2-Z**2))+C
    Fz=Fsz+(0.5*deltaF*np.sin((2*np.pi/lamda)*(Z-Z_e)-phi))#surface force
    #dFz=(((gamma*Ad)/2)*np.sin(2*np.pi/lamda))+((Z-Z_e)*(2*gamma*np.pi))-((tau*2*np.pi*Z)/(np.sqrt(R**2-Z**2)))
    dFz=(deltaF*np.sin(2*np.pi/lamda))+((Z-Z_e)*(2*gamma*np.pi))-((tau*2*np.pi*Z)/(np.sqrt(R**2-Z**2)))
    epsilon_z=2*np.pi*R*np.sin(theta)*mu*(nu/(lamda_m**3))*np.exp(w_a/KbT)#transitional drag
    epsilon_s=khi*mu*((4*np.pi**2*R**2)/np.sqrt(Ad))*(1-(Z/R)**2)
    epsilon=epsilon_z+epsilon_s
    Ft=np.sqrt(2*KbT*epsilon)*S #series #thermal force
    v=(dFz+Ft)/epsilon ##new velocity
    Z=Z+v*dt #new position
    print('z=',Z)
    print('v=',v)
    print('Fz=',Fz)
    print('dFz',dFz)
    print('time',time)

fig, axes = plt.subplots(nrows=1, ncols=2, figsize=(8,4))

axes[0].plot(Z_all,time_all)
axes[0].set_xlabel('Z')
axes[0].set_ylabel('t')

axes[1].plot(time_all, Z_all)
axes[1].set_xlabel('t')
axes[1].set_ylabel('Z')

fig.tight_layout()

plt.show()

The result looks like this:

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


The enigmatic charisma of the obsidian black has been beautifully rendered on the Noir Dupatta. It is embellished with Tree of Life Skein Work. Pair it with any Lehenga or Sharara to complete your celebration look.


text:
Harvest Festival for Haaland and Lewandowski
Tom Hancock / Author
In their last Bundesliga home match before the international break, Bayern Munich beat Greuther Fürth 3-1 – but Robert Lewandowski lost. For the first time since February, the petrifyingly prolific Pole failed to score, letting slip an incredible streak of finding the net in 19 consecutive club games – during which he racked up 30 goals in total, including three braces and four hat-tricks.
Some 80% (24) of those goals came in the Bundesliga – where the 33-year-old Ballon d'Or contender has won the much cooler-sounding German equivalent of the Golden Boot, the 'Torjägerkanone' ('top scorer cannon'), in each of the last four seasons.
Lewandowski's all-time record 41-goal Bundesliga haul in 2020-21 – which, if we assume for ease of comparison with other leagues that he played all 34 games, he amassed at a rate of 1.2 goals per game – saw him become the first German-based player to scoop the European Golden Shoe since the great Gerd Müller 49 years earlier.
Clearly, the man is a machine – but he's also the latest model to roll off the factory line in a Bundesliga rise of the machines that's been in motion for 30 years. Looking at the German top flight in five-season blocks since 1991, we see that the average goal tally of each season's top scorer (or scorers) has gone up every time: from 18.8 to 21.6 to 23.2 to 24.4 to 24.6 to (thanks in no small part to Lewandowski's 156 goals between 2016-17 and 2020-21) 31.4. Each of Europe's other top five leagues has seen its average decrease at least once in the same period.
Since 2016-17, when Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang took home the Torjägerkanone with 31 goals in his final season at Borussia Dortmund, the Bundesliga's leading scorer has averaged 0.92 goals per game, the highest rate in the top five leagues. Not even the presence of Lionel Messi could push next-ranked La Liga's figure above 0.85. As for the Premier League, it hasn't earned its status as the best league in the world because of relentlessly free-scoring forwards; overall, the last five Golden Boot winners have averaged 0.67 goals per game, coming in a fair way short of Serie A (0.78), Ligue 1* (0.8) and the two aforementioned divisions. [*2019-20 season incomplete due to Covid-19]
Aside from Lewandowski and Aubameyang, Anthony Modeste, Timo Werner, Erling Haaland and André Silva have all broken the 25-goal barrier in the last five seasons – meaning it's happened eight times in total. Account for the Bundesliga's 34-fixture schedule (the other divisions are all 38 matchdays long) and the second-most prolific league, so to speak, is Serie A – where there have been five cases of a player scoring at 0.73 goals per game since 2016-17, two of which have been 2019-20 Golden Shoe winner Ciro Immobile).
On recent evidence, then, the Bundesliga is fertile ground for goal machines. But are Lewandowski and fellow terminator of defences Erling Haaland just combine harvesters in a farmers' league?
Er, not exactly… For starters, they've both dominated the Champions League over the last couple of years.
As Bayern were crowned champions of Europe for the sixth time in 2019-20, Lewandowski top-scored with 15 goals. It was the second time he'd hit double figures in the competition, having struck ten times – including all four goals in a 4-1 semi-final first leg thrashing of Real Madrid – during Dortmund's run to the 2013 final at Wembley, where they lost to Bayern. Cristiano Ronaldo is the only other player to have notched 15 or more goals in a single edition (inevitably, he's done it on three occasions).
Haaland then kept the Bundesliga flag flying last season by leading the way with ten goals, despite Dortmund going out in the quarter-finals. Sure, it was the first time since 2014-15 that no one had managed more than ten, but the Norwegian, who broke out with Red Bull Salzburg in 2019, banging in a first-half hat-trick on his Champions League debut against Genk, became the youngest and quickest player to 20 goals in the competition, reaching the milestone at the age of 20 years and 231 days – surpassing Kylian Mbappe by over a year – and in just 14 appearances – smashing Harry Kane's previous record by ten games.
But what makes Lewandowski and Haaland so superhumanly effective at domestic level? Well, certain aspects of the league play a part, but there's simply no getting away from the fact that they are two absolutely elite operators in any context.
Since 18th January 2020, when Haaland made his Borussia Dortmund debut – scoring a hat-trick within 23 minutes of coming on a substitute because that's just the kind of outrageous thing he does – he and Lewandowski have been responsible for 110 (6.8%) of all 1,603 Bundesliga goals scored – and 96 (6.4%) out of 1,479 non-penalty goals. Both have netted at a rate of slightly over a goal per 90 minutes, while they also rank second and first respectively for non-penalty expected goals per 90 in that time (0.76 and 0.92).
Over the same date range in the top five leagues, of players to remain in the same league and play 900 minutes or more, no one has posted a higher xG per 90 than Lewandowski. Only Kylian Mbappe (0.77 xG/90) has outdone Haaland (honourable mention for Glenn Murray, though, who finished his Premier League career with a flourish by falling 0.01 xG/90 short of matching post-Dortmund debut Haaland).
With seven goals in just five league appearances in 2021-22, Haaland is on course to set a new Bundesliga record off 44 – and it's worth mentioning even with the season still in its infancy as his potential makes it an entirely possible feat. Lewandowski, meanwhile, may 'only' be going along at a goal a game so far, but we know he's capable of flicking a switch and hitting the most purple of purple patches at any moment.
Bundesliga players were the most creative in the top five leagues from 2016-16 to 2020-21, averaging 0.08 expected assists per game. That average may only have been 0.01 lower in the Premier League, Serie A and Ligue 1, and 0.02 lower in La Liga – but even the most supremely individually capable strikers appreciate good service…
It would be remiss not to pass comment on the general quality of defending in the German top-flight, though.
Just once since 2016-17 has the Bundesliga not ranked bottom among the top five leagues in terms of expected goals against; that was last season, when the average Serie A team gave up 1.45 xGA per game compared to the average Bundesliga side's 1.44 – so we're talking the finest of fine margins anyway.
How much of that is due to the presence of some of Europe's deadliest marksmen – and how much those strikers' success is facilitated by the worst defending in the top five leagues – is hard to nail down precisely, but if you watch the Bundesliga and think that it's 'no defence, just vibes', you kind of have a point. The relatively slow start to Premier League life that Timo Werner and Jadon Sancho have made might give some thinkers pause for thought, but if Haaland is on the move next summer it will have absolutely no impact on his attractiveness to England's top sides.
After seven rounds of the current campaign, there have already been five instances of a team scoring five or more goals in a game – and Bayern are the only side in the top five leagues so far to manage seven, dishing that particular punishment out to Bochum (extraordinarily, Lewandowski only got one of the seven). The same has only happened eight times across the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A and Ligue 1 – where every team is between seven and nine fixtures into 2021-22.
Would the likes of Lewandowski and Haaland put up the same numbers in a significantly defensively stronger division such as the Premier League or La Liga? No – but they wouldn't need to. It's patently obvious that they're two of the very best in the world (in Lewandowski's case – and surely Haaland's in years to come – one of the very best of all time); we should probably all just appreciate that the Bundesliga allows them to showcase themselves at their most brilliantly devastating.
After all, as Danny Blanchflower didn't quite say, the game is about goals.
Enjoy this? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive exclusive content.
Design by Ruben Dias.
Jürgen Klopp's 1,000 Games: By the Numbers
1 week ago Graham Bell
Bundesliga Rest of Season Predictions 2022-23
1 week ago Robbie Dunne
Is Randal Kolo Muani Football's Next €100m Forward?
1 week ago Lewis Ambrose
Niclas Füllkrug: Germany's New 'Old' Striker Continues His Ascent
1 week ago Ninad Barbadikar

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


"checked in luggage was lost"
✅ Trip Verified | Amman to Barcelona via Algiers. I would not recommend this airlines at all. During my trip from Amman to Barcelona through Algiers, all my checked in luggage was lost, and it has not been found since. I submitted two claims, but the airline never got back to me (not answering phone or email).
✅ Trip Verified | London to Algiers. There was a slight delay, but the service onboard was excellent. Clean, very nice food and friendly personnel. Very pleased with the whole experience. Would fly Air Algerie again.
"Aircraft is old and dirty"
✅ Trip Verified | Algiers to Paris, the worst airline ever. Aircraft is old and dirty. Flight time was delayed and postponed. The check in process at counter is very slow. The only efficiency thing is their system down time. The staff is not well trained etc.
"My luggage did not come in"
✅ Verified Review | Bamako to Algiers. A 21:15 flight was delayed around 21:30. This was the first we heard anything. At around 22:30 we were told the plane would take off the next day. We were fed by 23:00. Around 00:00 shuttles started to a hotel. I got yelled at by airline personnel while boarding a shuttle. The last of us got to the hotel around 2:30 where we were dropped off with no information. The hotel was absolutely horrid. The hotel personnel shared no flight information so around noon the next day I asked for a number for the Air Algerie personnel who'd made the reservation. He picked up after about 3 calls and told me not to call back. Around 17:00 we were told to be ready to depart at 00:00. Around 23:40 2 shuttles came. There was a mad, unorganized rush to board the shuttles because there wasn't enough space. I got pushed and shoved but left behind. One shuttle left the hotel without having its door closed. Around 00:30 another shuttle came and I managed to get on. After standing in line at the airport for an hour I got a new boarding pass. I was assured that the luggage that I had handed over the previous day would be on the plane. Service on the flight was fairly decent. Plane landed around 8:00 and took off fine. The seat was absolutely filthy, however, and the bathroom was disgusting. My luggage did not come in. I tried to report my luggage as lost but was told I could not because I had no baggage claim tickets (they'd been taken by the airline when I got my new boarding pass). I was told to come back the next morning at 3:00. I got yelled at again while reporting the luggage lost. Another passenger said that a plane from Bamako was coming in at noon and we should wait so I did. luggage came in around 12:30.
✅ Verified Review | Excellent flight, good service with hearty meal (starter main course dessert tea and coffee) Duty service on board. A generous pitch for economy class seats. Note the delay at departure due to the closure of Orly airport and the flights diverted to Paris CDG.
✅ Verified Review | Paris to Algiers. Very good flight, excellent catering, clean plane, but crowded. The cabin is spacious for a 737, room for the legs, comfortable seat. Very good meal for a 2 hour flight. The crew is listening. Only complaint, the windows were dirty.
✅ Verified Review | Algiers to Montreal. The service is very bad, actually, there is nobody to whom to talk my flight was supposed to be on Tuesday at 12;40, But we flight at 1830 cause a strike. The food was inedible. I missed my connection in Montreal to Toronto (knowing I bought my ticket 160$) And for sure, no one from Air Algerie in Montreal to receive us. I spent the night in the airport. I will never ever take this company again.
"staff are a mixed bunch"
✅ Verified Review | Flew Air Algerie from Oran to Paris. I do not understand where this airline got 3 stars from, 1 should be more appropriate. The cleanliness, or rather lack of, is a major issue. The newer planes especially are already really dirty (food crumbs everywhere, seats are not cleaned and toilets a disgrace). Staff are a mixed bunch, some are friendly but others have never heard of politeness or friendliness. Languages spoken are Arabic and French, you can forget about English. Food is just acceptable, nothing more. Flights are usually not on time (especially flights later in the day). Legroom is, in fact, acceptable.
"aircraft are old and dirty"
✅ Verified Review | Air Algerie is the worst airline I have flown. Algiers-Ghardaia flight: one flight attendant, not speaking English, smallest pack of cookies to eat. Algiers to Timimoun flight (2nd May 16) cancelled, due to sandstorm - OK, but no other proposal given, had to fight to get rebooked to Adrar, 9 hours at the airport waiting. Timimoun to Oran flight od 4th May 16 - at the airport nobody knows if the aircraft will come and take passengers, not to mention that nobody knows when. 3 hours delay. Of course at the airport you can not buy anything to eat or drink (not even a bottle of water), just sit and wait. Nothing to eat onboard as well, not even peanuts nor cookies. Altogether over 6 hours with no food. Oran to Algiers flight the same day - the same situation. Nobody knows in Oran if the aircraft will depart today nor when. At the time of scheduled departure we took a taxi to Algiers not to risk missing the flight to Europe (fortunately with Lufthansa). Aircraft (ATRs 72 and B737) are old, very used, dirty. The seat covers are sticky of dirt, seat pockets full of old crumbs and rubbish. If you wish an inflight magazine, you should buy business class ticket, as it is non-existant in economy class.
"will not fly Air Algerie again"
I returned on the flight from Algiers to London Heathrow on the 20th December - the flight was over 3 hours late it was scheduled to take of at 10.20am, however 2 hours later no sign of taking off, no information given for the delay, no refreshments offered and worst no apologies specially since the staff where hovering around passengers like zombies. Anyway 2 hours later a call on the speakers said that all Air Algerie passengers should go to gate 16 for an immediate take off which was at the other end off the airport - everybody rushed to the gate thinking that we will be on air in few minutes. When we got there was a long queue and no sign of the aircraft the staff where sitting there like zombies and there was no explanation offered for the delay - about an hour later a very painful and very slow gate checking process started. Still no information on the delay however by that time it was too late anyway, the transfer to the aircraft was by bus and I waited to the last moment to present myself to the gate desk to avoid stuck in the queues unnecessarily. The waiting in the bus was like for ever and to make matters worst it seems the bus did the tour of Algiers to get us to the aircraft because it was at the other end of the runway. When I got in the aircraft I asked why the delay and I was told it was due to the baggage handlers strike. I asked why didn't Air Algerie offer any information, explanation, refreshments or apologies I was told that even the staff didn't know as they where told to carry on with their duties. Still nobody apologised until take off by the captain which was at around 13.30pm. I have championed Air Algerie over other carriers like British Airways but I am extremely disappointed and to add insult to injury I have paid £50.00 more than traveling with British Airways for the same journey. I can promise you that I will not fly with Air Algerie ever again.


Turning over a new leaf requires a sleek new diary in which to keep appointments, plans and to-do lists - even if goes only half-filled from February. Whether it's flicking through Smythson's steel-blue soho sheaf or choosing a pretty, personalised Papier volume, your year deserves fresh new paper. Shop Vogue's edit of the best 2019 diaries with which to grace your desk come January.


logis/rules with results appearing within the same question??
Replied by aesteban on topic logis/rules with results appearing within the same question??
Next question could be conditional and "Text display" type.
Replied by paulieC123 on topic logis/rules with results appearing within the same question??
Replied by DenisChenu on topic logis/rules with results appearing within the same question??


January 28 – Pajarito Powder, through its license with STC.UNM, the University of New Mexico's technology-transfer and economic-development organization, was formally granted the European patent for "Non-PGM catalysts for ORR based on charge transfer organic complexes" by the European Patent Office, another significant step toward securing Pajarito Powder's intellectual property position, globally, for fuel cell catalyst products. Non-PGM refers to the catalysts' activity without the use of Platinum Group Metals.
The patent was granted by the European Patent Office on November 8, shortly after Pajarito Powder received notice for the patent grants in both Japan and China.
Pajarito Powder Chief Scientist Dr. Alexey Serov and former UNM Distinguished Professor Plamen Atanassov, who is currently the University of California, Irvine, Chancellor's Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, are the inventors on the patent. The patent was originally filed in the United States and granted on June 6, 2017.
Pajarito Powder, LLC, is a venture-backed startup, funded by the Verge Fund and other investors, and focused on developing next-generation fuel cell catalysts and advanced catalyst support materials for the automotive and electrolyzer industries. Working with automotive OEMs and other major manufacturers, Pajarito Powder is well poised to lead in the development of advanced catalyst and catalyst-support materials in the rapidly developing industries of hydrogen fuel cells and electrolyzers.


Tupicoffs engaged Caden Office Leasing exclusively as their Preferred Leasing Agents to identify all relocation options.
Tupicoffs changing their mind about the fit out did not delay the leasing process due to Caden's exclusive focus on the Brisbane CBD and detailed information on all leasing opportunities. A new shortlist was reverted to immediately, keeping the process moving forward without compromising the timeframes.
Tupicoffs entered into a lease agreement to relocate their workforce to 410 Ann St, increasing floor area by 46.73% with an total increase in costs of less than 20%.


Camilla Pedersen grabbed the 2015 Ironman 70.3 European Championships aboard a Shimano, Zipp and CeramicSpeed equipped Specialized S-Works Shiv, and we have detailed pics.
Pedersen's Shiv in transition the day before the race on a pretty day in Wiesbaden.
Pedersen rides with 2-button Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 shifters on the extensions.
A different perspective of the cockpit.
Pedersen paired a Zipp 404 with a Specialized Turbo tire in the front.
A 54 tooth S-Works chainring on S-Works cranks with an SRM power meter.
The Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 rear derailleur has CeramicSpeed pulleys.
There are also CeramicSpeed bearings in the BB of this S-Works Shiv, and that is a stock feature.
Look pedals for Camilla Pedersen.
A side entry cage on the seat tube of the S-Works Shiv is the only cage mounted on the frame.
A Specialized Sitero is the choice seat for Pedersen.
An XLab Gorilla cage is mounted to the Specialized Sitero integrated mount.
Another look at the cockpit of Camilla Pedersen.


asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of redundancies in all industries notified to the Department of Employment in June, 1972.
Redundancies notified to my Department in June, 1972, in all industries involved 15,150 work-people.
Can my right hon. Friend say how those figures compare with June, 1970, June, 1971, and January of this year? Would I be right in thinking that the redundancies notified in about January and February of this year have been included in the unemployment figures for June? Were they not exceptionally heavy in January, thereby causing that hiccup in the unemployment figure? May I take it that if there has been a reduction in redundancies notified, that is a much better indicator than the unemployment figures which are rather unsatisfactory?
I am not quite certain whether my hon. Friend's reasoning is accurate, but I can answer him on a matter of fact. Redundancies now are about 90 per cent. of what they were in June, 1970, and about 36 per cent. of what they were in June, 1971. There have been considerable reductions in the number of redundancies, and naturally my Department is doing all that it can to resettle these people.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Manchester area the doom-laden laying-off of 1,000 workers at the Churchill machine tool industry establishment has now begun? As at present in Manchester 500 machine tool fitters are chasing 10 vacancies in that trade, what will the right hon. 332 Gentleman do about this situation? The Government have done none of the things they could have done to save Churchill's from closing and to prevent the loss of 1,000 jobs.
The Government have done a very great deal to expand the economy and to give special help to the development areas, special development areas and intermediate areas. Certainly the present Government have done more in their reflationary tendencies to get the economy going than any other Administration.


Offer not valid in Puerto Rico. Available to eligible, qualified customers with excellent credit history who meet BMW Financial Services' credit requirements. Lessee responsible for insurance during the lease term, excess wear and tear as defined in the lease contract, $0.25/mile over 30,000 miles and a disposition fee of $350 at lease end. Not all customers will qualify for security deposit waiver. Advertised payment does not include applicable taxes. Offer valid through March 31, 2019 and may not be combined with other offers unless otherwise stated. Models pictured may be shown with metallic paint and/or additional accessories. Visit your authorized BMW of Eugene for important details. Image shown may not be exact vehicle, options and accessories may vary. Inventory current at media release.
Advertised lease on a pre-owned 2018 BMW 320xi xDrive from BMW of Eugene through BMW Financial Services through March 31, 2019. Monthly lease payments of $299 per month for 36 months is based on an adjusted capitalized cost of $33,874 (MSRP of $41,645). Actual MSRP may vary. Cash due at signing includes $299 down payment, $299 first month's payment. Total lease $10,764. Purchase option at lease end, excluding tax, title and government fees, is $24,879. 3 at this price. Stock # JNU47478, JNV01870, JNV02380.
Advertised lease on a pre-owned 2018 BMW X2 xDrive from BMW of Eugene through BMW Financial Services through March 31, 2019. Monthly lease payments of $339 per month for 36 months is based on an adjusted capitalized cost of $38,360 (MSRP of $42,745). Actual MSRP may vary. Cash due at signing includes $339 down payment, $339 first month's payment. Total lease $12,204. Purchase option at lease end, excluding tax, title and government fees, is $25,860. 1 at this price, #JEF74655.
Advertised lease on a pre-owned 2018 BMW X1 xDrive from BMW of Eugene through BMW Financial Services through March 31, 2019. Monthly lease payments of $399 per month for 36 months is based on an adjusted capitalized cost of $36,259 (MSRP of $42,745). Actual MSRP may vary. Cash due at signing includes $399 down payment, $399 first month's payment. Total lease $14,364. Purchase option at lease end, excluding tax, title and government fees, is $24,879. 4 at this price, #J5L28527, J5L27459, J5K31959, J5K29230.
Advertised lease on a pre-owned 2018 BMW 330xi xDrive from BMW of Eugene through BMW Financial Services through March 31, 2019. Monthly lease payments of $399 per month for 36 months is based on an adjusted capitalized cost of $38,242 (MSRP of $50,830). Actual MSRP may vary. Cash due at signing includes $399 down payment, $399 first month's payment. Total lease $14,364. Purchase option at lease end, excluding tax, title and government fees, is $24,879. 5 at this price, JNU71378, JNU71661, JNU72380, JNU72366, JNU72399.
Advertised lease on a pre-owned 2018 BMW 530e xDrive iPerformance from BMW of Eugene through BMW Financial Services through March 31, 2019. Monthly lease payments of $540 per month for 36 months is based on an adjusted capitalized cost of $50,925 (MSRP of $58,925). Actual MSRP may vary. Cash due at signing includes $540 down payment, $540 first month's payment. Total lease $19,440. Purchase option at lease end, excluding tax, title and government fees, is $35,535. 2 at this price, #JB085597, JB085645.
Advertised lease on a pre-owned 2018 BMW 530xi xDrive from BMW of Eugene through BMW Financial Services through March 31, 2019. Monthly lease payments of $545 per month for 36 months is based on an adjusted capitalized cost of $50,895 (MSRP of $58,245). Actual MSRP may vary. Cash due at signing includes $545 down payment, $545 first month's payment. Total lease $19,260. Purchase option at lease end, excluding tax, title and government fees, is $35,279. 2 at this price, #JG907340, JWA74704.
Advertised lease on a pre-owned 2018 BMW X5 xDrive from BMW of Eugene through BMW Financial Services through March 31, 2019. Monthly lease payments of $599 per month for 36 months is based on an adjusted capitalized cost of $52,550 (MSRP of $61,795). Actual MSRP may vary. Cash due at signing includes $599 down payment, $599 first month's payment. Total lease charge $22,762. Purchase option at lease end, excluding tax, title and government fees, is $35,959. 1 at this price, #JL074860.


text:
Gas Station or Wall Outlet?
In order to break out of our accustomed radius and explore, people mount motors. We get behind the wheel of a car and throw a leg over a motorcycle because we want a fast getaway from familiarity, if only for a little while. This pursuit has almost exclusively been facilitated by gas engines in the past but as with most anything, innovation always springs up to challenge the status quo. Electric motorcycle are beginning to gain a small foothold in the market with an even smaller environmental foot print that the classic motorcycle brands have began to take notice of. Harley Davidson has their Livewire electric motorcycle hitting the market in August of this year and Triumph announced an expected 2021 release of their "Project TE-1",the first all electric motorcycle from the brand that is synonymous with old school cool. Another impressive bike in the race is from the Swedish Company Cake that released an electric dirt bike last year and is going street legal with a new model this summer.
The Cake Kalk& is a sleek and modern motorcycle that has the environment, inclusivity and design foremost in mind. The Cake Kalk& builds on the precedent already set by their dirt bike (the KalkOR) with minor changes for city commuters. The design of the Kalk& is strongly influenced by the handling and feel of enduro bikes. The bike is powered by a 2.6 kWh battery and can expect to top out around 62 mph. The range isn't expected to be very stellar based on the battery size but their being swappable could alleviate the issue, and the stock range is sufficient for most big city commuting.
Specs aside, the Kalk's impressiveness comes from the design itself. Founder and CEO Stefan Ytterborn does not come from a motorcycle background but has a spirit for speed as he is an active skier, mountain biker, and surfer. His first encounter with an electric bike gave him the ability to explore nature without disturbing it. Cake motorcycles looks to offer that pleasure to anyone looking for it. The Kalk& is a light and manageable 150 lbs and the electric power means no gear shifts so anyone could pick it up quickly and ride it; a sense of mastery is achieved rather quickly. When it came to the actual manufacturing of the bike, Cake engineered and built all the components themselves; axles, rims, hubs, tires, everything was built from scratch to support the finished product. From the ground up, the Kalk& is built with the hope that people will want to try something new and contribute to moving innovation forward.
The frontier of the unknown will never change, but the means and machines we use to explore it will. Purists may balk at the idea of a motorcycle without a traditional engine but it is far from tradition where innovation can take place and move us forward in different, and more efficient ways. Be it gas or charge that is powering the bike you're on, two wheels and an open road will satisfy your internal combustion looking for the fast get away from familiarity.


text:
Catholics send roses to Washington, hoping to change politician's heart
Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone | Twitter
John Burger - published on 12/16/21
By the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, 16,381 flowers pledged for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Thousands of roses are being delivered to the Washington, D.C., office of Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, as part of a prayer campaign to help her change her mind about legal abortion.
The "Rose and Rosary for Nancy" campaign was initiated September 29 by San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. Pelosi, a Democrat, is a resident of San Francisco and a Catholic. She also holds strong positions in support of legal abortion.
Following Archbishop Cordileone's call, thousands of Catholics signed up at BenedictInstitute.org, pledging to pray at least one rosary a week for Pelosi and fast on Fridays for her conversion. The Archdiocese of San Francisco pledged to send one rose for each person who signed up.
The gesture is reminiscent of the early days of the March for Life, when pro-life activists were encouraged to send a rose to their members of Congress on the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that liberalized abortion laws nationwide.
By the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe on December 12, 16,381 Catholics have made this commitment. On that day, a large shipment of roses were sent to Pelosi's office, and about 100 roses a day will continue to be sent.
"That is a lot of roses," Archbishop Cordileone tweeted. "Each one a soul praying and fasting fervently for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's conversion to respect for the equal dignity of every human life. Thanks to each one of the 16,381 people who joined this campaign."
That is a lot of roses. Each one a soul praying and fasting fervently for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's conversion to respect for the equal dignity of every human life. Thanks to each one of the 16,381 people who joined this campaign. pic.twitter.com/h4qyjZe6WV
— Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone (@ArchCordileone) December 13, 2021
"The rose is also a symbol of our Blessed Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the 'mystical rose.' At this particular moment in the history of our nation, we need more than ever the intercession of our Blessed Mother, St. Therese, and all other saints who have shown us the path to life," Archbishop Cordileone said when he kicked off the campaign. He noted "how desperately our country, and many of our political leaders, need a conversion of heart to steer us away from the path to death and reclaim a culture of life."
Patroness of the Unborn
The first rose delivery took place, as the Archbishop had requested, on October 1, the Feast of St. Therese of Lisieux, who promised after her death to send believers a "shower of roses" as a sign of God's love.
On December 12, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patroness of the unborn, who sent a shower of roses to San Juan Diego that converted Mexico and much of the Americas, along with the rose delivery, a small group gathered on Capitol Hill to pray a rosary.
"We kept it small because we wanted this to be a prayer service, not a political rally," a press release from the archdiocese said. "These roses are a rich and deep and visible symbol that Catholics cannot support massive taking of innocent human life, whatever the politics, the pols, and the polls may say."
"The Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, is a fitting day to send a shower of roses to Speaker Pelosi," Archbishop Cordileone commented. "Each one represents a Catholic praying and fasting for Nancy Pelosi's conversion to the Gospel of Life. This is what equality means: Every human life is equally sacred. Speaker Pelosi, we love you. It is not too late: choose life."
Consistent support of abortion
Pelosi, 81, has served as a U.S. representative from California since 1987. She currently represents California's 12th congressional district, which comprises most of the city and county of San Francisco. She has had a consistent stance in favor of legal abortion, voting against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and earlier attempts at similar bans. She has voted in favor of lifting the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas U.S. military facilities; in favor of an amendment that would repeal a provision forbidding servicewomen and dependents from getting an abortion in overseas military hospitals; and in favor of stripping the prohibition of funding for organizations working overseas that use their own funds to provide abortion services, or engage in advocacy related to abortion services.
In 2008, she was rebuked by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., for being "incorrect" in comments she made to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press concerning Church teaching on the subjects of abortion and when a human life begins. The archbishop's statement quoted Pelosi as saying the Church has not been able to define when life begins. During the interview she said, "over the history of the Church, [what constitutes the moment of conception] is an issue of controversy."
In February 2009, Pelosi met with her bishop, Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, and with Pope Benedict XVI regarding the controversy.
This year, after Pelosi cited her Catholic faith while defending efforts to permit federal funding of elective abortions, Archbishop Cordileone criticized her stance on the Hyde Amendment.
"Let me repeat: no one can claim to be a devout Catholic and condone the killing of innocent human life, let alone have the government pay for it," he told Catholic News Agency.
This September, after the Supreme Court refused to block a Texas law that forbids most abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected, at around six weeks gestation, Pelosi said she would bring up the Women's Health Protection Act "to enshrine into law reproductive health care for all women across America."
Aleteia requested comment from Pelosi's office about the delivery of roses. Maggie Gallagher, a spokeswoman at the Archdiocese of San Francisco, said that Pelosi has made no public acknowledgment of the deliveries.
"The Archbishop has had conversations with her in the past and looks forward to more conversations in the future," Gallagher said. "As a matter of pastoral respect, he doesn't comment further on this question."
Read more:Pelosi meets with Pope Francis
Read more:Pope laments 'retreat from democracy' and decries abortion, euthanasia


An enumeration has one or more enumeration values. Each value represents one of the options.
The name of an enumeration value must be a technical name without spaces and special characters. On the other hand, the caption of an enumeration value can any character. For example, an enumeration value can have 'InProgress' as its name and 'In progress' as its caption.
The caption of an enumeration value is the text that the end user sees for this enumeration value. This is a translatable text. See Translatable Texts.
The name of an enumeration value is the technical name of the value which is used to refer to the enumeration value in your model.
The name of an enumeration value is also used to store the enumeration value in the data database. That is why changing the Name of an enumeration value is not allowed; it would invalidate the data in your database. The caption, however, can be changed without problems and this is the text that the end user gets to see.
The image of an enumeration value is used when the values for an attribute (of which the type is the enumeration) are displayed in a data grid column of which the enumeration format is 'Image'. See the documentation on data grid columns.


text:
Q: Reputation Activity in User Dropdown Incorrect/Inconsistent? I hope this isn't a duplicate.  Similar questions that I found are over a year old.
I have seen cases where shortly after an upvote (perhaps on an old answer?), the summary in my user activity dropdown shows inconsistent counts:

Particularly, the Slid a div offscreen using jQuery answer shows +40, when it was only updated once yesterday.  Now, if this is a monthly total for this question, then it is correct, but when I refreshed later I got:

Now it shows +10, and other entries completely disappear.
So, what is this supposed to show me?  At the very least I am confused about what I am supposed to see here.
Here is another example:

This shows +20 for the same question as before, after I received a single upvote last night.  What gives?
You can see from my reputation that there was only a sinle upvote recently:

A: Hover the number with your mouse and you'll see the timeframe it applies to.
(And: hovering is often your friend when you need help on Stack Exchange.)
For some time I thought I understood how it might be supposed to work, but the following merely just confirms what you're seeing. Leaving it here for some more details.
I figured the counts were normally reset at the beginning of the month†. Like on July 1st, there was just one entry in the list while that entry also has an earlier upvote on June 24th:

On June 24th, I saw one reference to "40 reputation was gained in the last 23 days":

But also "10 reputation was gained in the last 1 day 23 hours" for a post that is actually much older, but had no earlier upvotes in June:

† One might think it would look in some votes table and calculate the shown values on the fly. But on April 23, 2012 when this question was asked, all counts were about a day old here on Meta. That seems seemed to suggest it's not peeking into the full votes table. And that something was odd on April 23rd.
But apparently the list is reset quite often?
Looking again Sunday around 20.45 UTC, almost 6 hours after posting the above screen captures, the list was shortened to three items, the first entry moved down in the list, and rather than "40 reputation was gained in the last 23 days" now stated "5 reputation was gained in the last 6 hours 57 minutes". This was not a new vote (and the previous screen shots were less than 6 hours old); it's just that 7 other upvotes are no longer shown in the list...


text:
Q: Jquery Ajax is unable to get data from ASP.NET WEB API I'm new to APS.NET MVC WEB API programming.
So here is my problem, I have Created an ASP.NET WEB API project with the following Code
 public class ValuesController : ApiController
{
    // GET api/values
    public IEnumerable<Employee> Get()
    {
        return new List<Employee>()
        {
            new Employee(){ EmpId=1,EmpName="xyz" },
            new Employee(){EmpId=2,EmpName="abc"}
        };
    }

    // GET api/values/5
    public Employee Get(int id)
    {
        return new Employee() { EmpId = id, EmpName = "xyz" };
    }

}

simple right..!!
the next thing i did is created an html file and write an ajax method to get data from web api
 $(function () {
            var obj = {};
            $.ajax({

                type: "GET",
                url: "http://localhost:2797/api/values/1",
                data: JSON.stringify(obj),
                dataType: "JSON",
                contentType: "application/json; charset=UTF-8",
                success: function (data) {
                    alert(data.EmpName);
                },
                failure: function (data) {
                    alert("Error Occured");
                }

            });

        });

now here is the problem my jquery script is able to contact to webapi because the breakpoints breaks when ever the html page get Refreshed and it also returns the value but for some unknown reason the alert message in Success function wont hit. and i don't know why
Please Help
Thanks in Advance..!!

A: i have finally found the solution
first goto tools->Nuget Package Manager -> Package Manager Console
type in this Command Install-Package Microsoft.AspNet.WebApi.Cors -IncludePrerelease
then in  WebApiConfig.cs add this Line config.EnableCors();
now decorate you apicontroller with this attribute [EnableCors(origins:"*",headers:"*",methods:"*")]
But then while consuming api with post method we may have some issues with the cors Attribute
so to avoid it. we can Declare the cors Attribute globally
like in WebApiConfig.cs write this piece of code
var cors= new EnableCorsAttribute(origins:"*",headers:"*",methods:"*");
config.EnableCors(cors);

now the jquery code
$(document).read(function(){
    jquery.support.cors=true;
    $.ajax({
           type:"GET",
           url:"http://localhost:63300/api/values/1",
           crossDomain:true,
           contentType:"application/json; charset=utf-8",
           dataType:"json",
           success:function(data){
                alert(data);
           },
            error:function(data){
                alert('Error Occured..!');
            }
          });
});


text:
Customers Bancorp Reports Results for Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2022
WEST READING, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Customers Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE:CUBI)
Full Year 2022 Highlights
2022 net income available to common shareholders was $218.4 million, or $6.51 per diluted share; ROAA was 1.13% and ROCE was 17.40%.
2022 core earnings* were $256.4 million, or $7.63 per diluted share; Core ROAA* was 1.32% and Core ROCE* was 20.43%.
2022 core earnings excluding Paycheck Protection Program* ("PPP") were $218.7 million, or $6.51 per diluted share, up 46.2% over 2021. This included a pre-tax provision release of $36.8 million, or $0.86 per diluted share, from the sale of $500.0 million of consumer installment loans in Q3 2022, and other full year 2022 core earnings (excluding PPP)* of $5.65.
2022 adjusted pre-tax pre-provision net income* was $400.7 million; adjusted pre-tax pre-provision ROAA* was 1.99%; adjusted pre-tax pre-provision ROCE* was 31.16%.
Year-over-year loan growth was $1.2 billion, or 8.4%. Year-over-year loan growth excluding PPP* was $3.5 billion, or 30.7%, led by our low-risk variable rate corporate and specialty lending verticals.
Year-over-year deposit growth was $1.4 billion, up 8.2%.
2022 net interest margin, tax equivalent was 3.19%. 2022 net interest margin, tax equivalent, excluding the impact of PPP loans* was 3.16%.
2022 provision for credit losses on loans and leases of $59.5 million was largely driven by the impact of loan growth, net of the sale of consumer installment loans in Q3 2022, the recognition of weaker macroeconomic forecasts, and certain one-time charge-offs.
Non-performing assets were $30.8 million, or 0.15% of total assets, at December 31, 2022 compared to $49.8 million, or 0.25% of total assets, at December 31, 2021. Allowance for credit losses on loans and leases equaled 426% of non-performing loans at December 31, 2022, compared to 278% at December 31, 2021.
Book value per share and tangible book value per share* grew year over year by $1.76 or 4.7%, despite increased AOCI losses of $158.1 million over the same time period. Tangible book value per share* has grown by 77.9% over the past 5 years, significantly higher than the industry average of 2% for mid-cap banks (1).
Repurchased 830,145 common shares for $33.2 million in 2022, leaving 1.9 million of common shares authorized to be repurchased by September 2023.
* Non-GAAP measure. Customers' reasons for the use of the non-GAAP measure and a detailed reconciliation between the non-GAAP measure and the comparable GAAP amount are included at the end of this document.
(1) Mid-cap banks as reported by KRX Index.
Fourth Quarter 2022 Highlights
Q4 2022 net income available to common shareholders was $25.6 million, or $0.77 per diluted share; ROAA was 0.55% and ROCE was 8.05%.
Q4 2022 core earnings* were $39.4 million, or $1.19 per diluted share; Core ROAA* was 0.81% and Core ROCE* was 12.36%.
Q4 2022 core earnings (excluding PPP)* were $45.3 million, or $1.37 per diluted share, up 22.9% over Q4 2021.
Q4 2022 adjusted pre-tax pre-provision net income* was $81.4 million; adjusted pre-tax pre-provision ROAA* was 1.56%; adjusted pre-tax pre-provision ROCE* was 24.59%.
Q4 2022 loan growth was $458.0 million, or 3.0%. Q4 2022 loan growth excluding PPP* was $614.5 million, or 4.3%, led by our low-risk variable rate corporate and specialty lending verticals.
Q4 2022 deposit growth was $634.5 million, or 3.6%.
Q4 2022 net interest margin, tax equivalent was 2.67%. Q4 2022 net interest margin, tax equivalent, excluding the impact of PPP loans* was 2.87%.
Q4 2022 provision for credit losses on loans and leases of $27.9 million was largely driven by the impact of loan growth, the recognition of weaker macroeconomic forecasts, and one-time charge-offs of $11.0 million for loans originated pursuant to the PPP program.
Non-performing assets were $30.8 million, or 0.15% of total assets, at December 31, 2022 compared to $28.0 million, or 0.14% of total assets, at September 30, 2022. Allowance for credit losses on loans and leases equaled 426% of non-performing loans at December 31, 2022, compared to 466% at September 30, 2022.
Q4 2022 book value per share and tangible book value per share* grew by $0.62 or 1.6%, despite increased AOCI losses of $7.0 million over the same time period.
Repurchased 166,000 common shares for $5.3 million in Q4 2022.
CEO Commentary
"We delivered another solid quarter and are extremely pleased with our 2022 results despite the challenging interest rate and economic environment," said Customers Bancorp Chairman and CEO, Jay Sidhu. "Our Q4 2022 GAAP earnings were negatively impacted by after-tax securities net losses of $13.5 million, or $0.41 per diluted share, which will benefit net interest margin in the short-term and has an earn back of roughly one year as well as after-tax net losses on PPP loans of $6.0 million, or $0.18 per diluted share. However, we are very pleased to report that Q4 2022 earnings from the core bank* were $1.37 per diluted share, beating internal targets and estimates, and bringing full year 2022 core earnings (excluding PPP)* per share to $6.51. Our responsible organic growth strategy is laser focused on credit quality with 90% of our growth in low credit risk verticals. We have taken prudent risk management strategic actions over the past several quarters to ensure we are well positioned from a capital, credit, liquidity and earnings perspective especially as we head into a highly uncertain 2023. We are also pleased to report that we beat the upper end of our 2022 core earnings per share, excluding PPP* target of $4.75 - $5.00 by 13%, even before considering the Q3 2022 pre-tax provision release of $36.8 million. Core loan* growth in 2022 was led by increases in low-risk variable rate specialty lending verticals of $3.0 billion. Asset quality remains exceptional and credit reserves are extremely robust at 426% of total non-performing loans. Our loan and deposit pipelines remain strong and we are very focused on improving our margins, moderating our growth, controlling our expenses, actively buying back common shares to the extent we are trading below book value, and creating exceptional value for our shareholders. We remain very optimistic about our future," Mr. Jay Sidhu continued.
Core earnings excluding PPP* for Q4 2022 were $45.3 million, or $1.37 per diluted share, calculated as shown below.
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
GAAP net income available to shareholders
Less: PPP net loss, after-tax
GAAP net income to common shareholders, excluding PPP
Losses on investment securities
Derivative credit valuation adjustment
Core earnings, excluding PPP
At or Three Months Ended
Increase (Decrease)
Twelve Months Ended
Profitability Metrics:
Net income available for common shareholders
(74.0
) %
Diluted earnings per share
Core earnings*
Core earnings per share*
Core earnings, excluding PPP*
Core earnings per share, excluding PPP*
Return on average assets ("ROAA")
Core ROAA*
Core ROAA, excluding PPP*
Return on average common equity ("ROCE")
Core ROCE*
Adjusted pre-tax pre-provision net income*
Adjusted pre-tax pre-provision net income ROAA, excluding PPP*
Net interest margin, tax equivalent
Net interest margin, tax equivalent, excluding PPP loans*
Loan yield
Loan yield, excluding PPP*
Cost of deposits
Efficiency ratio
Core efficiency ratio*
Balance Sheet Trends:
Total assets, excluding PPP*
Total loans and leases
Total loans and leases, excluding PPP*
Non-interest bearing demand deposits
(2,574,745
Capital Metrics:
Common Equity
Tangible Common Equity*
Common Equity to Total Assets
Tangible Common Equity to Tangible Assets*
Tangible Common Equity to Tangible Assets, excluding PPP*
Book Value per common share
Tangible Book Value per common share*
Common equity Tier 1 capital ratio (1)
(0.5
Total risk based capital ratio (1)
Regulatory capital ratios as of December 31, 2022 are estimates.
Non-GAAP measure. Customers' reasons for the use of the non-GAAP measure and a detailed reconciliation between the non-GAAP measure and the comparable GAAP amount are included at the end of this document.
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
We funded, either directly or indirectly, about 358,000 loans totaling $10.3 billion. Through the program, we earned close to $350 million of deferred origination fees from the SBA, which was significantly accretive to our earnings and capital levels as these loans were forgiven by the government. In Q4 2022, we recognized only $4 million of these fees in earnings as forgiveness levels were slower than expected, bringing total fees recognized to date to $322 million, and $26 million remaining to be recognized in 2023. "As we've stated previously, it is difficult to predict the timing of PPP forgiveness. We expect most of the fees to be recognized over the next two quarters; however, because we fully paid off the FRB PPP liquidity facility in third quarter 2021, these loans are currently being funded with higher cost funding, reducing their short-term profitability. This was particularly evident in Q4 2022 as higher PPP-related expenses resulted in a total negative impact to Q4 2022 earnings of $0.18 per diluted share. This included negative net interest income of $2.8 million resulting from higher funding costs, $11.0 million of one-time charge-offs increasing provision expense, and a $7.5 million gain resulting from a legal settlement with one of our third party PPP service providers. These one-time charge-offs are before the impact of any contractual indemnities or recoveries we may receive in future periods," commented Customers Bancorp CFO, Carla Leibold.
Key Balance Sheet Trends
Loans and Leases
The following table presents the composition of total loans and leases as of the dates indicated:
% of
Commercial:
Commercial & industrial:
Other commercial & industrial
Loans to mortgage companies
Commercial real estate owner occupied
Loans receivable, PPP
Commercial real estate non-owner occupied
Total commercial loans and leases
Installment:
Total consumer loans
Commercial and industrial ("C&I") loans and leases, including specialty lending, increased $3.2 billion, or 95.7% year-over-year, to $6.5 billion. Practically all of the increases in outstanding balances were in the low-risk variable rate secured categories of Capital Call Lines and Lender Finance (collectively referred to as Fund Finance). Multifamily loans increased $730.8 million, or 49.2%, to $2.2 billion, commercial real estate owner occupied loans increased $230.4 million, or 35.2%, to $885.3 million, commercial real estate non-owner occupied loans increased $169.5 million, or 15.1% to $1.3 billion and residential loans increased $147.8 million, or 42.1%, to $498.8 million year-over-year. These increases in loans and leases were partially offset by a decrease in total consumer installment loans of $43.1 million, or 2.5%, to $1.7 billion primarily due to the sale of $500.0 million of consumer installment loans in Q3 2022 offsetting new originations and originations and purchases of certain consumer installment loans with the intent to sell and a decrease in construction loans of $37.0 million, or 18.6%, to $162.0 million.
Allowance for Credit Losses on Loans and Leases
The following table presents allowance for credit losses on loans and leases (information as of the dates and periods indicated):
(Decrease)
Provision (benefit) for credit losses on loans and leases
Net charge-offs (recoveries) from loans held for investment
Annualized net charge-offs (recoveries) to average loans and leases
Coverage of credit loss reserves for loans and leases held for investment
Coverage of credit loss reserves for loans and leases held for investment, excluding PPP*
The increase in net charge-offs in Q4 2022 compared to Q3 2022 was primarily due to one-time charge-offs of $11.0 million for certain loans originated under the PPP program that were subsequently determined to be ineligible for SBA forgiveness and guarantee and were deemed uncollectible.
Provision (Benefit) for Credit Losses
Provision (benefit) for credit losses on available for sale debt securities
Provision (benefit) for credit losses on unfunded commitments
Total provision (benefit) for credit losses
The provision for credit losses on loans and leases in Q4 2022 was $27.9 million, compared to a benefit to provision of $7.8 million in Q3 2022. The provision in Q4 2022 was primarily due to loan growth, one-time charge-offs of $11.0 million for certain loans originated under the PPP program that were subsequently determined to be ineligible for SBA forgiveness and guarantee and ultimately deemed uncollectible and our recognition of weaker macroeconomic forecasts, as compared to a benefit to provision in Q3 2022 primarily from the sale of $500.0 million of consumer installment loans in connection with the Company's balance sheet optimization initiatives. The sale transaction resulted in approximately $36.8 million of release in allowance for credit losses in Q3 2022, which was included in core earnings* and contributed approximately $0.86 per diluted share. The provision for credit losses on available for sale investment securities in Q4 2022 was $0.3 million compared to a benefit to provision of $0.2 million in Q3 2022.
The provision for credit losses on loans and leases in Q4 2022 was $27.9 million, compared to a provision of $13.9 million in Q4 2021. The provision in Q4 2022 was primarily due to loan growth, one-time charge-offs of $11.0 million for certain loans originated under the PPP program that were subsequently determined to be ineligible for SBA forgiveness and guarantee and ultimately deemed uncollectible and our recognition of weaker macroeconomic forecasts. The provision for credit losses on available for sale investment securities in Q4 2022 was $0.3 million compared to no provision in Q4 2021.
The following table presents asset quality metrics as of the dates indicated:
Non-performing assets ("NPAs"):
Nonaccrual / non-performing loans ("NPLs")
Non-performing assets
NPLs to total loans and leases
Reserves to NPLs
NPAs to total assets
Loans and leases risk ratings:
Commercial loans and leases (1)
Special Mention
Substandard
Non-performing
Loans and leases receivable
(1) Excludes loan receivable, PPP, as eligible PPP loans are fully guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.
Over the last decade, we have developed a suite of commercial loan products with one particularly important common denominator: relatively low credit risk assumption. The Bank's C&I, loans to mortgage companies, corporate and specialty lending lines of business, and multifamily loans for example, are characterized by conservative underwriting standards and low loss rates. Because of this emphasis, the Bank's credit quality to date has been incredibly healthy despite an adverse economic environment. Maintaining strong asset quality also requires a highly active portfolio monitoring process. In addition to frequent client outreach and monitoring at the individual loan level, we employ a bottom-up data driven approach to analyze the commercial portfolio. Exposure to industry segments and CRE significantly impacted by COVID-19 initially is not substantial.
Total consumer installment loans were approximately 8.1% of total assets at December 31, 2022, 10.8% of total loans and leases and 11.5% of core loans*, and were supported by an allowance for credit losses of $68.7 million. At December 31, 2022, our consumer installment portfolio had the following characteristics: average original FICO score of 740, average debt-to-income of 19.0% and average borrower income of $107 thousand.
Non-performing loans at December 31, 2022 were essentially flat at 0.19% of total loans and leases, compared to 0.18% at September 30, 2022 and 0.34% at December 31, 2021.
The following table presents the composition of our deposit portfolio as of the dates indicated:
Demand, non-interest bearing
Demand, interest bearing
Total demand deposits
Total deposits increased $1.4 billion, or 8.2%, to $18.2 billion at December 31, 2022 as compared to a year ago. Time deposits increased $3.7 billion, or 737.7%, to $4.2 billion. This increase was offset partially by decreases in money market deposits of $1.6 billion, or 37.1%, to $2.7 billion, total demand deposits of $587.1 million, or 5.4%, to $10.4 billion and savings deposits of $161.5 million, or 16.6%, to $811.8 million. The total cost of deposits increased by 237 basis points to 2.73% in Q4 2022 from 0.36% in the prior year primarily due to higher market interest rates and a shift in deposit mix.
The following table presents certain capital amounts and ratios as of the dates indicated:
(Dollars in thousands except per share data)
Customers Bancorp, Inc.
Customers Bancorp's common equity increased $36.7 million to $1.3 billion, and tangible common equity* increased $36.9 million to $1.3 billion at December 31, 2022 compared to a year ago, respectively, as earnings of $218.4 million more than offset a negative impact to accumulated other comprehensive income ("AOCI") from increased unrealized losses on investment securities of $158.1 million (net of taxes). Similarly, book value per common share increased to $39.08 from $37.32, and tangible book value per common share* increased to $38.97 at December 31, 2022 from $37.21 at December 31, 2021, respectively. Customers remains well capitalized by all regulatory measures.
At the Customers Bancorp level, the total risk based capital ratio (estimate), common equity to total assets ratio and tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio ("TCE ratio"), excluding PPP loans*, were 12.0%, 6.05% and 6.34%, respectively, at December 31, 2022.
At the Customers Bank level, capital levels remained strong and well above regulatory minimums. At December 31, 2022, estimated Tier 1 capital and total risk-based capital were 11.1% and 12.2%, respectively.
Key Profitability Trends
Net interest income totaled $135.1 million in Q4 2022, a decrease of $23.9 million from Q3 2022, primarily due to lower PPP net interest income of $12.4 million resulting from reduced recognition of deferred fees of $7.0 million driven by lower loan forgiveness in Q4 2022 and increased funding costs of $5.0 million, reflecting increases in funding rates. Net interest income earned by the core bank* decreased $11.5 million over Q3 2022, reflecting the $500.0 million consumer loan sale in Q3 2022, higher funding costs, and shift in funding mix. The increase in interest income on investment securities and core loans* of $12.4 million and $25.7 million, respectively, mostly due to higher interest rates on variable loans in specialty lending, were offset by higher expenses paid on deposits, fed funds, FHLB advances and other borrowings of $57.6 million from a shift in deposit mix and higher interest rates during Q4 2022. Excluding PPP loans, average interest-earning assets increased $0.5 billion. Interest-earning asset growth was primarily driven by increases in C&I loans and leases, mostly in specialty lending, investment securities and interest earning deposits, partially offset by decreases in commercial loans to mortgage companies and consumer installment loans. Compared to Q3 2022, total loan yields increased 56 basis points to 5.64% primarily due to higher interest rates on variable rate loans in specialty lending. Excluding PPP loans, the Q4 2022 total loan yield* was 71 basis points higher than Q3 2022 reflecting increased interest rates and the variable rate nature of the loan portfolio.
Net interest income totaled $135.1 million in Q4 2022, a decrease of $58.6 million from Q4 2021, primarily due to lower PPP interest income of $74.8 million resulting from reduced recognition of deferred fees of $68.0 million driven by lower loan forgiveness in Q4 2022. This decrease was offset in part by increased net interest income earned by the core bank of $22.9 million, up 20% over Q4 2021, including increased interest income on investment securities and core loans* of $27.8 million and $95.6 million, respectively, mostly due to higher average balances and interest rates on variable loans in specialty lending. In addition, higher expenses paid on deposits, fed funds, FHLB advances and other borrowings of $114.2 million resulted mainly from a shift in deposit mix and higher interest rates during Q4 2022. Excluding PPP loans, average interest-earning assets increased $4.5 billion. Interest-earning asset growth was primarily driven by increases in C&I loans and leases, mostly in specialty lending, investment securities, multifamily loans and residential mortgages, offset in part by decreases in commercial loans to mortgage companies and interest earning deposits. Compared to Q4 2021, total loan yields increased 16 basis points to 5.64% primarily due to higher interest rates on variable rate loans in specialty lending, partially offset by lower PPP yields driven by lower deferred fee recognition. Excluding PPP loans, the Q4 2022 total loan yield* was 145 basis points higher than Q4 2021 reflecting increased interest rates and the variable rate nature of the loan portfolio.
Non-Interest Income
The following table presents details of non-interest income for the periods indicated:
Interchange and card revenue
Deposit fees
Commercial lease income
Bank-owned life insurance
Mortgage warehouse transactional fees
Gain (loss) on sale of SBA and other loans
Loss on sale of consumer installment loans
Loan fees
Mortgage banking income
Gain (loss) on sale of investment securities
Unrealized gain (loss) on investment securities
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivatives
Legal settlement gain
Total non-interest income
Non-interest income totaled $7.3 million for Q4 2022, an increase of $16.4 million compared to Q3 2022. The increase was primarily due to $23.5 million of loss realized from the sale of $500 million of consumer installment loans as part of our balance sheet optimization initiatives in Q3 2022, which included the write-off of deferred origination costs and other transaction-related expenses, a $7.5 million gain from a court-approved settlement with a third party PPP service provider in Q4 2022 and higher commercial lease income and loan fees from continued growth. These increases were partially offset by higher losses realized from the sale of investment securities of $14.8 million to rebalance the investment portfolio with higher interest-earning securities and lower bank-owned life insurance income primarily due to death benefits received in Q3 2022.
Non-interest income totaled $7.3 million for Q4 2022, a decrease of $9.6 million compared to Q4 2021. The decrease was primarily due to lower gains realized from the sales of SBA and other loans, higher losses realized from the sale of investment securities of $16.9 million to rebalance the investment portfolio with higher interest-earning securities and lower mortgage warehouse transactional fees in Q4 2022 compared to Q4 2021 from lower housing activity due to rising interest rates, offset partially by $7.5 million of the gain from a court-approved settlement with a third party PPP service provider in Q4 2022 and higher commercial lease income and loan fees from continued growth.
Non-Interest Expense
The following table presents details of non-interest expense for the periods indicated:
Salaries and employee benefits
Technology, communication and bank operations
Commercial lease depreciation
FDIC assessments, non-income taxes and regulatory fees
Loan workout
Total non-interest expense
The management of non-interest expenses remains a priority for us. However, this will not be at the expense of not making adequate investments with new technologies to support efficient and responsible growth.
Non-interest expenses totaled $78.4 million in Q4 2022, $2.2 million higher than Q3 2022. The increase was primarily attributable to increases of $1.1 million in occupancy mostly due to increased lease related expenses, $0.6 million in loan servicing for consumer installment loans, $0.6 million in professional fees primarily for legal fees associated with a settlement with a third party SBA service provider, $0.6 million in commercial lease depreciation from continued growth in our equipment finance business, $0.5 million in loan workout related legal fees mostly related to a commercial mortgage warehouse borrower that filed for bankruptcy and $1.8 million in other non-interest expenses primarily associated with our team members' return to office and increases in business development related expenses and charitable contributions. These increases were offset partially by decreases in salaries and employee benefits of $2.0 million primarily due to lower headcount and incentives, $1.4 million in one-time severance expenses recorded in Q3 2022 and $1.0 million in technology, processing and deposit servicing-related expenses mostly due to lower deposit servicing fees paid to BM Technologies offset by higher software licenses and fees paid for software as a service.
Non-interest expenses totaled $78.4 million in Q4 2022, a decrease of $3.1 million compared to Q4 2021. The decrease was primarily attributable to decreases of $4.1 million in technology, processing and deposit servicing-related expenses mostly due to lower deposit servicing and interchange maintenance fees paid to BM Technologies, $0.7 million in salaries and employee benefits primarily due to lower incentives and $0.7 million in occupancy primarily due to expenses associated with the relocation of the Bank headquarters recorded in Q4 2021. These decreases were offset in part by increases of $1.9 million in commercial lease depreciation from continued growth and $0.8 million in advertising and promotion due to higher spending on media for our deposit products.
Income tax expense from continuing operations decreased by $10.8 million to $7.1 million in Q4 2022 from $17.9 million in Q3 2022 primarily due to lower pre-tax income and increased investment tax credits.
Income tax expense from continuing operations decreased by $5.9 million to $7.1 million in Q4 2022 from $13.0 million in Q4 2021 primarily due to lower pre-tax income, partially offset by reduced investment tax credits.
The effective tax rate from continuing operations for Q4 2022 was 19.9% and 21.7% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022. Customers expects the full-year 2023 effective tax rate from continuing operations to be approximately 22% to 24%.
"Looking ahead, we expect to moderate growth as we optimize the balance sheet, further build out our deposit franchise, maximize our efficiency ratio with prudent expense management, and actively buy back common shares to the extent we remain trading below book value. We expect 2023 core loan growth to be in the low-to-mid single digits with tighter margins in the first half of 2023 and wider margins in the second half of 2023. Deposits are expected to remain relatively flat with a focus on reducing high cost deposits. Full year 2023 net interest margin is expected to be between 2.85% - 3.05%. 2023 Core EPS (excluding PPP) is expected to be between $6.00 - $6.25 with a return on common equity of over 15%. Core non interest expense (excluding BM Technologies expense) is expected to increase between 8% - 10% in 2023 and we are targeting a CET 1 ratio of approximately 9.5%. We are focused on improving the quality of our balance sheet and deposit franchise, improving our net interest margin, and achieving a book value in excess of $45 by year-end 2023. Customers Bancorp stock at the close of business on January 20, 2023 was trading at $31.12, only 0.8 times tangible book value* at December 31, 2022," concluded Mr. Sam Sidhu.
The live audio webcast, presentation slides, and earnings press release will be made available at https://www.customersbank.com/investor-relations/ and at the Customers Bancorp 4th Quarter Earnings Webcast.
You may submit questions in advance of the live webcast by emailing our Communications Director, David Patti at dpatti@customersbank.com; questions may also be asked during the webcast through the webcast application.
The webcast will be archived for viewing on the Customers Bank Investor Relations page and available beginning approximately two hours after the conclusion of the live event.
Institutional Background
Customers Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE:CUBI) is one of the nation's top-performing banking companies with over $20 billion in assets, making it one of the 100 largest bank holding companies in the US. Through its primary subsidiary, Customers Bank, commercial and consumer clients benefit from a full suite of technology-enabled tailored product experience delivered by best-in-class customer service. A pioneer in Banking-as-a-Service and digital banking products, Customers Bank is one of the very few banks that provides a blockchain-based 24/7/365 digital payment solution. In addition to traditional lines such as C&I lending, commercial real estate lending, and multifamily lending, Customers Bank also provides a number of national corporate banking services for Fund Finance, Equipment Finance, Financial Institutions, Technology and Venture, and Healthcare clients. Major accolades include:
#3 top-performing bank with over $10 billion in assets at year-end 2021 per S&P Global S&P Global Market Intelligence,
#6 in top-performing banks with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion in 2021 per American Banker, and
#21 out of the 100 largest publicly traded banks in 2022 per Forbes.
A member of the Federal Reserve System with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Customers Bank is an equal opportunity lender. Learn more: www.customersbank.com.
In addition to historical information, this press release may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include statements with respect to Customers Bancorp, Inc.'s strategies, goals, beliefs, expectations, estimates, intentions, capital raising efforts, financial condition and results of operations, future performance and business. Statements preceded by, followed by, or that include the words "may," "could," "should," "pro forma," "looking forward," "would," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "intend," "plan," "project," or similar expressions generally indicate a forward-looking statement. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that are subject to change based on various important factors (some of which, in whole or in part, are beyond Customers Bancorp, Inc.'s control). Numerous competitive, economic, regulatory, legal and technological events and factors, among others, could cause Customers Bancorp, Inc.'s financial performance to differ materially from the goals, plans, objectives, intentions and expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements, including: the impact of the ongoing pandemic on the U.S. economy and customer behavior, the impact that changes in the economy have on the performance of our loan and lease portfolio, the market value of our investment securities, the continued success and acceptance of our blockchain payments system, the demand for our products and services and the availability of sources of funding, the effects of actions by the federal government, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other government agencies, that affect market interest rates and the money supply, actions that we and our customers take in response to these developments and the effects such actions have on our operations, products, services and customer relationships, higher inflation and its impacts, and the effects of any changes in accounting standards or policies. Customers Bancorp, Inc. cautions that the foregoing factors are not exclusive, and neither such factors nor any such forward-looking statement takes into account the impact of any future events. All forward-looking statements and information set forth herein are based on management's current beliefs and assumptions as of the date hereof and speak only as of the date they are made. For a more complete discussion of the assumptions, risks and uncertainties related to our business, you are encouraged to review Customers Bancorp, Inc.'s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its most recent annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, subsequently filed quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, including any amendments thereto, that update or provide information in addition to the information included in the Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings, if any. Customers Bancorp, Inc. does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by Customers Bancorp, Inc. or by or on behalf of Customers Bank, except as may be required under applicable law.
Q4 2022 Overview
The following table presents a summary of key earnings and performance metrics for the quarter ended December 31, 2022 and the preceding four quarters, and full year 2022 and 2021:
CUSTOMERS BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
EARNINGS SUMMARY - UNAUDITED
(Dollars in thousands, except per share data and stock price data)
GAAP Profitability Metrics:
Net income available to common shareholders
(from continuing and discontinued operations)
Earnings per share - basic
Earnings per share - diluted
Book value per common share (1)
CUBI stock price (1)
CUBI stock price as % of book value (1)
Average shares outstanding - basic
Average shares outstanding - diluted
Shares outstanding (1)
Non-GAAP Profitability Metrics (2):
Core earnings
Adjusted pre-tax pre-provision net income
Core earnings per share - diluted
Tangible book value per common share (1)
CUBI stock price as % of tangible book value (1)
Core ROAA
Core ROCE
Adjusted ROAA - pre-tax and pre-provision
Adjusted ROCE - pre-tax and pre-provision
Net interest margin, tax equivalent, excluding PPP
Core efficiency ratio
Asset Quality:
Net charge-offs
Annualized net charge-offs to average total loans and leases
Non-performing loans ("NPLs") to total loans and leases (1)
Reserves to NPLs (1)
Non-performing assets ("NPAs") to total assets
Customers Bank Capital Ratios (3):
Common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets
Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets
Total capital to risk-weighted assets
Tier 1 capital to average assets (leverage ratio)
(1) Metric is a spot balance for the last day of each quarter presented.
(2) Customers' reasons for the use of these non-GAAP measures and a detailed reconciliation between the non-GAAP measures and the comparable GAAP amounts are included at the end of this document.
(3) Regulatory capital ratios are estimated for Q4 2022 and actual for the remaining periods. In accordance with regulatory capital rules, Customers elected to apply the CECL capital transition provisions which delayed the effects of CECL on regulatory capital for two years until January 1, 2022, followed by a three-year transition period. The cumulative CECL capital transition impact as of December 31, 2021 which amounted to $61.6 million will be phased in at 25% per year beginning on January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2024. As of December 31, 2022, our regulatory capital ratios reflected 75%, or $46.2 million, benefit associated with the CECL transition provisions.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS - UNAUDITED
Interest income:
Interest earning deposits
Interest expense:
FHLB advances
Subordinated debt
FRB PPP liquidity facility and other borrowings
Net interest income after provision (benefit) for credit losses
Non-interest income:
Loss on sale of foreign subsidiaries
Loss on cash flow hedge derivative terminations
Non-interest expense:
Merger and acquisition related expenses
Deposit relationship adjustment fees
Income before income tax expense
Loss from discontinued operations before income taxes
Income tax expense (benefit) from discontinued operations
Net loss from discontinued operations
Preferred stock dividends
Loss on redemption of preferred stock
Basic earnings per common share from continuing operations
Basic earnings per common share
Diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations
Diluted earnings per common share
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET - UNAUDITED
Cash and due from banks
Investment securities, at fair value
Investment securities held to maturity
Loans held for sale
Loans receivable, mortgage warehouse, at fair value
Total loans and leases receivable, net of allowance for credit losses on loans and leases
FHLB, Federal Reserve Bank, and other restricted stock
Accrued interest receivable
Bank premises and equipment, net
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Demand, non-interest bearing deposits
Interest bearing deposits
Federal funds purchased
Other borrowings
Accrued interest payable and other liabilities
Additional paid in capital
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net
Treasury stock, at cost
AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET / NET INTEREST MARGIN - UNAUDITED
Income or
Yield or
Cost (%)
Investment securities (1)
Loans and leases:
Specialty lending loans and leases (2)
Other commercial & industrial loans (2)
Commercial loans to mortgage companies
Multifamily loans
Non-owner occupied commercial real estate loans
Residential mortgages
Total loans and leases (3)
Other interest-earning assets
Total interest-earning assets
Non-interest-earning assets
Interest checking accounts
Money market deposit accounts
Other savings accounts
Total interest-bearing deposits (4)
Borrowings
Total interest-bearing liabilities
Non-interest-bearing deposits (4)
Total deposits and borrowings
Other non-interest-bearing liabilities
Tax-equivalent adjustment
Net interest earnings
Interest spread
Net interest margin
Net interest margin tax equivalent
Net interest margin tax equivalent excl. PPP (5)
(1) For presentation in this table, average balances and the corresponding average yields for investment securities are based upon historical cost, adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts.
(2) Includes owner occupied commercial real estate loans.
(3) Includes non-accrual loans, the effect of which is to reduce the yield earned on loans and leases, and deferred loan fees.
(4) Total costs of deposits (including interest bearing and non-interest bearing) were 2.73%, 1.48% and 0.36% for the three months ended December 31, 2022, September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively.
(5) Non-GAAP tax-equivalent basis, using an estimated marginal tax rate of 26% for the three months ended December 31, 2022, September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, presented to approximate interest income as a taxable asset and excluding net interest income from PPP loans and related borrowings, along with the related PPP loan balances and PPP fees receivable from interest-earning assets. Management uses non-GAAP measures to present historical periods comparable to the current period presentation. In addition, management believes the use of these non-GAAP measures provides additional clarity when assessing Customers' financial results. These disclosures should not be viewed as substitutes for results determined to be in accordance with U.S. GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other entities.
AVERAGE BALANCE SHEET / NET INTEREST MARGIN - UNAUDITED (CONTINUED)
NM (6)
FRB PPP liquidity facility
(4) Total costs of deposits (including interest bearing and non-interest bearing) were 1.31% and 0.44% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.
(5) Non-GAAP tax-equivalent basis, using an estimated marginal tax rate of 26% for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, presented to approximate interest income as a taxable asset and excluding net interest income from PPP loans and related borrowings, along with the related PPP loan balances and PPP fees receivable from interest-earning assets. Management uses non-GAAP measures to present historical periods comparable to the current period presentation. In addition, management believes the use of these non-GAAP measures provides additional clarity when assessing Customers' financial results. These disclosures should not be viewed as substitutes for results determined to be in accordance with U.S. GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other entities.
(6) Not meaningful.
PERIOD END LOAN AND LEASE COMPOSITION - UNAUDITED