Bancorp Inc (TBBK) 2026 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us and welcome to the Bancorp Inc. Second quarter 2026 earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions)

各位好。感謝各位加入，歡迎參加 Bancorp Inc. 2026 年第二季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）

I will now hand the conference over to Andres Viroslav. Andres, please go ahead.

現在我將把會議交給 Andres Viroslav。Andres，請開始。

Thank you, operator. Good morning and thank you for joining us today for the Bancorp second quarter 2026 financial results conference call. On the call with me today are Damian Kozlowski, Chief Executive Officer; and Dominic Canuso, our Chief Financial Officer.

謝謝，接線員。各位早安，感謝各位今天參加 Bancorp 2026 年第二季財務結果電話會議。今天與我一同出席的有執行長 Damian Kozlowski，以及財務長 Dominic Canuso。

This morning's call is being webcast on our website at www.thebancorp.com, there'll be a replay of the call available via webcast on our website beginning at approximately 12 PM Eastern time today.

今天上午的電話會議將在我們的網站 www.thebancorp.com 進行網路直播；今天美東時間約中午 12 點起，網站亦將提供網路重播。

Before I turn the call over to Damien, I would like to remind everyone that our comments and responses to questions reflect management's view as of today, July 31, 2026. Yesterday we issued our second quarter earnings release and updated investor presentation.

在我把電話交給 Damien 之前，我想提醒各位，我們的評論與對問題的回應反映的是管理層截至今日（2026 年 7 月 31 日）的觀點。我們於昨日發布了第二季盈餘新聞稿並更新了投資人簡報。

Both are available on our Investor Relations website. We will make certain forward-looking statements on this call. These statements are subject to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are subject to risk and uncertainty that could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations and assumptions we mentioned today. These factors and uncertainties are discussed in our reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

兩者皆可在我們的投資人關係網站取得。我們在本次電話會議中將作出若干前瞻性陳述。這些陳述受 1995 年《私人證券訴訟改革法》之「安全港」條款保障，並受可能導致實際結果與我們今日提及之預期與假設存在重大差異的風險與不確定性影響。相關因素與不確定性已在我們向美國證券交易委員會提交的報告與申報文件中討論。

In addition, we'll be referring to certain non-GAAP financial measures during this call, additional details and reconciliations of GAAP to adjusted non-GAAP financial measures are in the earnings release.

此外，我們在本次電話會議中將提及若干非 GAAP 財務衡量指標；GAAP 與調整後非 GAAP 財務衡量指標之更多細節與調節表載於盈餘新聞稿中。

Please note that the bank undertakes no obligation to public release the results of any revisions to Forward Looking statements which may be made to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

請注意，本行不承擔任何義務公開發布對前瞻性陳述所作之任何修訂結果；該等修訂可能為反映本文件日期後之事件或情況，或反映未預期事件之發生。

Now I'd like to turn the call over to the Bancorp's Chief Executive Officer, Damian Kozlowski, Damian.

現在我想把電話交給 Bancorp 的執行長 Damian Kozlowski。Damian。

Hey, Andres. Good morning, everyone. The Bancorp earned $1.45 a share in the second quarter. EPS growth year over year was 14.2%. ROE was 34.7%, continuing on its upward path. The Bancorp already has an ROE roughly triple the average of the banking industry, and we expect sizeable increases over the next 3 years, consistent with our capital return philosophy, profitability increases are expected to be returned to our shareholders through share repurchases.

嗨，Andres。各位早安。Bancorp 在第二季每股盈餘為 1.45 美元。每股盈餘（EPS）年增 14.2%。股東權益報酬率（ROE）為 34.7%，持續走升。Bancorp 的 ROE 已約為銀行業平均的三倍，我們預期未來三年將有可觀提升；依循我們的資本回饋理念，預期獲利的增加將透過庫藏股回購回饋給股東。

In the last 4.5 years, the Bancorp has returned. The equivalent of 100% of equity capital base back to shareholders through buybacks. We expect that time frame to decrease to around 3 years over the next 3 years, after that, buying back the equivalent of our capital base in 2 years or less is a reasonable forecast.

在過去 4.5 年中，Bancorp 已透過回購將相當於股東權益資本基礎 100% 的金額回饋給股東。我們預期在未來三年內，該時間框架將縮短至約 3 年；其後，在 2 年或更短時間內回購相當於我們資本基礎的規模，是合理的預測。

This results in annual EPS accretion of approximately 5% to 10% depending on the price of shares purchased, and before a projected increase in net income, which should result in dramatic EPS accretion over the next 5 years.

這將帶來每年約 5% 至 10% 的 EPS 增厚（視回購股價而定），且尚未計入預期的淨利成長；因此，未來五年 EPS 增厚可望相當顯著。

Fintech GDV continued to grow significantly above trend at 22.5% year over year for the second quarter of '26, fintech revenue growth in the quarter, which includes both fee and spread revenue was 21% year over year. Our three main fintech initiatives that underpin our APEX 2030 strategy continued to progress quickly and are well positioned for substantial long-term success.

金融科技（fintech）GDV 在 2026 年第二季持續以 22.5% 的年增率顯著高於趨勢成長；本季金融科技營收（包含手續費與利差收入）年增 21%。支撐我們 APEX 2030 策略的三項主要金融科技計畫持續快速推進，並已為長期的重大成功做好布局。

Our onboarding new programs and expansion of current programs continues within or exceeding our targets, the Cash App program is now ramping up and should start contributing to GDP growth and profitability over the coming quarters with more material contributions coming in late Q4 and Q1 of '27.

我們的新方案導入與既有方案擴張持續達到或超越目標；Cash App 方案目前正加速放量，並應在未來幾季開始對 GDV 成長與獲利有所貢獻，更具實質性的貢獻預期將出現在 2026 年第四季末與 2027 年第一季。

Credit sponsorship balances continue to suppress our expectations. We anticipate announcing two new programs that subject to implementation timing and other customary factors would be expected to come online next six months.

信用贊助（credit sponsorship）餘額仍低於我們的預期。我們預計將宣布兩項新方案；在取決於導入時程及其他慣常因素的前提下，預期將於未來六個月內上線。

Embedded finance platform development continues with significant progress in building a robust integrated platform connected to our one-of a-kind ecosystem. We should soon make an announcement on our first embedded finance partner.

嵌入式金融平台的開發持續推進，在打造一個強健的整合式平台方面取得重大進展，並與我們獨一無二的生態系相連結。我們應很快會就首位嵌入式金融合作夥伴發布公告。

Lastly, we're increasing our full year guidance to a range of $5.95 to $6.05 EPS for '26, we are targeting a range of $1.65 to $1.75 this year in the fourth quarter of '26, and we are maintaining a preliminary guidance for '27 of $8.10 to $8.30 a share. Our guidance in '26 and '27 includes anticipated stock buybacks, 2026 buybacks are forecast to be $200 million total or $50 million a quarter, and we forecast future share repurchases to be near 100% of annual net income.

最後，我們將 2026 全年指引上調至 EPS 5.95 至 6.05 美元區間；我們目標為 2026 年第四季 EPS 1.65 至 1.75 美元區間，並維持 2027 年初步指引為每股 8.10 至 8.30 美元。我們對 2026 與 2027 的指引包含預期的股票回購；2026 年回購預估總額為 2 億美元（每季 5,000 萬美元），且我們預估未來的股票回購將接近年度淨利的 100%。

We expect that our three main fintech initiatives along with platform efficiency and productivity gains from restructuring and AI tools, plus a high level of capital return through buybacks will be the driving forces behind continued EPS accretion. EPS gains are subject to development implementation timelines in fintech and our stock price for any future buybacks.

我們預期三項主要金融科技計畫，加上平台效率提升、重整與 AI 工具帶來的生產力增益，以及透過回購進行的高水準資本回饋，將成為推動 EPS 持續增厚的主要動能。EPS 的提升仍取決於金融科技的開發與導入時程，以及我們股價對未來回購的影響。

And now turn the call over to our CFO, Dominic Canuso. Dominic?

現在把電話交給我們的財務長 Dominic Canuso。Dominic？

Thank you, Damian. The second quarter was a very strong quarter, topping off record level earnings for the first half of the year and positions us well to achieve our expectations for the second half of '26 and full year '27. Well, ending loans were down from the first quarter, this was due to a change in month-end customer billing cycle and payment due dates with our lending partner, this does not affect customer performance or our economics.

謝謝你，Damian。第二季表現非常強勁，為上半年創紀錄的獲利畫下句點，並使我們有良好基礎達成 2026 年下半年與 2027 全年的預期。雖然期末貸款較第一季下降，但這是由於我們與放款合作夥伴之月末客戶帳單週期與到期日調整所致，並不影響客戶表現或我們的經濟利益。

Average loans for the quarter of $7.63 billion, increased 5% not annualized from the first quarter, and 16% compared to the second quarter of 2025. Average fintech loans in the quarter were $1.39 billion, or 18% of average total loans, up from 15% in the first quarter and 8% in the second quarter of '25.

本季平均貸款為 76.3 億美元，較第一季增加 5%（未年化），較 2025 年第二季增加 16%。本季平均金融科技貸款為 13.9 億美元，占平均總貸款的 18%，高於第一季的 15% 與 2025 年第二季的 8%。

Our strategy is to continue to shift the loan mix towards the higher velocity, higher returning credit sponsorship business. Average deposits increased $97 million or 1.2% not annualized from the first quarter, and $357 million or 4.4% from the second quarter of last year. The average cost of deposits decreased 7 basis points in the quarter to 1.63%, which is 55 basis points lower than the second quarter of '25.

我們的策略是持續將貸款組合轉向周轉速度更高、報酬更高的信用贊助業務。平均存款較第一季增加 9,700 萬美元（未年化 1.2%），較去年第二季增加 3.57 億美元（4.4%）。本季平均存款成本下降 7 個基點至 1.63%，較 2025 年第二季低 55 個基點。

We ended the quarter with $1.1 billion net deposits swept off the balance sheet, which is down 16% from the first quarter due to seasonality, but up 32% from year end '25, while there may be quarter to quarter fluctuations in our off-balance sheet sweeps due to seasonality or other factors due to the strength of our partnership model and their growth, we expect this to increase over time.

我們在本季末有11億美元的淨存款被掃出資產負債表，因季節性因素較第一季下降16%，但較2025年年底上升32%。雖然由於季節性或其他因素，我們的表外掃款金額可能會出現季度間波動，但憑藉我們合作夥伴模式的強勁表現及其成長，我們預期該金額將隨時間推移而增加。

NIM of 3.85% in the second quarter, was relatively flat with the first quarter and consistent with expectations. Are intact lending fees, which are recognized as fee revenue generates an equivalent to an additional 28 basis points of NIM compared to 24 basis points in the prior quarter and 18 basis points in the second quarter '25. In addition, we generated $680,000 in fee revenue from our deposit sweeps, which would equate to 3 basis points of additional NIM.

第二季淨利差（NIM）為3.85%，與第一季大致持平，且符合預期。Intact 放款手續費（認列為手續費收入）所帶來的效果，相當於額外增加28個基點的NIM，高於前一季的24個基點以及2025年第二季的18個基點。此外，我們從存款掃款產生了68萬美元的手續費收入，折算約可額外增加3個基點的NIM。

Non-interest income, excluding credit enhancement, was $47.3 million an 8.2% increase not annualized compared to the first quarter and 16.7% versus prior year quarter.

不含信用增強的非利息收入為4,730萬美元，較第一季成長8.2%（未年化），較去年同期成長16.7%。

This equates to 34.3% of total revenue with 29.7% of total revenue coming from fintech fees, up 1 percentage point from the first quarter and 4 percentage points from the second quarter of '25, as I mentioned, last quarter growth in credit sponsorship loans is a leading indicator of fintech fees due to the velocity of the portfolio and was demonstrated in the growth in the fintech fees in the quarter, including the 17% nonannualized growth from the first quarter, specifically from the consumer credit fintech fee line.

這相當於總收入的34.3%，其中29.7%的總收入來自金融科技費用，較第一季上升1個百分點，較2025年第二季上升4個百分點。如我先前提到的，上季信用贊助貸款的成長，因投組周轉速度而成為金融科技費用的領先指標，並在本季金融科技費用的成長中得到體現，包括消費者信貸金融科技費用項目較第一季成長17%（未年化）。

Performance was strong across all asset classes with continued improvements in REBL and leasing. REBL criticized loans were down another $13 million or 22% to $46 million the lowest level since mid '23. When excluding the fintech credit sponsorship loans which are supported by full credit enhancement.

各資產類別表現強勁，REBL與租賃業務持續改善。REBL受批評貸款再下降1,300萬美元（或22%）至4,600萬美元，為自2023年年中以來最低水準。在排除由完整信用增強支持的金融科技信用贊助貸款後。

Our traditional lending portfolio saw a provision of $0.4 million in the quarter, consistent with the loan growth and overall credit performance from the traditional lending portfolio. Non-interest expense in the quarter was $56.5 million with an efficiency ratio of 41%.

我們的傳統放款投組本季提列0.4百萬美元的備抵，與傳統放款投組的貸款成長及整體信用表現一致。本季非利息費用為5,650萬美元，效率比率為41%。

Costs continue to be managed prudently, generating continued positive operating leverage driven by our investments in AI, repositioning our revenues towards fintech and the demonstrated scale of our fintech platform.

成本持續審慎控管，帶來持續的正向營運槓桿，主要由我們在AI方面的投資、將收入結構重新定位至金融科技，以及金融科技平台已展現的規模化所驅動。

Operator, you may now open the call for questions.

接線員，您現在可以開放提問。

We will now begin the question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions)

我們現在開始問答環節。(接線員指示)

Joe Yunis, Raymond James.

Joe Yunis，Raymond James。

So I was hoping to start with the fintech loans, can you provide a little more detail on the payment timing dynamic that you called out that impacted the period end balances, and I mean, should we think of average balances, as a better indicator of the underlying trajectory, and do you expect like the period balance to kind normalize over the next couple quarters?

我想先從金融科技貸款談起。你們能否就你們提到、影響期末餘額的付款時點動態提供更多細節？另外，我的意思是，我們是否應該把平均餘額視為更能反映基本趨勢的指標？以及你們是否預期期末餘額在接下來幾季會逐步回到正常水準？

Yeah, so it's short, it doesn't affect our economics and stuff, but Dominic will go into detail.

是的，簡單說，這是短期因素，不影響我們的經濟性等，但Dominic會詳細說明。

Sure, thanks, Joe. Yes, I would say overall average balances in each quarter are more indicative of our economics because traditionally the fintech lending products are short-term in nature and are affected by seasonality, with that said, this was a one-time change, particularly with the, credit -- the fintech lending product where we actually accelerated the payment due date, by 1 day to actually to the terms and conditions with the customer.

當然，謝謝你，Joe。是的，我會說整體而言，每一季的平均餘額更能反映我們的經濟性，因為金融科技放款產品傳統上屬於短期性質，且會受到季節性影響。話雖如此，這次是一次性的變動，特別是針對某個信貸——金融科技放款產品，我們實際上將付款到期日提前了1天，以符合與客戶的條款與條件。

So there was no contractual changes, no changes with our customer performance and no changes in our economics, and you saw that in both the loans stepping down and deposits on an ending balance basis from here it's normalized, so this was a one-time change, so while average balances will be more indicative of economic performance, the ending balance from here forward will also be, in line with the change in average balances.

因此沒有任何合約變更、客戶表現沒有變化、我們的經濟性也沒有改變；你也在期末餘額口徑上看到貸款下降、存款下降。從現在起已經正常化，所以這是一次性調整。因此，雖然平均餘額更能反映經濟表現，但從現在往後，期末餘額也會與平均餘額的變動一致。

Got it. I appreciate that, and then you mentioned expecting 2 additional sponsored lending programs to come online over the next couple quarters, can you ever think about the characteristics of those programs? Yeah, so are they going to be similar to like trying and be balance sheet intensive or, something a little more higher velocity than fee income?

了解。謝謝你的說明。接著你提到預期未來幾季會有另外兩個贊助放款計畫上線，你能談談這些計畫的特性嗎？是會類似於比較吃資產負債表，還是周轉更快、偏手續費收入的類型？

No, they will be much higher velocity, our Chime relationship is extremely synergistic. And so it'll be less -- It'll be -- once again, it'll be very structured, it will be with partners that you'll know. It'll be similar types of loan products, though we'll have, changes as we go forward, in different categories, but, they won't use the balance sheet in the same way, that, Chime does.

不，它們的周轉會快得多；我們與Chime的合作關係具有高度協同效應。因此會更少——會是——再一次，會是非常結構化的安排，合作夥伴也會是你們熟悉的。貸款產品類型會相近，當然我們往後在不同類別會做一些調整，但它們不會像Chime那樣以同樣方式使用資產負債表。

Got it. So would that volume show up under GDV then?

了解。那麼這些量會反映在GDV之下嗎？

Well, no, the loans will be loans, of course, and there may be some spend in these programs off the back of the loans, in certain cases. But no, that the, they will be booked as loans, and you'll see them in the fintech loan line and may have some ancillary impact on GDV.

嗯，不會，貸款當然會是貸款；在某些情況下，這些計畫可能會在貸款帶動下產生一些消費支出。但不，這些會以貸款入帳，你會在金融科技貸款項下看到，並且可能對GDV有一些附帶影響。

Understood, and then last one for me here, just kind of want to talk about your outlook, for a moment, I mean, you made a couple tweaks to the 4Q number, reiterated preliminary 2027 outlook. Can you walk us through some of the factors behind the change the 4Q number?

明白。最後一題，想談一下你們的展望。你們對第四季的數字做了些微調整，同時重申了初步的2027年展望。能否帶我們了解一下第四季數字變動背後的一些因素？

Okay, Dominic, do you want to handle that?

好的，Dominic，你要回答嗎？

Sure, yeah, I would say this was a minor change in our expectations, and it really comes down to honing in on the timing of that pipeline that we just talked about, which is why we reiterated our 2027 expectations, so from our perspective, we continue to anticipate a ramp up in profitability from the second quarter to fourth quarter and ability for that step off point to hit our 2027 target, so from our perspective, the changes in to that range is really a function of aligning with the phasing of onboarding and the growth anticipated from those programs.

當然。是的，我會說這只是我們預期中的小幅調整，主要是更精準地掌握我們剛才談到的那個管線的時點，因此我們才重申2027年的預期。就我們的角度而言，我們仍預期獲利能力會從第二季到第四季逐步爬升，並且能以那個起跳點達成我們2027年的目標。因此，區間的調整主要是為了與導入（onboarding）的分期節奏，以及這些計畫預期帶來的成長相匹配。

(Operator Instructions) Tim Switzer, KBW.

(接線員指示) Tim Switzer，KBW。

Hey, good morning, thank you for taking my questions. The first one I have is on, net interest margin or maybe more appropriately NII for you guys. But how should we think about the trajectory of NII going forward and the potential impact of Fed rate hikes? And, what, what's the impact of higher rates on your loan yields now that that portfolio is kind of changed a little bit.

嗨，早安，謝謝讓我提問。我第一個問題是關於淨利差，或者對你們來說更貼切的是淨利息收入（NII）。但我們應該如何看待未來NII的走勢，以及聯準會升息可能帶來的影響？另外，在你們的投組結構有些變化之後，利率上升對你們目前的貸款收益率有什麼影響？

Dominic will go into detail, but the, we're fairly neutral on the balance sheet, we're slightly. May be a little bit asset sensitive on that side, so rate hikes won't really help us that much, but it won't, definitely will not hurt us. Dominic?

Dominic 會再詳細說明，但就資產負債表而言，我們大致上相當中性，略微……可能在那一端稍微偏向資產敏感，因此升息對我們的幫助不會太大，但也絕對不會傷害我們。Dominic？

Sure, and just to [hone] in on that, we are, we try to manage to the interest rate neutral position, however, there could be some intra-month or intra-quarter impact from the timing of any Fed rate changes due to the timing in which they impact loans versus deposit re pricing resets, but, over a quarter or 2, it's a very neutral impact, and we've been disciplined in managing to that level. From an NII perspective as we look through the rest of the year, I would say on a dollar basis it's relatively neutral.

當然，針對這點再更聚焦一下：我們會、我們努力把利率風險管理在中性部位；不過，由於聯準會（Fed）任何利率變動在「影響放款」與「影響存款重新定價重設」的時間點不同，月內或季內可能會因時點而出現一些影響；但拉長到一季或兩季來看，影響非常中性，而我們也一直很有紀律地把部位管理在那個水準。從淨利息收入（NII）的角度來看，展望今年剩餘時間，我會說以金額計算大致上是相對中性。

We should see some compression in NIM as we migrate further to the fintech lending, but that should be offset by continued strength in the traditional lending average balance for the second half of the year on a NIM equivalent, just like you saw this quarter, we may see a slight tick down in that traditional calculation of NIM, but when you normalize for the fintech lending fees like we saw this quarter when incorporating those, it actually blended up a couple of basis points, so in summary, NII should be flat for the near flat for the second half of the year with a step down in NIM and slight flat up on the equivalent.

隨著我們進一步轉向金融科技放款，我們應該會看到淨利差（NIM）有些壓縮，但這應可被今年下半年傳統放款平均餘額在「NIM 等效」口徑下的持續強勁所抵銷，就像你在本季看到的一樣；在傳統的 NIM 計算方式下，我們可能會看到小幅下滑，但當你像本季一樣把金融科技放款手續費納入並做正常化後，實際上合併後反而上升了幾個基點。總結來說，今年下半年 NII 應該會持平或接近持平；NIM 會下移，而等效口徑則略為持平偏上。

Okay, thanks, Dominic, and on the cards fees, good to see some of the acceleration in GDV. Is there any color on how much is driven by Square, Cash App, and the other new programs for legacy ones? And Damian in your comments about Cash App making a more significant contribution in late Q4, Q1 of next year, and that's like a change from your commentary previously about the second half of this year, so is that a little bit more delayed, but other programs? I mean, appear to be making up for it right now?

好的，謝謝你，Dominic。關於卡片手續費，很高興看到 GDV 有一些加速。能否補充一下，其中有多少是由 Square、Cash App，以及其他新方案所帶動，相對於既有（legacy）方案？另外 Damian，你提到 Cash App 會在今年第四季末、明年第一季做出更顯著的貢獻，這似乎與你先前提到「今年下半年」的說法不同；所以這是稍微延後了嗎？但其他方案……我的意思是，看起來目前是由其他方案在補上這部分？

Well, Cash App is a very unique because of the potential volume there because it's an ongoing program is very large compared to for the portfolio, so it can really produce a lot of incremental growth, that's usually not the case where it's that large, and it's really just impacting us now. And we'll ramp through the end of the year.

嗯，Cash App 非常獨特，因為它的潛在交易量很大；它是一個持續運作的方案，相較於整體組合規模非常大，因此確實能帶來大量的增量成長。通常不會有規模大到這種程度的情況，而它現在才剛開始對我們產生影響。而我們會一路加速推進到年底。

So it's -- it will have meaningful impact on GDV as we approach the end of the year. It's not really, don't give independent, for each program we let the programs give their own dialogue on their growth, but it's very broad based, it's coming from, most of our 15 verticals, and, it's really, it's, you see -- across the virtual, the neobank, the virtual wallet, segment, you see it through healthcare, corporate payments, it's very broad based.

所以——隨著接近年底，它會對 GDV 產生有意義的影響。我們不會針對每個方案分別提供獨立的數字，我們讓各方案自行對外說明其成長；但整體來看是非常廣泛的來源，來自我們 15 個垂直領域中的大多數，而且確實是——你會看到——在虛擬（virtual）、新型銀行（neobank）、虛擬錢包（virtual wallet）等區隔都有表現；在醫療保健、企業支付也看得到，來源非常多元。

Okay, alright, so if I, if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, it sounds like the acceleration would have happened regardless of Chime -- or sorry, Cash app and yeah, further acceleration over the course of the year, quarter over quarter.

好的，了解，所以如果我正確理解你的意思，聽起來即使沒有 Chime——呃抱歉，Cash App——也會出現這個加速；而且在今年內會持續進一步加速，季度對季度地提升。

Yeah, this has nothing, it's, there's very little of Cash App in there, it's really not impacting your number, maybe up 1 point percent or less at this point, but it's quickly ramping, and, it should really start to affect GDV as we approach the end of the year.

對，這跟 Cash App 無關——裡面 Cash App 的占比非常小，基本上還沒有影響到你看到的數字；到目前為止可能只增加 1 個百分點或更少，但它正在快速爬坡，並且在接近年底時，應該會真正開始影響 GDV。

Okay, great to hear. And then I know this has been a common discussion point on these calls recently, but you have some prominent partners who have applied for a bank charter, others who have indicated they will eventually maybe apply. And could you provide some examples of how Bancorp could still provide some BaaS services to companies with an ILC with an ILC or other type of charter and what those partnerships could look like?

好的，這很令人振奮。接著我知道這是最近幾次電話會議常被討論的點：你們有一些重要合作夥伴已申請銀行執照（bank charter），也有其他夥伴表示未來可能會申請。你能否舉例說明，對於擁有 ILC（工業貸款公司）或其他類型執照的公司，Bancorp 仍然可以如何提供一些 BaaS（Banking-as-a-Service，銀行即服務）服務？以及這類合作可能會長什麼樣子？

Yeah, so we provide a very scalable infrastructure, right? And we're talking about, there's many segments we're in that you really never going to be a bank, right? It could be corporate payments, it could be healthcare. In certain cases, they're never going to government payments. There's never going to be a bank, they're never going to become a bank, so you're really talking about the neobank segment. And we're providing an incredibly scalable middle office platform that can't be replicated by these programs, right? That cost to go in to replicate it is enormous. And we are a very small expense in on their own, financial lines. So there's a lot of value we bring.

是的，我們提供的是一個非常可擴展的基礎設施，對吧？而且我們談的是：我們所在的許多細分領域，你根本不會成為一家銀行，對吧？可能是企業支付，可能是醫療保健。在某些情況下，他們永遠也不會——政府支付也是一樣。他們不會成為銀行、也不會變成銀行，所以你真正談的是新型銀行（neobank）這個區隔。而我們提供的是一個極具可擴展性的中台（middle office）平台，這些方案方是無法自行複製的，對吧？要投入成本去複製它是非常龐大的。而我們在他們自身的財務費用線（financial lines）中只占很小一部分支出。所以我們帶來了很大的價值。

You enter our ecosystem, you benefit from this incredible scale and sophistication that's very hard to replicate on your own, so, we don't think, first of all, it takes a very long time to build these platforms the right way, it would, you lose an information which is in a lot of cases a big competitive advantage of us, you lose the sophistication with regulators. So we think that it's not going to impact us, especially in the near to, the medium term, and as the we continue to build our scale and become much more efficient.

你進入我們的生態系，就能受益於這種驚人的規模與成熟度，而這些很難靠自己複製；此外，我們認為，首先，要把這些平台用正確方式建起來需要很長時間；你會失去資訊——在很多情況下那是我們很大的競爭優勢；你也會失去與監管機構互動的成熟度與專業度。因此我們認為，這不會對我們造成影響，尤其是在短期到中期；而且隨著我們持續擴大規模並變得更有效率。

I think we can add value to those regardless of the license or not, we can add substantial value to these large programs, nevertheless, and so we don't think it's going to impact us.

我認為不論他們是否擁有執照，我們都能為他們增加價值；我們仍然能為這些大型方案帶來相當可觀的價值，因此我們不認為這會影響我們。

Okay. I mean if they're applying for their chart, they started, they obviously want to do something with it. So like how could these change what your partnership or programs look like? And is there any sense of your product base we see more risks or more opportunities as this goes on, whether that's deposits, credit sponsorships, the payment side or anywhere else?

好的。我的意思是，如果他們在申請執照，他們已經開始了，他們顯然是想用它來做些事情。那麼這可能會如何改變你們的合作關係或方案的樣貌？另外，隨著這個趨勢發展，你們的產品版圖中哪些地方風險更高、或機會更多？不論是存款、信用贊助（credit sponsorship）、支付端或其他任何地方？

Yes, it depends on what chart, yeah, it depends on what charter they want, but it's usually a funding situation where they want to have in some way a deposit, and we're talking about a charter that's consumer based, that's not an industrial charter, right? So they become a bank and they, are able to self fund, but we're kind of doing that already. If you think about it with the time where they're using our balance sheet, but for some of these programs that are only lending base, they want that capability to self fund, and that's where it's mostly coming from.

是的，這取決於他們想要什麼執照——對，取決於他們要的 charter 類型；但通常是資金來源（funding）的考量，他們希望以某種方式取得存款；而我們談的是以消費者為基礎的執照，而不是工業執照（industrial charter），對吧？所以他們成為銀行後，就能夠自行籌資（self fund），但我們其實某種程度上已經在做這件事了。如果你這樣想：他們目前是在使用我們的資產負債表；但對於其中一些只做放款的方案，他們希望具備自行籌資的能力，而這就是主要的動機來源。

And Tim, just to add to that one consideration is if you think about the velocity of the loans generated, particularly by NEO's, having their own balance sheet allows them to be the buyer first choice and control the economics around holding loans, so to the extent there are partners with bank charters that want to hold the loans, we actually see that as a potential benefit because as the velocity increases, we are looking to off balance sheet these loans over time as we grow that business, and it would be a logical place for that particular partner if they had a charter to hold their own loan after we, originate and go through our compliance efficiencies that we bring to the table, so we think to be a net benefit in that particular situation.

Tim，再補充一點考量：如果你思考貸款生成的速度（velocity），特別是由 NEO 這類新型機構所帶動的，擁有自有資產負債表讓他們能成為首選買方，並掌控持有貸款的經濟效益。因此，若有具備銀行特許執照（bank charter）的合作夥伴想要持有這些貸款，我們其實視之為潛在利多；因為隨著速度提升，隨著我們把這項業務做大，我們會隨時間推進將這些貸款逐步移出表外（off balance sheet）。而若該合作夥伴有特許執照，在我們完成放款（originate）並運用我們帶來的合規效率流程之後，讓他們持有自己那筆貸款，會是很合乎邏輯的安排，所以我們認為在那種情境下整體是淨受益。

Okay, yeah, and just to make sure I understand your point here. It would make a lot of sense for Bancorp to still be the originator of these loans for a lot of the neobanks because you guys have the expertise on the regulatory side? And Damian, going back to your comment, on my first question about, how expensive it is to build this out and you guys spend a lot of time with infrastructure, I think in the past you guys have shared the overall investment cost it took to build the robust regulatory compliance infrastructure you guys have over the last like 5 years plus, could you go into that just a little bit kind of?

好的，是的，我想確認我理解你的意思。對許多新型銀行（neobanks）而言，讓 Bancorp 仍然擔任這些貸款的發起行（originator）會很合理，因為你們在監管面有專業能力？Damian，回到你對我第一個問題的評論：建立這些能力有多昂貴、你們在基礎設施上投入很多時間。我記得過去你們分享過，過去大約 5 年以上建立你們這套強健的監管合規基礎設施的整體投資成本；你能不能再稍微多談一點？

Well it's very expensive. I mean, we spent. I mean, over the last 10 years, well north of $100 million just $100 million just for the base platform. So, and that's every year. You're investing in building for the future, so that adds up every year, and it's not just the amount of money, it's the amount of time. That it takes to do that. It takes multiple years to build a platform that's robust enough to handle, the broad middle office, that you need to do in compliance, the regulatory relationships, but also the tech stack, and we have that all already.

嗯，非常昂貴。我的意思是，我們投入了。過去 10 年，我們投入遠超過 1 億美元——光是基礎平台就超過 1 億美元。而且這是每一年。你每年都在為未來建設而投資，所以每年累積起來，而且不只是金額，還有時間成本。做到這些需要花很多時間。要打造一個足夠強健的平台需要好幾年，才能支撐你在合規上所需的廣泛中後台（middle office）、監管關係，以及技術堆疊（tech stack），而這些我們都已經具備。

We've invested in it to really have the best in class over 10 years, and to catch up to that in a shorter time frame, just cost more money. So that, say you can do it in 3 years, you're going to balloon your costs, and this has been seen when people try to build it out, in other places, the cost, the shorter time that you take to try to do it, and that's problematic in itself, the cost skyrocket.

我們在 10 年內持續投資，真正做到同級最佳（best in class）；若要在更短時間內追上，成本只會更高。也就是說，如果你想在 3 年內做到，你的成本會膨脹。這在其他地方有人嘗試自行建置時已經看過：你想用更短時間完成，成本就會飆升，而這本身就會造成問題。

So if you're going to get your banking license and you want to have everything done in-house. That's, first of all, it starts with multi-year. It doesn't start with, a 6-month project, this is a 3-to-5-year project.

所以如果你要取得銀行執照，並希望所有事情都在內部完成（in-house）。首先，這會是一個多年期的計畫。它不是一個 6 個月的專案，而是一個 3 到 5 年的專案。

It requires you to increase your investment up front because you're going to want to reduce the time, and that is going to have a significant premium to what we're charging, right? So the payback on that investment, and you're going to get less quality, of course, especially over the first part of that until you get sophisticated, it's going to be multitudes of what we charge over any reasonable time.

這會要求你在前期提高投資，因為你會想縮短時間，而那相對於我們的收費會有顯著溢價（premium），對吧？因此，那筆投資的回收期，而且你得到的品質也會較低，當然，尤其在前期、在你變得成熟之前；在任何合理的時間範圍內，成本都會是我們收費的好幾倍。

So there's a real value we believe we bring the investment is prohibitive to get to where we are, and it's, and at the end of the day, it's a time frame issue, I mean, we're talking about long-term commitments, ongoing investment, and it will never be at scale. No matter how big you are, you'll never be at our scale. not even close. So you can't, you'll never get to that unit cost that we can get to, across our portfolio.

所以我們相信我們帶來了真正的價值：要達到我們現在的水準，投資門檻是令人卻步的；而且說到底，這是時間框架的問題——我們談的是長期承諾、持續投資，而且永遠不會有規模效應。不管你有多大，你都不可能達到我們的規模，差得遠。因此你永遠無法達到我們在整個投資組合（portfolio）層面所能取得的那種單位成本（unit cost）。

Just to add a finer point to that. There is a significant benefit to all of our partners from what we call the halo effect, right, we're at $200 billion of GDV in the last 12 months. So our ability to see across payment types across partners, across programs, ongoing fraud, financial crimes that we can transfer the benefit across all of our partners that you just can't get with one program or a few programs.

再把這點說得更精準一些。我們所有合作夥伴都能從我們所謂的光環效應（halo effect）中獲得顯著好處；我們在過去 12 個月的 GDV 達到 2,000 億美元。因此，我們能跨支付類型、跨合作夥伴、跨方案來觀察，並針對持續性的詐欺與金融犯罪，將這些洞察與效益轉移給所有合作夥伴；這是單一方案或少數方案做不到的。

And then just add, again, we have added slides in our investor presentation, particularly, slide 11 that demonstrates the scale and efficiency of our platform on a cost per GDV basis and our ability to improve our operating leverage and increase it over time, which again comes down to the inability to replicate.

另外再補充：我們在投資人簡報中新增了投影片，特別是第 11 頁，展示我們的平台在「每單位 GDV 成本」基礎上的規模與效率，以及我們提升營運槓桿（operating leverage）並隨時間持續提高的能力；而這同樣回到一點：外界難以複製。

Manuel Navis, Piper Sandler.

Manuel Navis，Piper Sandler。

Hey, good morning, talk about the, fintech loan balances, is the target still the same in terms of growth for by the end of the year?And how would you judge kind of the progression of growth so far this year, like it's $1.4 billion on an average basis, is that the number we should be growing from in the third quarter?

嗨，早安，談一下金融科技貸款餘額（fintech loan balances）：到今年年底的成長目標是否仍然相同？以及你會如何評估今年迄今的成長進展？例如以平均口徑是 14 億美元，第三季是否應該以這個數字作為成長的起點？

I would say -- go ahead.

我會說——你先請。

No, go ahead, Dominic.

不，你先說，Dominic。

We do expect that to continue to improve, both with our existing partners in the pipeline, the exact amount is a function of the timing of the launch of partners and the velocity and product that are launched, so we do expect it to increase, we've talked about working towards a $2 billion level by the end of this year, we expect to work towards that, however, we could have programs that just have higher velocity and lower average balances. But ultimately deliver the fourth quarter expectations and for full year 2027, outlook that we've provided.

我們確實預期會持續改善，既包括現有合作夥伴，也包括管線中的合作夥伴；確切金額取決於合作夥伴上線時點，以及推出產品的速度與類型，因此我們預期會增加。我們談過朝今年年底 20 億美元的水準努力，我們也預期會朝那個方向推進；不過，我們也可能有一些方案速度更高、但平均餘額較低。但最終仍會達成我們對第四季的預期，以及我們已提供的 2027 全年展望。

And with just to kind of confirm, on the on the client side, on the customer side, there was no disruption in any services from this payment date processing shift?

另外確認一下：在客戶端、終端客戶那邊，這次付款日期處理的調整，服務沒有任何中斷吧？

Not at all, in fact, it was just an acceleration of a couple of days of the payment, from the credit builder Chime card product to align with the actual terms and conditions. So it was seamless and effectively unnoticeable, it just changed the ending balance by 1 or 2 days in economic customer impact, customer terms, or performance.

完全沒有。事實上，那只是把付款提前了幾天，針對 credit builder 的 Chime 卡產品，讓它與實際條款與條件對齊。所以過程很順暢、幾乎無感；它只是讓期末餘額在經濟上因為少了 1 到 2 天而有所變動，但對客戶影響、客戶條款或表現都沒有改變。

Okay. And the progression and growth of that program is going as expected outside of this kind of figuring out some nuts and bolts, but the progression of that program continues well?

好的。那麼，撇除這次釐清一些細節（nuts and bolts），該方案的進展與成長仍如預期、而且持續良好嗎？

Absolutely, it's on, if not better, and as you've seen in the average balance of growth that we demonstrated in the quarter.

絕對是，符合預期，甚至更好；而且你也從我們本季展示的平均餘額成長中看到了。

Yes, and then, switching over, you still have the range on the 2027, based on this quarter's results, your progression with, programs that are expected to hit. What are kind of like the updated factors driving the low end or the high end of the '27 EPS guide, please?

是的，接著換個話題，你們仍然維持 2027 年的區間指引；基於本季結果，以及你們在預期會達標的各項方案上的進展，請問目前驅動 2027 年 EPS 指引低端或高端的更新因素大概有哪些？

Sure, at the end of the day, the range that we're talking about is $0.20 on $8. So it's incredibly small range from a percentage perspective and just captures the recognition of significant growth from where we are today to the fourth quarter into a full year of next year and recognizes the fact that our pipeline is strong and that the exact timing and launch and phasing of those programs have some variability to it which we're comfortable with because we -- when we launch new products and partners, we want to be disciplined, have the right controls around it, the enterprise risk management around it.

當然，歸根結底，我們談的區間是在 8 美元上的 0.20 美元。因此，從百分比角度來看這是極小的區間，主要反映了從我們目前的位置到第四季、並延伸到明年全年所預期的顯著成長，同時也反映出我們的管線很強，而這些計畫的確切時點、上線與分期推進存在一定的變動性；我們對此是可以接受的，因為我們——在推出新產品與新合作夥伴時——希望保持紀律，建立適當的控管，以及相應的企業風險管理。

So the range we're offering is really tight, and it demonstrates that there could be some phasing, but the overall economics and growth in ROA and ROE hold to be significantly above this year.

所以我們提供的區間其實非常緊，這也顯示可能會有一些分期差異，但整體經濟效益以及 ROA 與 ROE 的成長，仍將顯著高於今年。

Joe Yachunis, Raymond James.

Joe Yachunis，Raymond James。

Yeah, thanks for letting me back in the queue here, just want to ask a couple more. So as sponsored lending becomes a larger part of the balance sheet, can you discuss how the framework for monitoring fintech counterparties has evolved? Like beyond credit enhancements, what ongoing financial liquidity or operational metrics you track to ensure your partners remain capable of supporting their obligation?

是的，謝謝讓我再回到提問序列，我還想再問幾個。隨著贊助式放款在資產負債表中占比提高，能否談談你們監控金融科技對手方的框架如何演進？例如除了信用增強之外，你們還會持續追蹤哪些財務流動性或營運指標，以確保合作夥伴仍有能力履行其義務？

Yeah, first of all, you got to remember we're dealing with very large enterprises, many of which are public companies, okay? So the disclosure there is enormous. And we go through a very rigorous process around all our partners and third-party risk management. So we delve into understanding their liquidity, their business plans, their metrics, what they expect to spend on things like marketing. We get a full disclosure of not only their current financial position, but their future forecast. And we test that. And we monitor it, very closely, and ensure that, the partner has the wherewithal to continue business and build its, build its own business.

是的，首先你要記得，我們面對的是非常大型的企業，其中很多是上市公司，好嗎？因此其資訊揭露非常充分。而且我們對所有合作夥伴與第三方風險管理都有非常嚴謹的流程。所以我們會深入了解他們的流動性、商業計畫、各項指標，以及他們預期在行銷等事項上的支出。我們會取得完整揭露，不僅是其目前的財務狀況，也包括未來的預測。並且我們會對此進行壓力測試。我們也會非常密切地監控，並確保合作夥伴具備持續經營並發展其自身業務的能力。

And we do disengage when -- and we do it early, we don't wait. We monitor these things, we've done smaller programs in the past, and we've disengaged from those programs when they're not successful, before you get to a point where there will be a type of impact, so we take, very proactive high scrutiny, and this is, continuous, through our third-party risk management process.

而且當——我們也確實會中止合作，而且會提早做，不會等到最後。我們會監控這些事項；過去我們做過一些較小的計畫，當那些計畫不成功時，我們會在可能產生某種影響之前就退出，所以我們採取非常主動、且高度審慎的作法，而這也會透過我們的第三方風險管理流程持續進行。

And then I was also hoping you could provide an update on your AI initiatives? Are the productivity gains still tracking in line with your expectations? And where do you see the next opportunities for efficiency?

另外我也希望你們能更新一下 AI 計畫的進展？生產力提升是否仍符合你們的預期？你們認為下一個效率提升的機會會在哪裡？

It's incredibly exciting. The improvement in AI has been dramatic over the last year, where it's really impacting us, first of all, is in two ways on the enterprise level, where our people are getting, more empowered through AI to make their jobs more interesting even, and cut the, and get their productivity up substantially.

這真的非常令人振奮。過去一年 AI 的進步非常顯著；它對我們的影響，首先在企業層面有兩個面向：我們的員工透過 AI 得到更大的賦能，讓工作甚至更有趣，同時也能大幅提升生產力。

And then secondly in use cases. One, for example, is financial crimes where we have a AI empowered narrative writing capability that's improving, monthly and making our people much more productive. And this, really helps us manage the number of employees and make them much more efficient and productive, make their job better.

第二是在各種使用情境上。例如其中一個是金融犯罪領域，我們有一個由 AI 賦能的敘事撰寫能力，每個月都在改善，讓我們的人員生產力大幅提升。而這確實幫助我們管理員工人數，讓他們更有效率、更有生產力，也讓工作變得更好。

And it's improving rapidly, so, we're growing these, this GDV and, 4,5,6 times what the market is growing, and we're able to handle that new volume by using some of these tools, so it's very exciting, it's getting better, we really are embedding it in the way we do business in both ways, enterprise level and then use case level, and it's going to have a dramatic impact on our ability to continue to grow and control our expenses going into the future.

而且它正在快速改善，所以我們的這些 GDV 成長、以市場成長的 4、5、6 倍在擴張；我們也能透過這些工具來處理新增的量能，因此非常令人振奮——它變得更好，我們確實正把它嵌入到我們做生意的方式中，既包括企業層面，也包括使用情境層面；這將對我們未來持續成長並控管費用的能力產生重大影響。

Arif Ganga, Cygnus capital.

Arif Ganga，Cygnus Capital。

Hey, good morning guys, thanks for taking my questions, had a question about the debt balance on the balance sheet, it increased meaningfully both of, sequentially and year over year. If you could please kind of, share your thinking around, funding the business with additional debt, and if we should expect that to continue?

嗨，各位早安，謝謝回答我的問題。我想問資產負債表上的負債餘額，它無論是季比還是年比都明顯增加。如果可以的話，請分享一下你們對於以更多負債來為業務融資的想法，以及我們是否應該預期這種情況會持續？

Dominic, if you want to handle it.

Dominic，如果你想回答的話。

Sure, yes, when you're looking over the financials year over year, clearly that's impacted by the upsizing of the debt issuance in late 2025, which was very strategic for us as we saw an opportunities -- opportunistic position to raise debt, repurchase our shares, and having a creative impact to our shareholders, which has played out meaningfully over the past year and aligns with our capital return philosophy which we talked about.

當然。是的，當你以年比年來看財報時，這顯然受到 2025 年底擴大發債規模的影響；那對我們而言是非常策略性的，因為我們看到一個機會——在有利的時點籌措負債、回購我們的股票，並為股東帶來增值效果；過去一年這已經有相當明顯的成果，也符合我們先前談到的資本回饋理念。

There was an increase quarter over quarter in some short-term borrowings, more from a liquidity perspective as we just manage the balance sheet, we're very focused on optimizing our returns and have significant access to borrowing, first of which is the fact that, 95% of our deposits are from fintech and FDIC insured.

就季比而言，部分短期借款有所增加，更多是從流動性角度出發，因為我們在管理資產負債表；我們非常專注於最佳化報酬，且有相當充足的借款管道。首先是因為我們 95% 的存款來自金融科技且受 FDIC 保險保障。

So they're very stable and granular and low cost, we have $1.1 billion deposits off balance sheet which we have the ability to pull back and optimize both to fund the business and or generate revenue. We have more than 50% of our deposit base in readily accessible borrowings at market costs and most importantly, strategically, we expect our business, our core business on the fintech side to continue to grow to deposits.

因此它們非常穩定、分散且成本低；我們有 11 億美元的表外存款，我們有能力把它拉回來並加以最佳化，用於為業務提供資金和／或創造收入。我們有超過 50% 的存款基礎可以在市場成本下透過可即時取得的借款來動用；更重要的是，從策略上來看，我們預期我們的業務——我們在金融科技端的核心業務——將持續帶動存款成長。

And so with the fact that we're near maxed out on the asset side of the balance sheet with the run rate to continue to grow deposits, we see ample opportunity to continue to fund the business without taking on any long-term debt and any short-term borrowings would be to fund intra-month or intra-quarter seasonality.

因此，鑑於我們在資產端的資產負債表已接近滿載、而存款的成長動能仍將延續，我們看到充足的機會在不新增任何長期負債的情況下持續為業務提供資金；任何短期借款主要是用來因應月內或季內的季節性波動。

Got it, that's very helpful, I appreciate it, just to clarify, sequentially debt went up ballpark $265 million or so from liquidity point of view given that fintech loan book, for the reasons you outlined earlier on the call, the one time change actually shrunk. Can you help us understand what drove the liquidity need?

了解，這很有幫助，謝謝。我想再確認一下：就季比而言，負債大約增加了 2.65 億美元左右，從流動性角度來看，考量到你們先前在電話會議中提到的金融科技貸款組合因素，那個一次性的變動其實是縮小了。你能幫我們理解是什麼驅動了這個流動性需求嗎？

Sure, well, first is the first quarter is a seasonally high deposit generating quarter. And so there is an expectation that there's a seasonal step down from first to second quarter plus the continued average balance growth that we've seen both on the traditional lending side and the fintech side, so the impact from 1Q to 2Q is more seasonal in nature and not business trend, it's the long-term trend is our ability to fund the business, and so as I mentioned, we can, we expect for the rest of this year to deposit growth to outpace our lending growth.

當然。首先，第一季在季節性上是存款生成較高的一季。因此，市場預期從第一季到第二季會有季節性的回落，再加上我們在傳統放款端與金融科技端都看到的平均餘額持續成長，所以從 1Q 到 2Q 的影響更偏向季節性，而不是業務趨勢；長期趨勢仍是我們為業務提供資金的能力。正如我提到的，我們預期今年剩餘期間存款成長將快於放款成長。

So that will bring that amount back, lower, and again, we have many levers to pull to be able to optimize that, so when we consider liquidity, the cost and access of liquidity, that's all incorporated in our expectations for continued earnings growth and EPS growth in our guidance that we provided.

因此那個金額會回落、降低；而且再次強調，我們有很多槓桿可以運用來加以最佳化。所以當我們考量流動性、流動性的成本與取得管道時，這些都已納入我們對持續獲利成長與每股盈餘（EPS）成長的預期之中，也反映在我們所提供的指引裡。

Okay, very helpful, I appreciate it, and then, we do have another question on the, a couple of questions on the REBL portfolio. The 10-Q is not filed yet, but if you could please share how much of the REBL book, just ballpark, you expect to mature within the next 12 months?

好的，非常有幫助，謝謝你。接著我們還有一個問題，關於 REBL 投資組合的幾個問題。10-Q 還沒提交，但可否請你分享一下，REBL 這本帳大概有多少比例預計會在未來 12 個月內到期？（大概估計即可）

So we're over, so we have -- go ahead, Dominic.

所以我們超過——我們有——請說，Dominic。

Sure, just as a reminder, the REBL portfolio is structured, these are structured loans, 3 year loans with a plus 2, 1- year extensions. So in general they're naturally short-term in nature. So we expect, any year, a third of the portfolio to churn or redo, and with the continued improvement, the maturation of the investments in the loan portfolio, the properties themselves, the loan to value continues to improve.

當然，先提醒一下，REBL 投資組合的結構是這樣：這些是結構型貸款，3 年期貸款，並附加 2 次、每次 1 年的展期選擇權。所以整體而言，它們本質上屬於短期。因此我們預期在任何一年，大約三分之一的投資組合會周轉或重新承作；而隨著持續改善、以及貸款投資組合內投資的成熟，標的物本身的狀況提升，貸款價值比（LTV）也持續改善。

The sponsors are stronger, and so -- and we're comfortable with where pricing is in the market relative to where the pricing -- contractual pricing of the book, so we do not see a credit or price cliff, given the short-term nature of that portfolio. We're very comfortable with how it's performing and its expectations to continue to contribute meaningfully on an ROA and ROE basis going forward.

贊助方（sponsors）也更強，因此——而且我們對市場上的定價相對於本組合的合約定價感到放心，所以鑑於該投資組合的短期特性，我們不認為會出現信用或價格的斷崖式下滑。我們對其表現以及未來在資產報酬率（ROA）與股東權益報酬率（ROE）基礎上持續做出有意義貢獻的預期都非常有信心。

Yeah, we did have a bump, yeah, the just adding to that, we did have a bump in the past, but we're through that, and that was because we got back into the business in the early 2020s, the '22 vintage, which became a migrated and credit quality due to all the pandemic, that bump we've gotten through, so now it's much more on a normal basis because we're originating kind of as a replacement cycle. So you're getting a much, normal, a normal role on the portfolio.

是的，我們過去確實有過一次波動——補充一下——但我們已經度過了。那是因為我們在 2020 年代初期重新回到這項業務，當時的 2022 年承作批次（'22 vintage）因疫情影響而出現遷徙（migrated）與信用品質變化；那個波動我們已經處理完了，所以現在更回到正常水準，因為我們的放款發放基本上是在做替換週期式的承作。因此你看到的是投資組合更正常的周轉節奏。

Got it. Okay, I think if memory serves from the March Q, as of 3/31, roughly just shy of $1 billion was slated to come due, so my question is it your expectation that that those loans as they mature would be refied out by external third-party lenders generally? Or would you folks look to refinance yourselves out with a new loan to the same sponsor?

了解。好的，如果我沒記錯，從 3 月那季來看，截至 3/31，大約接近但略低於 10 億美元將到期；所以我的問題是，你們是否預期這些貸款到期時，一般會由外部第三方放款人來再融資（refi）接手？還是你們會考慮自己再融資，對同一個贊助方提供一筆新貸款？

We don't do new loans. What we do, unless we had an asset that's been repositioned, what usually occurs is that it's a 3-year loan with 2 options to extend it depending on if they, accomplished their business plan and everything, they, so there's 2 extensions built in. And that's totally, dependent on, completion of the project. After that is done, then they go, If they choose to, they, well, they will leave, right?

我們不做新貸款。我們所做的——除非有資產已經完成重新定位（repositioned）——通常發生的情況是：這是一筆 3 年期貸款，並有 2 個展期選項，取決於他們是否完成其商業計畫等，他們——所以內建 2 次展期。而這完全取決於專案是否完成。完成之後，他們就會去——如果他們選擇的話——他們，嗯，他們會離開，對吧？

They usually a lot of agency, but or refi with another bank. We don't do the stabilized finance. So that's where the role comes from, and you can be anywhere in that cycle. So when you're looking at that number, that could be somebody that's extended already, it could be somebody who's just finished their project, but we want to keep, generally we want to keep loans when you complete a project and they want to extend a year or even 2, that, that's a very good stabilized loan.

他們通常會走機構（agency）融資，或是向另一家銀行再融資。我們不做穩定期融資（stabilized finance）。所以周轉就是從這裡來的，而你可能處在那個週期的任何一個階段。因此當你看那個數字時，可能是已經展期過的案子，也可能是剛完成專案的案子；但一般而言，當你完成專案、他們想再延 1 年甚至 2 年時，我們希望能保留這些貸款，因為那會是一筆非常好的穩定型貸款。

And it's usually at their discretion, even though we obviously have a say in it, but it's their discretion because they wanted, they're waiting for change in interest rates, or they, they're looking out for their own takeout strategy within their portfolio, so we accommodate that, and that's built into the structure of the credits.

而且通常是由他們自行決定，雖然我們顯然也有發言權，但主要是他們的決定，因為他們可能在等待利率變化，或是在其投資組合內尋找自己的退出（takeout）策略，所以我們會配合，而這些都已內建在授信結構中。

Okay, got it, very helpful, and then lastly, could we please have an update on the status of the Aubrey stabilization and how you folks are thinking about getting that asset, out of OREO?

好的，了解，非常有幫助。最後，能否請你們更新一下 Aubrey 穩定化（stabilization）的進度，以及你們如何思考把該資產從 OREO 中移出？

Yes, so it's past 70% of occupancy, right? We want to, we're so far along. We have a few, buildings. There's a lot of buildings at the site, so we still, we're down to the last few buildings, and we're in 3 phases of renovation of those buildings, we're way north of 70% of the buildings that are already completed, so we're at the point now that, the appraisals, way above, 50%, and our base is in the low 40s.

是的，所以入住率已經超過 70%，對吧？我們想——我們已經走到很後面了。我們還有幾棟建物。該基地有很多棟建物，所以我們現在只剩最後幾棟；而這些建物的整修分三個階段進行，我們已經完成遠超過 70% 的建物，所以目前到了這個階段，估值（appraisals）高出——超過 50%，而我們的成本基礎在 40% 出頭的低位。

So now we're at the point that we're going to get to the stabilized, take out, and so that's a different market than somebody who's going to be a financial sponsor, there's just been so much work done, we're at the breakeven point, as we continue with the occupancy, well, actually, it'll be a profit positive rather than a drag, so we're just, we should be able to be completed, from the first quarter, and that's where the stabilization will occur.

所以現在我們到了要達到穩定、進行接手（take out）的階段；而那是一個不同的市場，不再是金融贊助方會去做的那種，因為已經投入了非常多的工作。我們已經到達損益兩平點，隨著入住率持續提升，嗯，實際上會轉為獲利貢獻而不是拖累，所以我們——我們應該能在第一季完成，穩定化也會在那時發生。

We have reached the end of the Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Damian Kozlowski for closing remarks.

問答環節到此結束。我現在把電話交回 Damian Kozlowski 作結語。

Thank you everyone for joining us on the call today, we will be intending, various investor conferences during the third quarter and we'll be on the road with investors in the coming weeks. We look forward to meeting with many of you throughout the quarter. Thank you, operator, you may discontinue the call.

感謝各位今天參與電話會議。我們計畫在第三季參加多場投資人會議，並在接下來幾週與投資人進行拜訪行程。我們期待在本季期間與各位中的許多人見面。謝謝接線員，您可以結束本次通話。

This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.

今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位出席。您現在可以掛線。