管理層發言
Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Eagle Bancorp, Inc. Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Please be advised today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your speaker for today, Eric Newell, Chief Financial Officer of Eagle 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. Our Form 10-K for fiscal year 2024 and Form 10-Qs 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 Bancorp 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 asset 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 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. First, 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 and communities.
We are able to respond quickly, tailor the structure for each loan, and deliver a level of service larger institutions simply cannot replicate. 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 toward a lower cost of deposits. Our pre-provision net revenue is believed to improve with time. Our priorities are straightforward: complete the credit cleanup, deepen core relationships, and deliver improved earnings performance, which should drive 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 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 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 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 criticized and classified office loan balances. At the end of the second quarter, nonperforming 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. Nonperforming 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 to 89 days past due totaled $29 million at September 30, down from $35 million last quarter.
Finally, total criticized and classified loans rose to $958 million, from $875 million last quarter. Within that total, office declined $198 million, while multifamily, including mixed-use predominantly residential, increased by $204 million. The increase in criticized and classified multifamily loans largely reflects the impact of higher interest rates on 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 multifamily loans are affected by the same structural or valuation issues present in the office portfolio. The relative strength of multifamily 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 $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 address 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 1 leverage ratio declined modestly to 10.4% and CET1 to 13.58%. Tangible book value per share decreased $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 maintained more than 2.3x coverage of uninsured deposits, positioning us exceptionally well.
Our teams have reduced brokered 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, pre-provision net revenue was $32.3 million, a sequential increase, reflecting the underlying strength of our core operating 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. Net interest margin 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. Noninterest income totaled $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 BOLI and a growing fee income as treasury management sales expand. Noninterest 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 is conducted separately from our internal risk rating control process and included over 400 individual loans representing 84.9% of the commercial loan book about $7.4 billion.
It assessed potential losses over a 30-month horizon, a 6-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 contact, it was in credits we had already flagged internally. Their conclusions validated our own view of the portfolio. This was confirmation and not discovery. Utilizing the Moody's 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 continue to hold $60.3 million in our qualitative office overlay and $24.7 million in individually evaluated reserves. Together, that totals $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 5 downgrades of $158.2 million of special mention and 3 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 position us for improved performance heading into 2026. On Slide 11 of the investor deck, we presented our forecast for the full year of 2026. We expect net interest income to grow despite a smaller balance sheet, driven by mix 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-month 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 loan growth in 2026 will continue to be concentrated in C&I, and we're pursuing that measured growth with a strong focus on disciplined 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. Noninterest 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 and 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 reserve capital flexibility and is not in response to capital adequacy concerns. As earnings normalize and credit stabilizes, we will 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 Bank. 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 Parati, Jr. and Daniel Callahan to serve as Interim Chief Credit Officers and Deputy Chief Credit Officer respectively, until a permanent replacement can be hired.
Bill spent the bulk 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.
分析師問答
Our first question today comes from Justin Crowley of Piper Sandler.
Obviously, a lot of steps were taken this quarter. You had some of the losses on the sale of those two loans. But after all the charge-offs and marks, keeping moving credits into held 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 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 want to highlight that in the two situations we faced, the note sales and property dispositions we executed in the third quarter had a carrying value based on letters of intent that were ultimately reduced before the transactions were completed. To address this, we have improved our process for determining the carrying value of the loans held for sale and other valuations by obtaining broker opinions. In our view, broker opinions provide a better valuation tool than appraisals in the current market, as they offer ranges of values. We have set the carrying value at the lower end of that range in each case, while also considering the costs involved in the disposition, to ensure that similar situations do not arise again.
Okay. And then 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 getting these assets off the balance sheet and maybe what a portion means?
It's challenging to take a comprehensive approach. As Eric noted in his comments, we are assessing each asset individually to determine the best possible outcome for both the bank and our shareholders. In many instances, we are engaged in discussions that are progressing enough for us to confidently predict that we will take action in the fourth quarter of 2025. I'm a bit superstitious about this, so I don't want to be overly specific, but we do anticipate taking significant steps in that area 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 and 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-offs, 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 you'd be more than comfortable with the reserve, taking those hits and not having to replace those losses through the provision?
Based on what we know right now, yes. Our confidence comes from the two activities I mentioned in the prepared comments: the independent loan review, which assessed 87% or 88% of the book, and the supplemental loan review that evaluated almost $3 billion of pass-rated commercial real estate loans.
Okay. And then with the pickup in total criticized balances? And obviously, despite the charge-offs taken on office, multifamily was again a driver after a similar trend last quarter. I know potential losses have taken should be far less severe, but just wondering if you 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. I’d like to point out that the transaction volume in our marketplace from a multifamily perspective has sustained at prices that still represent cap rates that are sub-6%. That is consistent with valuations that we underwrote to. I’d also like to point out that if you look at Slide 25, specifically and 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 level. So the net operating income 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 net operating income 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 and 250 basis point gap depending on which permanent provider you look at.
Okay. And then you pointed out on Slide 25, but somewhat related, but there is a large $56 million specialty-use loan in Montgomery that fell into 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?
Yes. 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. The primary driver there is real estate taxes. They are being disputed by that customer and have seen a material drop over the last several quarters of that. It's an ongoing dispute that they're working through. Again, the top line performance of that property is at or above where we underwrote.
The next question will be coming from the line of Christopher Marinac of Janney Montgomery Scott.
Just wanted to go through briefly the government contract business that you have and how that appears at this time? And is there any kind of volatility to expect with the shutdown that's ongoing?
Yes. 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 portfolio is in defense and security. We looked at line of credit usage relative to earlier this year, it's actually down 30% that would be an early indicator of cash flow challenges to 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. Tomorrow would meet the first full paycheck of government workers not being met. 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.
All right. Great. 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 in the next quarter? 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 I feel very confident based on conversations with market participants and potential buyers that our carrying value is better than where we'll do in many instances.
Great. And then I guess 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 deeper dive that you just did.
Chris, it’s Kevin. And just a clarification, did you mean the inflow into held for sale or the inflow into criticized classified?
Really criticized and classified.
I just wanted to clarify that the purpose of the additional review was to gather as much current information as possible about the entire portfolio to avoid any surprises. Therefore, I believe that inflow will slow down significantly.
Yes. I would build on that. This is Eric. Our expectation is that you're going to see criticized classified decline into 2026.
Next question is coming from the line of Brett Scheiner of Ibis Capital Advisors.
I'm just trying to understand, you talked about a temporary cash flow issue in the multifamily 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 net operating income, our underwritten net operating income is as compared to the actual performance of many of these properties being at or above our underwritten NOIs. The performance is better in many instances than we expected. The debt service driven by the floating interest rate structure that is on many of those loans is higher than anticipated and putting stress on that ratio. Additionally, there are some challenges, as we’ve 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, D.C., unfortunately, is well above the national average. The D.C. Council's passed the rental act recently that will help alleviate some of that over time. That’s primarily where we see the short-term pressure and long-term relief.
Doesn't that higher debt service and the pressure that you talked about affect asset values?
It certainly can. Yes.
But 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 seems to be a big catalyst for a cleanup.
This is Kevin. Thanks for the question. As Susan talked about, I voluntarily resigned and I'm proud — very proud of what I was able to contribute to the enhanced credit risk management processes and policies here. 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 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 Parati 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. And then only one other thought. As you go into Q4, 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-offs, will that leave through and then you'll have to rebuild into the provision? I assume that you'll be accreting capital in the fourth quarter?
Yes. I would direct my — this is 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.
The next question is coming from the line of Catherine Mealor of KBW.
Maybe just one follow-up on credit, and you've kind of touched on this, but I'm going to just add 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 maybe captured before in how you were categorizing some of these properties? It just seems surprising to me the big increase into special mention and then a few into substandard, again, particularly on the multifamily piece. I'm just 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.
Katherine, thanks. That review was really putting all the current information that we had on every single loan in our lap at one point. We do reviews annually on all these properties, all of our loans. But this was all at one time to make sure we really understood the depth of the portfolio. With that current information, we saw some segments of deterioration, and we took appropriate steps.
All right. Okay. And then, again, as we think about that part that I found really helpful that you brought out is the one on kind of movement in the office book that kind of shows you most where we are in the cycle from where we started and kind of the losses and write-downs and transfers out of the office book. It feels like from the office book we're really kind of far through the cycle and kind of working through those issues. The multifamily piece feels like we're a little bit more early. Is there any way you can kind of articulate what you think the ultimate losses or write-downs in multifamily may be relative to what we're seeing in this office book?
Catherine, this is Ryan. I don't think they're comparable at all. The structural issues in the office market in the Washington, D.C. region are significant, and you see that in our performance over the last several quarters. Structural issues just don't exist in the multifamily segment. If you look at transaction volume, it’s a bit down, but investors are still very interested in Washington, D.C., well-located, high-quality Washington, D.C. region multifamily 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. Some of the other issues that are shown on Slide 25, the special mention and 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 1:1 in those situations. In 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.
Next question will be coming from the line of Nick Grant of North Reed Capital.
All right. I wasn’t on mute. So I don’t know what the IT issue was, but thanks for the question. So I mean first off, I just want to applaud the proactive measures to work through credit. When I step back to $37 a tangible book, I mean, much more reflective of the identified risk across your loan exposures reduces future credit migration. Susan, in your opening remarks that it here, improving franchise value is a focus. 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 upstream optionality as a way to increase shareholder value?
Yes. 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 net revenue, which should drive enhanced or improved ROA and ROTCE.
But obviously, Nick, the Board will focus on anything that adds value to our shareholders, and we'll consider whatever other options come our way.
We have a follow-up question coming from Justin Crowley of Piper Sandler.
I just wanted to hop back in and ask one quick one outside of credit. Just thinking about what will help out the margin looking forward here, you get better yield in C&I, but do you have any detail on how much in fixed loan repricing and adjustable that all reset maybe through the end of next year? I'm not sure if you can give some color on the magnitude and the yield pickup and I guess, maybe excluding anything that's set to hopefully move off the balance sheet.
Yes. 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 net interest margin expectation, I think you have the similar phenomenon of the investment portfolio rolling off, whether it’s rolling back into the investment portfolio, if we’re getting close to that 12% to 15% with higher yields or the cash flows off the portfolio going as use loans, that's going to be helpful on the asset side. 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 growth. As Ryan has said in the call, 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 3 to 4 years.
Thank you. And that does conclude today's Q&A session. I would 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.