Eagle Bancorp Inc (EGBN) 2025 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Eagle Bancorp Inc third quarter 2025 earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions). I would now have to turn the conference over to your speaker for today, Eric Newell, Chief Financial Officer of Engle Bancorp Inc. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning. Before we begin the presentation, I'd like to remind everyone that some of the comments made during this call are forward-looking statements. We cannot make any promises about future performance and caution you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

Are Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2024, Form 10s for the first and second quarter, and current reports on Form 8-K, including the earnings presentation slides, identify important factors that could cause the company's actual results to differ materially from any forward-looking statements made this morning which speak only as of today.

Eagle Bankcorp does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or developments unless required by law. This morning's commentary will also include non-GAAP financial information. The earnings release, which is posted in the investor relations section of our website and filed with the SEC, contains reconciliations of this information to the most directly comparable GAAP information.

Our periodic reports are available from the company online at our website or on the SEC's website. With me today is our Chair, President and CEO Susan Riel, Chief Lending Officer for commercial real estate, Ryan Riel, and our Chief Credit Officer Kevin Geoghegan. I'll now turn it over to Susan.

Thank you, Eric. Good morning and thank you for joining us. The third quarter reflected continued progress in addressing as quality issues and positioning the bank for sustainable profitability. While our results remain below our long-term expectations, we are confident that we are nearing the end of elevated losses from decreased asset values.

On credit, we've balanced appropriate urgency that is driven by our near-term view of the office market outlook with an approach that remains methodical and deliberate. We are directly addressing persistent valuation stress of office buildings. We believe that working directly with counterparties that have local knowledge leads to better execution. It is disciplined work, but it is the right path to long-term stability.

Specifically, we moved $121 million of criticized office loans to held for sale in the quarter and are working with buyers to sell these assets. Importantly, in the quarter, we also took deliberate steps to reinforce confidence in our asset valuations and reserve levels. We engaged with a nationally recognized loan review firm to conduct an independent credit evaluation of our CRE and C&I portfolios.

Additionally, we performed our own supplemental internal review of all CRE exposures of $5 million and above. We'll provide more detail on both initiatives later in our remarks, but I'm pleased to report that the findings from both outcomes support the adequacy of our current provisioning. Our core commercial and deposit franchises continue to improve.

C&I loans increased by $105 million, representing the majority of our loan originations for the quarter. Average C&I deposits grew 8.6%, or $134.2 million for the second quarter. This momentum reflects relationship growth, client retention, and new account activity. These are clear signs that our brand, our service model, and our people are earning and deepening trust in the marketplace.

Because our decisions are made locally by bankers who know their clients in communities, we are able to respond quickly, tailor the structure for each loan, and deliver a level of service larger institutions simply cannot replicate. And we see opportunities to extend that same relationship driven approach across all our client segments.

We're executing on our strategic plan, addressing potential credit issues, diversifying the balance sheet, improving margins, and aligning resources to protect and grow franchise value. These actions are positioning us to further improve funding quality, reduce wholesale funding reliance, and drive to a lower cost of deposits. Our pre-provision net revenue is believed to improve with time.

Our priorities are straightforward complete the credit clean up, deepen core relationships, and deliver improved earnings performance, which should drive improve improved share value for shareholders. The fundamentals of this company are sound. Our strategy is working, and we are focused on building long-term sustainable value. I'll now turn it to Kevin, who will talk more about credit.

Thank you, Susan. As discussed over the prior two quarters, we continue to take a disciplined approach to resolving loan challenges. Total criticized and classified office loans have declined for two consecutive quarters from a peak of $302 million at the end of March 31 to $113.1 million at September 30. During the quarter we moved $121 million of loans to held for sale.

These loans are in different stages of disposition with potential buyers, and we expect to complete sales on a portion of them by the end of the year. Results for the quarter include a $113.2 million provision for credit losses primarily related to the office portfolio.

Our office overlay continues to be robust at $60.3 million or 10.4% of the performing office balance. Another $24.7 million is associated with individually evaluated loans and the model's quantitative component. Our reserve methodology incorporates those losses from evaluation impairment evaluation impairments directly.

Among performing office loans, those rated substandard carry a reserve of 44.5%, and special mention carry a reserve of 22.2%. All pass rated office loans greater than $5 million were reviewed in this quarter, resulting in just one loan migrating into special mention. Our allowance for credit losses ended the quarter at $156.2 million, or 2.14% of total loans.

That's down 24 basis points from the prior quarter, reflecting a decrease in criticizing classified office loan balances. At the end of the second quarter, non-performing loans were $226.4 million. At September 30 they declined to $118.6 million down $108 million from the prior quarter, reflecting transfers to held for sale, charge-offs, and loan payoffs. You can see more detail on slide 23 in our investor deck.

Non-performing assets were 1.23% of total assets, an improvement of 93 basis points from last quarter. We also transferred one $12.6 million land loan to OREO. Loans 30 days to 89 days past due, totaled $29 million at September 30, down from $35 million last quarter. Finally, total criticize and classified loans rose to $958 million from $875 million last quarter.

Within that total, office declined $198 million while multi-family, including mixed use predominantly residential, increased by $24 million. The increase in criticizing and classified multi-family loans largely reflects the impact of higher interest rates on debt debt service coverage rather than any meaningful deterioration in the underlying property performance.

Net operating income levels remain at or above underwritten expectations across most of the portfolio. There continues to be some pressure within the affordable housing segment, though it represents a relatively small share of the downgrades this quarter.

As we indicated last quarter, we do not believe multi-family loans are affected by the same structural or valuation issues present in the office portfolio. The relative strength of multi-family continues to support stable collateral values, and we believe this pressure is largely limited to a near-term income rather than asset impairment. We will continue to be vigilantly monitoring these portfolios.

Thanks Kevin. We reported a net loss of $67.5 million or $2.22 per share, compared with a $69.8 million loss or $2.30 per share last quarter. In the second quarter, we outlined a more proactive approach to accelerate the resolution of problem loans. This quarter's actions were deliberate as we addressed valuation risk. Even with this quarter's credit-related losses, our capital position remains strong.

Tangible common equity to tangible assets is 10.39%. Tier one leverage ratio declined modestly to 10.4% and CET 1 to 13.58%. Tangible book value per share decreases $2.03 to $37 reflecting the impact of credit cleanup rather than core earnings erosion. Continued deposit growth and an increasing proportion of insured balances reflect the depth and durability of our funding base.

With $5.3 billion in available liquidity, we maintain more than 2.3 times coverage of uninsured deposits, positioning us exceptionally well. Our teams have reduced broker deposits $534 million year-to-date, and we expect continued progress in the fourth quarter. The improvement reflects coordinated efforts among our C&I teams, branch network, and the digital platform.

From an earnings standpoint, pre-provision net revenue was $28.8 million down from the prior quarter. Adjusting for $3.6 million in losses from loan sales, PP&R was $32.3 million a sequential increase reflecting the underlying strength of our core franchise. Net interest income grew to $68.2 million, up 383,000 as the decline in deposit and borrowing costs outpaced a modest reduction in income on earning assets.

NIM expanded 6 basis points to 2.43%, primarily driven by a reduction in interest earning assets associated with a decline in non-accrual loan balances in the CRE loan portfolio. Non-interest income total of $2.5 million compared to $6.4 million last quarter, primarily due to $3.6 million in loan loss sales and a $2 million loss on sale of investments with proceeds used to reduce higher cost funding.

We expect steady contributions from Bowley and a growing fee income as Treasury management sales expand. Non-interest expense declined $1.6 million to $41.9 million, reflecting lower FDIC assessments and disciplined cost management. We remain focused on maintaining efficiency while supporting strategic priorities.

We recognize that investors want certainty that credit risk is fully understood and adequately reserved. That's why in the third quarter we engaged a highly experienced nationally recognized third-party loan reviewer to complete an independent credit review of our commercial portfolio. The goal was to provide us an independent perspective to quantify potential future losses under both baseline and stressed economic scenarios.

The review was conducted separately from our internal risk rating control process and included over 400 individual loans representing 84.9% of the commercial loan book, or about $7.4 billion. It assessed potential losses over a 30-month horizon, a six-month near-term view, plus an additional 24 months based on Moody's baseline and stress scenarios.

Each loan was evaluated for collateral liquidation value, cost to carry and dispose, and borrower and guarantor liquidity to determine potential shortfalls. Utilizing Moody's baseline stress scenario, the independent loan review analysis concluded total potential commercial loan losses of $257 million as of July 31, the date of their review.

Importantly, where the independent firm identified potential loss contract, it was in credits we had already flagged internally. Their conclusions validated our own view of the portfolio. This was confirmation, not discovery. Utilizing the Moody's S4 downside stress scenario where there's only a 4% probability the economy performs worse than the baseline, potential losses increased by $113 million to $370 million.

Between July 31, the date of the independent loan review and quarter end, we charged off $140.8 million and continued to hold $60.3 million in our qualitative office overlay and $24.7 million in individually evaluated reserves. Together that total is $225.8 million, which represents approximately 88% of the total potential losses identified in the baseline scenario.

The independent review assumed liquidation scenarios for consistency across institutions. Our reserve process by contrast, reflects workout strategies that have historically resulted in better recoveries. That's a methodological distinction, not a difference in recognizing risk.

Also during the quarter we performed a supplemental internal review of all CRE loans greater than $5 million covering 137 loans totaling $2.9 billion. Following this review, there were five downgrades of $158.2 million to special mention and three downgrades of $110.8 million to substandard. Together these reviews give us a data driven view of potential losses.

They reaffirm our belief that we are adequately reserved and the bulk of loss recognition is behind us. With that foundation in place, let me turn to how these actions positioned us for improved performance heading into 2026. On slide 11 of the investor deck, we presented our forecasts for the full year of 2026.

We expect net interest income to grow despite a smaller balance sheet driven by mixed improvements and lower funding costs. As Kevin noted, the total reserve coverage to loans declined primarily due to a reduction in the office qualitative overlay. Our qualitative overlay captures a rolling 12 months of evaluation loss experience. As that period rolls off, it will naturally reduce the overlay.

All pass rated office loans were reviewed this quarter to ensure current information and support our internal ratings framework. Looking ahead, we anticipate that we anticipate that loan growth in 2026 will continue to be concentrated in C&I, and we're pursuing that measured growth with a strong focus on discipline credit standards.

We're nearing our target investment portfolio range of 12% to 15% of assets, at which point we'll begin reinvesting cash flows to optimize earnings without compromising liquidity. Non-interest expenses are expected to remain well controlled.

FDIC costs are expected to peak over the next several quarters and then decline as asset quality and liquidity metrics continue to improve, trends we've already seen reflected in lower premiums in the last two quarters. Finally, as mentioned last quarter, our capital return philosophy has shifted in line with performance and priorities.

The dividend reduction to $0.01 per share was a proactive step to preserve capital flexibility, not a response to capital adequacy concerns. As earnings normalize and credit stabilizes, we'll reassess the most effective forms of capital return. I'll now turn it over to Susan for a wrap up.

Thanks, Eric. This was a pivotal quarter for Eagle Bankcorp. We've made significant progress on the credit front, controlling valuation risk head on, completing an independent portfolio review, and validating that our reserves are adequate. At the same time, we're seeing tangible positive outcomes across our commercial and deposit franchises.

As we look ahead, we believe that in 2026 provisions will be manageable and earnings will improve, and our focus on sustainable profitability will come through in our results. Lastly, before we turn to Q&A, we wanted to announce the voluntary resignation of our Chief Credit Officer Kevin Geoghegan, who will be moving back to Chicago effective December 31.

We have hired two seasoned veterans, [William Perotti Jr and Daniel Callahan], to serve as interim Chief Credit officers and Deputy Chief Credit Officer respectively until a permanent replacement can be hired. will spent both of his career at Frost Bank in Texas and Dan at Commerce Bank in Missouri.

Collectively their leadership and very deep experience will facilitate the bank's continued focus on enhancing our overall credit risk management. Kevin was instrumental in both helping shape and implementing our credit strategies, working tirelessly with the team to both proactively deal with the bank's problem loans and improve our credit risk management governance and practices.

We thank Kevin for his contributions and wish him well. Before we conclude, I want to express my sincere appreciation. To our employees, your dedication and professionalism make all the difference. With that, we'll now open the line up for questions.

(Operator Instructions). Our first question today comes from the line of Justin Crowley of Piper Sandler. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning, everyone. Obviously a lot of steps taken this quarter, you had some of the losses on the sale of those two loans, but you know after all the charge-offs and marks you're taking, moving credits and help for sale, and I know you had the independent review which sounded pretty thorough, but can you talk even a bit more on just what gets you.

So comfortable or comfortable on, when it comes time to close these transactions, that further losses won't be there or at least hopefully not too significant.

Thanks Justin. This is Ryan Riel. I'd like to point out that in those two situations that the note sales that we or the property dispositions that we executed in the third quarter, the carrying value of those going into the third quarter was based on LOIs that ended up being traded down prior to execution of the transaction.

In response to that, what we've implemented in our process to determine the carrying value of the loans in HFS and then, just carrying values in general is, so we're getting broker's opinion which in our opinion is a. Better evaluation tool and appraisals in this marketplace.

Brokers' opinions give ranges of values. We've placed the carrying value at the bottom of that range in each case, along with consideration given to cost of this position in an effort to make sure that that situation that played out in those two examples does not happen again.

Okay, and then you know as far as timing and I imagine, the sooner the better but obviously pricing is part of the conversation, but can you get any more specific on the timeline here for for getting these assets off the balance sheet and you know maybe what a portion means.

So it's hard to do that holistically in each and every one of these cases, as Eric mentioned in his commentary, we are evaluating the circum the circumstances of each individual asset in and of themselves and looking for that highest and best outcome, obviously for the banking. Shareholders.

So in many of these cases we have ongoing discussions. In many of these cases those discussions are far enough along that we can confidently say that this position will occur during the fourth quarter of 2025. I don't want to, a little bit superstitious. I don't want to jinx myself and put too fine a point on that, but there will be material action taken in that category during the fourth quarter.

Okay, that's helpful. And then I know last quarter you gave us a loose idea of where charge-offs could perhaps come in this quarter, and obviously things changed and could maybe change more, but at the moment, where do you think those could come in that next quarter and where does that leave things as we get into 2026?

Justin, this is Eric. I think what I would say about that, in terms of next quarter in 2026, we're just not seeing. Early activity that would cause us to believe that there's continued impact on book value from credit, so in terms of charge jobs, I don't want to give you an estimate on that, but I just don't believe charge off activity in the quarter will have a meaningful impact on provision expense like it has in the last two quarters.

Okay, so the idea would be to, you'd be more than comfortable with the reserve taking those hits and and not having to replace those losses through the provision.

Based on what we know right now, yes, and and where our confidence comes from the two activities I talked about in the prepared comments, the independent loan review, which looked at 87% or 88% of the book, as well as that supplemental loan review that looked at almost $3 billion of pass rated CRE loans.

Okay, and then you know with that pick up in total criticized balances and you know obviously despite the charge off taken in office, multi-family was again a driver after a similar trend last quarter and you know I know potential losses have taken should be far less severe.

But just wondering if we could spend just a little more time on that and provide any further detail on metrics just to help us get more comfortable with what we're seeing play out there.

Sure, Justin, this is Ryan again. The I I'd like to point out that the transaction volume in our marketplace from a multi-family perspective has sustained the prices that are still represent cap rates that are some 6%. That is consistent with valuations that we underwrote too. I'd also like to point out that if you if you look at, slide 25 specifically and you focus on the special mention and substandard categories.

Where you're seeing debt service coverage be challenged, many of those loans, the actual performance of the property is at or above our underwritten levels. The NOI is coming out at or above our expectation that was set at origination. The debt service coverage ratio that you see reflected is somewhat stressed based on the interest rate environment that we're in today.

If you took that same NOI and compared it with where the permanent market is. You would get a better outcome in those debt service coverage ratios, materially better outcome, frankly, because there's somewhere between 150 basis points and 250 basis points GAAP depending on which permanent provider you look at.

Okay, and then you know you pointed out on slide 25, but somewhat related, but there is a large $56 million special use loan in Montgomery that fell to special mention in the quarter. Can you just talk a little about what that credit is, what the collateral looks like, just anything you could share.

Yeah, so that particular loan is a special use loan. It's actually a self storage property in Montgomery County. The performance of that property has been impaired by, higher than expected operating expenses which are being disputed. A driver there is real estate taxes.

They're being disputed by that that customer and I've seen a material drop over the last several quarters of that. It's an ongoing dispute that they're working there again. The top-line performance of that property is at or above where we underwrote.

Okay, got it, very helpful. I will leave it there. Thanks so much for the time this morning.

Thanks Justin.

Thank you one moment for the next question. And the next question will be coming from the line of Christopher Marinac of Janney Montgomery Scott your line is open.

Hey, thanks, good morning. Just wanted to go through briefly the government contract business that you have and, how that appears at this time and this, is there any kind of volatility to expect with the with the shutdown that's ongoing.

Yeah, Chris, this is Eric. We haven't seen much of any concerns in the government contracting space because of the government shutdown. As a reminder, the bias of our portfolios in defense and security, and. We looked at line of line of credit or yeah, line of credit usage relative to earlier this year. It's actually down 30%.

That would be an early indicator of cash flow challenges of clients and so we're not seeing that, but our relationship managers keep a constant flow of communication to understand anything that we might need to respond to.

That's right and obviously, Chris, the risk in that portfolio does increase as the shutdown looms. Friday tomorrow would meet the first full paycheck of government workers not being met, and we're hopeful and some of the indications are that the shutdown, albeit prolonged at this point will be reaching conclusion hopefully in the coming time.

Alright, great, thanks for that. And then just back to the kind of main credit issues from the held for sale that you now have, is the timing on that going to be the next quarter? And can you just kind of walk through kind of how or maybe what the risk is that you have an additional write off as those are finally disposed.

I think I'll point back to the comments I made to Justin that we've enhanced our process based on the experience we had in the third quarter with the two dispositions that we went through.

So we are basing our carrying value at the lower end of the range of values that we've determined through third-party work and feel very confident based on conversations with market participants and potential buyers that our carrying value is. It is better than what we'll do in many instances.

Great and I guess the last one for me just has to do with kind of the inflow in future quarters. I mean, do you have visibility about how the inflow may be the same or different in Q4 and Q1? And I guess part of that question is just sort of, the ongoing maturity wall that you have in the portfolio. I presume that was addressed by the by the deeper dive that you just did.

Chris, it's just a clarification, did you mean the inflow into HFS or the inflow into criticized classified.

Really criticizing classified.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that was the purpose of doing the additional review is to get as much current information as we could on the entire portfolio so that, in our parlance wouldn't be surprises. So I think that inflow will that migration will slow down. Dramatically.

Yeah, I would build on that this is Eric, that you know our expectation is that you're going to see criticized classified decline in into 2026.

Great. Thank you for taking all of our questions this morning.

Thanks Chris.

Thank you. One moment for the next question. And the next question is coming from the line of Brett Scheiner of Ibis Capital Advisors. Please go ahead.

Hi guys, can you hear me?

Yeah, hi Brett.

Hey guys, I'm just trying to understand you talked about a temporary cash flow issue in the multi-family space versus a long-term impairment. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two and how do we square that.

Okay, so the comments that I made before where the NOI, our underwritten NOI is. As compared to the actual performance of many of these properties is at or below or underwritten NOI is at or below the actual performance, so the performance is better in many instances than we expected.

The debt service driven by the floating interest rate structure that's that is on many of those loans is higher than anticipated and putting stress on that ratio. Additionally, there are some challenges, as we mentioned in our comments in the affordable housing space that specifically within the District of Columbia has put pressure on the performance.

The bad debt expense in Washington DC unfortunately is well above the national average. The DC council's passed a rental act recently that will help alleviate some of that over time, and that's primarily where we see the short-term pressure and long-term relief.

But it doesn't that higher debt service and the pressure that you talked about affect asset values?

It certainly can, yes.

So how do you think of that as just a temporary cash flow issue versus a valuation impairment?

Because the cash flow will improve over time and therefore the valuation will improve over time.

Based on a refinance or some other issue.

Based on the passage of time and improved performance.

Okay, well, I'll follow-up offline on that and then any other comments on Kevin's departure, I know that, about a year ago that was seemed to be a big catalyst for a cleanup.

It was this is Kevin. Thanks for the question. As Susan talked about, I voluntarily resigned, and I'm proud of very proud of what I was able to contribute to the enhanced credit risk management processes and policies here, and I also want to take a second and just thank my colleagues as well. They all know who they are as they continue to manage through our asset quality challenges.

I would also add to that that with Kevin's resignation and our desire to be deliberate in our process of finding a replacement. And not miss a beat in continuing the strong credit risk management processes that we have put in place, we decided to hire [Bill Perotti] and Dan Callahan on an interim basis so that we would have the time, the appropriate amount of time to seek a permanent replacement for Kevin.

Okay, great, thanks guys and then only one other thought as you go into 4Q, if you're at sort of peak marks and you don't think at this point you'll need to be adding to reserves or charge up to lead through and then you'll have to rebuild into the provision, I assume that you'll be accreting capital in the fourth quarter.

Yeah, I would direct my Eric Brett, I would reaffirm what I said earlier on the call in terms of the independent loan review as well as that supplemental loan review really helping validate management's view of credit and my earlier comment that I don't believe at this time that book value will continue to be degraded by credit.

Okay, so is that a yes? PP&R should exceed provision.

I, what I'm saying is that, I believe that the credit costs will not be degrading book value.

Okay, alright, that's a lot. Thank you so much guys for taking the questions.

Thanks.

Thank you, one moment for the next question. And the next question is coming from the line of Catherine Mealor of KBW. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning.

Hi Catherine.

Maybe just want to follow-up on credit and you've kind of touched on this, but I'm going to ask a little bit more directly. So as you did the independent loan review and the external loan review, what did you see as you did those reviews that was not really maybe captured before and how you were categorizing some of these properties because it was just surprising to me the big increase into special mention.

And then a few into substandard again particularly on the multi-family piece and so just kind of curious what changed and what specifically you saw within that loan review that made you feel like it was now more appropriate to categorize the loans that way.

Catherine, thanks. That review was really putting all the current information that we had on every single loan in our lap at one point, and we do reviews annually on all these properties, all of our loans, but this was a, all at one time to make sure we really understood the depth of the portfolio and with that current information we saw some segments of deterioration and we took according steps.

Okay and then again, as we think about it, one, the one part that I found really helpful that you've brought out is the one on the kind of movement in the in the office book that kind of shows you almost where we are in the cycle, with from where we started and kind of the losses and write downs and transfers out of the office book and so it feels like from the office book.

We're really kind of far through the cycle and kind of working through those issues. The multi-family piece feels like we're a little bit more early. And so is there any way you can kind of articulate You know what you think the ultimate bosses or write downs, a multi-family may be relative to what we're seeing in this office.

But Catherine, this is Ryan. I don't think they're comparable at all, right? The structural issues in the office market in the Washington DC region are significant, and you see that in our performance over the last several quarters. The structural issues just don't exist in the multi-family.

Segment if you look at transaction volume, it's a bit down, but investors are still very interested in Washington DC, well located, high-quality Washington DC region multi-family product. Some of the jurisdictional issues that I referenced are presenting some headwinds for the segment. We're facing those head on we have good quality sponsorship in those situations and some of the other.

Other issues that are shown on slide 25, a special mention in substandard category, are simply transactions that the interaction of the net operating income and the debt service coverage based on the interest rate structure that's in place in many of those presents a challenge that's below policy levels, sometimes below one to one, and in those situations and all of those situations.

We have structural enhancements that allow us to qualify those as potential weaknesses, not well defined weaknesses, while we work to restructure and we're in active discussions to restructure. As in the office category when we went into restructure conversations or workout conversations, the value of that collateral had diminished substantially. That is just not the case in the properties.

Got it understood. All right, thank you.

Thank you one moment for the next question. And the next question will be coming from the line of Nick Grant of North Reef Capital. Your line is open. Your line is open. One moment. Our next question will come from the line of Nick Grant of North Reef Capital. Please go ahead.

Hey guys, can you hear me?

Yeah.

All right, I wasn't on mute, so I don't know what the IT issue was, but thanks for taking the question. So I mean, first off, I just want to applaud the proactive measures to work their credit. Like, I mean when I stepped back to $37 a changeable book feels, I mean much more reflective of the identified risk across your loan exposures, reduces, future credit migration.

And Susan, in your opening remarks I did here, improving franchise value is a focus. I mean, I really agree with that. I mean, given industry, activity on the M&A front, increasing activity, like we should see more deals here. How do you feel about the franchise's upstream optionality as a way to increase shareholder value?

Yeah, I mean, I can start with that and Susan can finish, but I think, from our perspective, we're focused on the strategic plan and building shareholder value through the diversification efforts in C&I, improving our funding profile and focused on improving pre-provision that revenue which should drive enhanced or improved ROA and ROTC.

But obviously, Nick, as the board will focus on anything that adds value to our shareholders and we'll consider whatever other options come our way.

Understood thanks.

Thank you one moment the next question. And we have a follow-up question coming from Justin Crowley of Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.

Hey, I just want to hop back in and ask one quick one outside of credit, just think about what will help out the margin, looking forward here, you get better yields and C&I, but do you have any detail on how much in fixed loan repricing and adjustable that'll reset maybe through the end of next year?

Not sure if you can give some color on on the magnitude and the yield pick up and, I guess maybe excluding anything that's set to hopefully move off the balance sheet.

Yeah, I don't have that information in front of me, Justin, so I don't want to, make. Assumptions for you there, but in terms of just, more broadly with the NIM expectation I think you have the similar phenomenon of investment portfolio rolling off whether it's rolling back into investment portfolio if we're getting close to that 12% to 15% with high.

Yields or the cash flows off the portfolio going into loans that's going to be helpful on the asset side and then on the liability side, it's the continued expectation in the fourth quarter as well as 2026 that we're going to be paying down wholesale funding, brokered funding, which should be helpful in terms of cost of funds as well.

About 40% of our loan book is fixed, but it's a short loan book, as Ryan has said it's called a lot of our lending is value add. We're not the permanent financing takeout, so when you look at the average book, it's probably three to four years.

Okay, got it. I appreciate the follow-up system.

Thank you and that does conclude today's Q&A session. I'd like to turn the call over to President and CEO Susan Riel for closing remarks. Please go ahead.

Okay. Thank you for your participation and questions during this call, and we look forward to speaking to you again next quarter. Thank you.

Thank you all for joining. You can now disconnect.