Connect with us

Uncategorized

Columbia Banking System and Umpqua Holdings Corporation Announce FDIC Approval and Expected Closing Timeline for Combination

Columbia Banking System and Umpqua Holdings Corporation Announce FDIC Approval and Expected Closing Timeline for Combination
PR Newswire
TACOMA, Wash. and PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 9, 2023

TACOMA, Wash. and PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 9, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — C…

Published

on

Columbia Banking System and Umpqua Holdings Corporation Announce FDIC Approval and Expected Closing Timeline for Combination

PR Newswire

TACOMA, Wash. and PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 9, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- Columbia Banking System, Inc. ("Columbia") (NASDAQ: COLB), the parent company of Columbia Bank, and Umpqua Holdings Corporation ("Umpqua") (NASDAQ: UMPQ), the parent company of Umpqua Bank, jointly announced that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") has approved the previously announced combination of the two companies. The FDIC approval was the final outstanding regulatory approval necessary to complete the combination.

The merger is expected to be completed by the end of February, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the remaining closing conditions set forth in the merger agreement governing the transaction. Columbia and Umpqua have agreed to extend the outside date under the merger agreement to March 11, 2023. Upon closing, the combined company will become one of the largest banks headquartered in the West, with over $50 billion in assets and offices in eight western states that serve customers in all 50 states.

The two companies have received regulatory approvals to complete the combination from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the FDIC; the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Division of Financial Regulation; and the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions. As previously announced, all required shareholder approvals related to the proposed combination were received on January 26, 2022. Columbia previously announced on November 7, 2022 that Columbia Bank entered into definitive agreements to divest the 10 branches identified by the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, which was a condition for obtaining certain regulatory approvals.

"Today's announcement marks the culmination of a tremendous amount of work from associates across both organizations. I couldn't be more proud of their collective effort as we look ahead to the completion of our merger," said Clint Stein, President and CEO of Columbia. "We are excited to advance to the last phase of our combination and achieve our vision of creating a leading Western regional bank."

"Our combination, and all the potential it holds to unlock value for our customers, communities, associates and shareholders, is one step closer to becoming reality," said Cort O'Haver, President and CEO of Umpqua. "We are thrilled to complete this combination and begin moving forward as one bank."

Post-closing, the holding company will operate under the Columbia Banking System, Inc. name and will be headquartered in Tacoma, Washington. The bank will operate under the Umpqua Bank name and will be headquartered in Lake Oswego, Oregon. Other major subsidiaries and divisions will include Columbia Trust Company, Columbia Wealth Advisors and Columbia Private Bank, which will operate under the umbrella of Columbia Wealth Management, as well as Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc. The combined company will trade under Columbia's ticker symbol (COLB) on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

About Columbia 
Headquartered in Tacoma, Washington, Columbia Banking System, Inc. (NASDAQ: COLB) is the holding company of Columbia Bank, a Washington state-chartered full-service commercial bank with offices in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona. The bank has been named one of Puget Sound Business Journal's "Washington's Best Workplaces," more than 10 times. Columbia was named the #1 bank in the Northwest on the Forbes 2021 list of "America's Best Banks," marking nearly 10 consecutive years on the publication's list of top financial institutions.

More information about Columbia can be found on its website at www.columbiabank.com.

About Umpqua 
Umpqua Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: UMPQ) is the parent company of Umpqua Bank, an Oregon-based bank with operations across Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. Umpqua Bank has been recognized for its innovative customer experience and banking strategy by national publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, BusinessWeek, Fast Company, and CNBC. The company was named #1 in Customer Satisfaction for the Northwest Region in the J.D. Power 2021 U.S. Retail Banking Satisfaction Study, and Forbes consistently ranks Umpqua as one of America's Best Banks. The Portland Business Journal has also recognized Umpqua as the Most Admired Financial Services Company in Oregon for 18 consecutive years. In addition to its retail and commercial banking presence, Umpqua Bank owns Financial Pacific Leasing, Inc., a nationally recognized commercial finance company that provides equipment leases to businesses. For more information, visit www.umpquabank.com.

Forward-Looking Statements 
This communication may contain certain forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, certain plans, expectations, goals, projections, and statements about the benefits of the proposed transaction, the plans, objectives, expectations and intentions of Umpqua and Columbia, the expected timing of completion of the transaction, and other statements that are not historical facts. Such statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical fact, including statements about beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as "expect," "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "plan," "target," "goal," or similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as "will," "may," "might," "should," "would," "could," or similar variations. The forward-looking statements are intended to be subject to the safe harbor provided by Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

While there is no assurance that any list of risks and uncertainties or risk factors is complete, below are certain factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained or implied in the forward-looking statements: changes in general economic, political, or industry conditions; the magnitude and duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the global economy and financial market conditions and Umpqua's and Columbia's respective businesses, results of operations, and financial condition; uncertainty in U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, including the interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve Board or the effects of any declines in housing and commercial real estate prices, high or increasing unemployment rates, or any slowdown in economic growth particularly in the western United States; volatility and disruptions in global capital and credit markets; movements in interest rates; reform of LIBOR; competitive pressures, including on product pricing and services; success, impact, and timing of Umpqua's and Columbia's respective business strategies, including market acceptance of any new products or services and Umpqua and Columbia's ability to successfully implement efficiency and operational excellence initiatives; the nature, extent, timing, and results of governmental actions, examinations, reviews, reforms, regulations, and interpretations; changes in laws or regulations; the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the right of one or both of the parties to terminate the merger agreement to which Umpqua and Columbia are parties; the outcome of any legal proceedings that have been or may be instituted against Umpqua or Columbia; delays in completing the transaction; the failure to satisfy any of the conditions to the transaction on a timely basis or at all; changes in Umpqua's or Columbia's share price before closing, including as a result of the financial performance of the other party prior to closing, or more generally due to broader stock market movements, and the performance of financial companies and peer group companies; the possibility that the anticipated benefits of the transaction are not realized when expected or at all, including as a result of the impact of, or problems arising from, the integration of the two companies or as a result of the strength of the economy and competitive factors in the areas where Umpqua and Columbia do business; certain restrictions during the pendency of the proposed transaction that may impact the parties' ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic transactions; the possibility that the transaction may be more expensive to complete than anticipated, including as a result of unexpected factors or events; diversion of management's attention from ongoing business operations and opportunities; potential adverse reactions or changes to business or employee relationships, including those resulting from the announcement or completion of the transaction; the dilution caused by Columbia's issuance of additional shares of its capital stock in connection with the transaction; and other factors that may affect the future results of Umpqua and Columbia. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described above can be found in Umpqua's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2022, which are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and available on Umpqua's investor relations website, www.umpquabank.com, under the heading "Financials," and in other documents Umpqua files with the SEC, and in Columbia's Registration Statement on Form S-4, its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022 and September 30, 2022, which are on file with the SEC and available on Columbia's website, www.columbiabank.com, under the heading "About – Investor Relations" and in other documents Columbia files with the SEC. 

All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and are based on information available at that time. Neither Umpqua nor Columbia assumes any obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements were made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events except as required by federal securities laws. As forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, caution should be exercised against placing undue reliance on such statements.

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/columbia-banking-system-and-umpqua-holdings-corporation-announce-fdic-approval-and-expected-closing-timeline-for-combination-301717079.html

SOURCE Umpqua Holdings Corporation

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending