Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Successful system tech demo proves range, accuracy and lethality of new surface-to-air missile

, /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon, an RTX (NYSE: RTX) business, successfully demonstrated the company's Next Generation Short Range Interceptor (NGSRI), designed to replace Raytheon's Stinger® surface-to-air missile for the U.S. Army.

Multiple guided missiles were launched using the company's soldier-portable Command Launch Assembly (CLA) during the demonstration. Each shot showed the NGSRI system's ability to detect, track and intercept Army-simulated aerial threats with direct hits and target destruction.

The system's advanced performance is driven by the CLA and missile seeker's precision optics, paired with an innovative highly loaded grain solid rocket motor manufactured by Northrop Grumman. Together, these technologies significantly extend NGSRI's engagement range beyond current systems.

"Raytheon's NGSRI saw farther and locked faster, demonstrating superior target acquisition, longer range and greater lethality than Stinger – which is already the world's most in-demand and shoulder-fired air defense system," said Tom Laliberty, president of Land and Air Defense Systems at Raytheon. "Our NGSRI solution builds on Stinger's historic global success by being easier to build and field, resulting in a more capable, affordable and rapidly producible weapon."

Over the past year, Raytheon has conducted several company-funded tests to prove and enhance NGSRI, along with two incremental demonstrations under contract with the Army.

NGSRI is a U.S. Army program to develop a short-range missile that will eventually replace the Stinger system. The missile will be able to be fired from a vehicle or shoulder-mounted launcher. As the manufacturer of the Stinger missile and launchers, Raytheon is working to ensure full interoperability of NGSRI with both new and existing mounted platforms.

Raytheon's NGSRI design leverages more than 60 years of air defense experience to deliver the world's most advanced shoulder-launched air defense missile for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. The company's use of modular system design and automated manufacturing enables faster development and production.

About Raytheon
Raytheon, an RTX business, is a leading provider of defense solutions to help the U.S. government, our allies and partners defend their national sovereignty and ensure their security. For more than 100 years, Raytheon has developed new technologies and enhanced existing capabilities in integrated air and missile defense, smart weapons, missiles, advanced sensors and radars, interceptors, space-based systems, hypersonics and missile defense across land, air, sea and space.

About RTX
With more than 180,000 global employees, we push the limits of technology and science to redefine how we connect and protect our world. With industry-leading capabilities, we advance aviation, engineer integrated defense systems for operational success, and develop next-generation technology solutions and manufacturing to help global customers address their most critical challenges. The company, with 2025 sales of more than $88 billion, is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

For questions or to schedule an interview, please contact [email protected]. 

SOURCE RTX

, /PRNewswire/ -- JetBlue (Nasdaq: JBLU) and ClarityPay, a provider of tailored point-of-sale credit solutions, today announced a first-of-its-kind pay later program that unites embedded financing with an airline's loyalty and personalization strategies. The program launches with an introductory 0% APR on terms up to 12 months* and TrueBlue® points earning available at launch, plus incremental points opportunities on bookings with ClarityPay coming later this year.

What the Program Delivers

JetBlue and ClarityPay launch pay later program that unites embedded financing with the airline's loyalty & personalization strategies. Financing embedded in the journey: Customers preview personalized installment options from 6 weeks to 48 months while shopping. This transforms financing into a planning and conversion tool instead of just another payment method at checkout. Introductory 0% APR on terms up to 12 months: Available to eligible JetBlue customers with transparent terms before commitment. TrueBlue® loyalty integration: Customers who book through JetBlue using ClarityPay will continue to earn TrueBlue points on eligible purchases when a valid TrueBlue number is provided. Later this year, JetBlue and ClarityPay expect to introduce additional TrueBlue integrations, including the ability to earn incremental points when booking with ClarityPay. White-label and cross-sell capabilities: The platform supports JetBlue's branded customer experience end-to-end through data and AI capabilities — offering integrated upgrades, ancillaries, financial products, and loyalty promotions without inserting a third-party brand into the relationship. Embedded credit across flight booking ecosystem: Multi-merchant capabilities extend across JetBlue flights, insurance, and ancillary services, giving customers flexible financing options as they shop within the JetBlue ecosystem. Broader underwriting, more access: ClarityPay's full-spectrum credit approach extends financing access across a wider range of customers than traditional pay-later providers. This ensures more JetBlue customers can benefit from flexible payment options. "We set out to give our customers a best-in-class pay later solution," said Ed Pouthier, Vice President of Loyalty and Personalization, JetBlue. "ClarityPay listened and delivered, tailoring the program to our needs and building a solution that increases value to our customers, grows sales, and expands our loyalty ecosystem."

"JetBlue has one of the most powerful loyalty ecosystems, yet financing has historically lived outside that ecosystem," said Tom Carter, Chief Commercial Officer, ClarityPay. "ClarityPay was built to change that. Together with JetBlue, we are creating loyalty-linked travel financing that gives customers more flexibility while giving airlines greater control over commerce, loyalty, and customer experience."

Learn more about ClarityPay for travel brands at

www.claritypay.com/travel

*The annual percentage rate (APR) represents the total cost of a loan as an annual rate. Introductory offer of 0% up to 12 months expires on 8/15/2026. ClarityPay Program loans may have APRs ranging from 0% to 36%, terms range from 6 weeks to 48 months and eligibility is determined by the program lender based on a variety of factors, including the applicant's credit and state of residence. See full program details at https://www.jetblue.com/promo/claritypay-promo-page.

About JetBlue

JetBlue is New York's Hometown Airline®, and a leading carrier in Boston, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Los Angeles, Orlando, and San Juan. JetBlue carries customers across the U.S., Caribbean, Latin America, Canada, and Europe. For more information and the best fares, visit jetblue.com.

About ClarityPay

ClarityPay provides merchants with tailored point-of-sale credit solutions to drive acquisition and loyalty while giving customers flexible pay-over-time options across the full credit spectrum. ClarityPay offers plans from 6 weeks to 84 months to cover purchases from $50 to $50,000 — while giving merchants more control over customer experience, data, and program branding. Built for omnichannel commerce, ClarityPay integrates via API or major commerce and lending platforms, serving merchants in retail, health and wellness, home improvement, auto repair, travel and services. Learn more at www.claritypay.com. 

Media Contact 
ClarityPay Communications
[email protected]
www.claritypay.com

SOURCE ClarityPay

Elevance Health (ELV - Free Report) came out with quarterly earnings of $7.45 per share, beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $6.18 per share. This compares to earnings of $8.84 per share a year ago. These figures are adjusted for non-recurring items.

This quarterly report represents an earnings surprise of +20.55%. A quarter ago, it was expected that this health insurer would post earnings of $10.68 per share when it actually produced earnings of $12.58, delivering a surprise of +17.79%.

Over the last four quarters, the company has surpassed consensus EPS estimates four times.

Elevance Health, which belongs to the Zacks Medical Services industry, posted revenues of $49.83 billion for the quarter ended June 2026, surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 2.85%. This compares to year-ago revenues of $49.42 billion. The company has topped consensus revenue estimates three times over the last four quarters.

The sustainability of the stock's immediate price movement based on the recently-released numbers and future earnings expectations will mostly depend on management's commentary on the earnings call.

Elevance Health shares have added about 21.8% since the beginning of the year versus the S&P 500's gain of 10.2%.

What's Next for Elevance Health?While Elevance Health has outperformed the market so far this year, the question that comes to investors' minds is: what's next for the stock?

There are no easy answers to this key question, but one reliable measure that can help investors address this is the company's earnings outlook. Not only does this include current consensus earnings expectations for the coming quarter(s), but also how these expectations have changed lately.

Empirical research shows a strong correlation between near-term stock movements and trends in earnings estimate revisions. Investors can track such revisions by themselves or rely on a tried-and-tested rating tool like the Zacks Rank, which has an impressive track record of harnessing the power of earnings estimate revisions.

Ahead of this earnings release, the estimate revisions trend for Elevance Health was favorable. While the magnitude and direction of estimate revisions could change following the company's just-released earnings report, the current status translates into a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) for the stock. So, the shares are expected to outperform the market in the near future. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

It will be interesting to see how estimates for the coming quarters and the current fiscal year change in the days ahead. The current consensus EPS estimate is $5.00 on $48.54 billion in revenues for the coming quarter and $26.86 on $194.24 billion in revenues for the current fiscal year.

Investors should be mindful of the fact that the outlook for the industry can have a material impact on the performance of the stock as well. In terms of the Zacks Industry Rank, Medical Services is currently in the bottom 36% of the 250 plus Zacks industries. Our research shows that the top 50% of the Zacks-ranked industries outperform the bottom 50% by a factor of more than 2 to 1.

One other stock from the same industry, Ardent Health, Inc. (ARDT - Free Report) , is yet to report results for the quarter ended June 2026.

This company is expected to post quarterly earnings of $0.17 per share in its upcoming report, which represents a year-over-year change of -67.3%. The consensus EPS estimate for the quarter has been revised 2.1% higher over the last 30 days to the current level.

Ardent Health, Inc.'s revenues are expected to be $1.62 billion, down 1.3% from the year-ago quarter.

-- Marks 37th Consecutive Annual Dividend Increase --

, /PRNewswire/ -- The Board of Directors of NNN REIT, Inc. (NYSE: NNN) ("NNN" or the "Company"), a real estate investment trust, today announced a quarterly dividend of 62 cents per share payable August 14, 2026 to shareholders of record as of July 31, 2026. The 3.3 percent increase in the quarterly dividend marks the 37th consecutive annual dividend increase. NNN is one of only three publicly traded REITs to have increased its annual dividend for 37 or more consecutive years.

Steve Horn, Chief Executive Officer, commented: "Our steadfast commitment to a long-term approach has once again enabled NNN to increase its annual dividend for the 37th consecutive year. This achievement underscores our high-quality portfolio, disciplined capital allocation, and flexible balance sheet, all of which continue to deliver sustainable growth for our shareholders."

About NNN REIT, Inc.

NNN is a REIT that invests in high-quality properties subject generally to long-term, net leases with minimal ongoing capital expenditures. As of March 31, 2026, the Company owned 3,711 properties across all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, encompassing approximately 39.6 million square feet of gross leasable area, with a weighted average remaining lease term of 10.1 years.

For additional information, please visit www.nnnreit.com.

SOURCE NNN REIT, Inc.

MIAMI, July 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- WRAP Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRAP) (“WRAP” or the “Company”), developer of the WrapShield™ Autonomous Public Safety Platform, today announced the completion of the first operational prototype of Wraptor MX™, the Company’s multi-shot non-lethal restraint platform. WrapShield’s Non-Lethal Response™ layer — previously served by a single instrument, the BolaWrap® 150 — now has a newly unveiled operational component. Together with the DFR-X drone-deployed restraint system, WrapShield is designed to bring together three dedicated non-lethal delivery mechanisms — handheld, multi-shot, and drone-deployed — under a single platform architecture.

“BolaWrap introduced a new way for officers to create time, distance, and control through an instrument of restraint. Wraptor MX builds on that foundation and is designed to allow officers to respond to multiple engagements before reloading, potentially giving teams greater flexibility in dynamic and rapidly evolving situations,” said Scot Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of WRAP. “Wraptor MX is much more than another product. We believe it represents the next evolution of our response architecture within WrapShield. We are expanding our ability to deliver proportional sight, sound, and sensation effects across a broader range of public safety operations. As BolaWrap earned adoption by more than 1,000 agencies in over 60 countries, we believe Wraptor MX can extend those capabilities deeper into tactical, corrections, private security, and defense environments.”

The announcement builds on ATF Ruling 2026-2, effective July 2, 2026, which classified the BolaWrap® 150 as neither a firearm nor an “any other weapon,” affirming it as an instrument of restraint under federal law. That determination — specific to the BolaWrap 150 — may provide a favorable regulatory reference point for non-lethal restraint technology across corrections, law enforcement, and public-safety applications, and WRAP expects it to accelerate adoption in the United States. Driven by use-of-force reform, policy mandates, and the growth of autonomous response architectures in public safety, the global non-lethal weapons market is estimated at approximately $9.5 billion today and is projected to grow to roughly $13 billion by 2030, according to Grand View Research.1

Wraptor MX™ — Multi-Shot Non-Lethal Restraint Platform

Wraptor MX™ is a modular, multi-shot non-lethal response platform that expands the proven capabilities of BolaWrap®. Designed for scenarios where multiple engagements may be required, the current prototype is designed to deliver (3) three consecutive BolaWrap deployments before reloading. While the BolaWrap® 150 remains optimized for individual officers carrying a compact, single-shot restraint device, Wraptor MX is being developed for tactical teams, corrections, perimeter security, and other operational environments where greater response capacity may be needed. As the platform evolves, WRAP expects to explore additional configurations and deployment capacities informed by customer feedback and operational testing.

Key design principles:

Modular response architecture: Designed as a configurable platform intended to integrate multiple sight, sound, and sensation effects. In addition to multi-shot BolaWrap deployment, the current design incorporates a high-intensity light, with future configurations expected to support additional non-lethal response technologies as the platform evolves.Mission-configurable: Features a standard Picatinny rail, allowing agencies to select optics and accessories that align with their operational preferences, training doctrine, and mission requirements.Officer-informed design: Developed with input from U.S. law enforcement and corrections professionals and intended to reflect real-world operational needs, emphasizing ergonomics, durability, and rapid deployment under stress.Operationally optimized: Incorporates sling attachment points intended to support safe weapon retention, rapid transitions, and immediate hands-on control following deployment when circumstances require officers to move directly into restraint or custody operations.Platform for expansion: Wraptor MX is engineered as a long-term response platform capable of incorporating future non-lethal technologies, which could enable WRAP to expand beyond a single capability into a family of proportional response options without requiring agencies to adopt an entirely new operating system.
WrapShield: A Three-Element Non-Lethal Response Layer

WRAP's WrapShield™ platform organizes public safety response into integrated operational layers. The Non-Lethal Response layer is built around interoperable instruments of restraint designed to provide proportional response options across a range of operational environments. With the addition of Wraptor MX™, this layer now consists of three response elements:

Response Element 1 – BolaWrap® 150
A compact, handheld instrument of restraint designed for immediate deployment by individual officers. Commercially deployed by more than 1,000 agencies across over 60 countries.Response Element 2 – Wraptor MX™
A modular, multi-shot instrument of restraint designed for tactical teams, corrections, perimeter security, and other scenarios where multiple engagements may be required. The first operational prototype is complete, and WRAP's Early Adopter Program is now selecting partner agencies.Response Element 3 – DFR-X™
A drone-deployed instrument of restraint capable of delivering a BolaWrap payload without requiring an officer to be physically present at the scene, operating under established human-authorization protocols as part of the WrapShield platform.
Rather than developing isolated products, WRAP is building an integrated non-lethal response architecture. These three response elements are designed to operate within the WrapShield platform's common detection, orchestration, command-and-control, and AI-assisted decision framework, and are designed to provide agencies with scalable response options across individual officer, team-based, and, where policy and law permit, future autonomous deployments. As the platform evolves, WRAP intends to expand these response capabilities to meet an increasingly broad range of public safety and defense missions.

Early Adopter Program — Limited Cohort Selection

WRAP is selecting a limited cohort of up to 10 law enforcement agencies for exclusive pre-commercial access to the Wraptor MX platform. Participation is by application and provides selected agencies with direct access to the engineering team, deployment-configuration input, and preferred commercial terms for initial production units.

The program is designed to generate real-world deployment data, officer feedback, training methodology, and operational validation across diverse threat environments before commercial release. Selected agencies will be announced as the cohort is finalized. Qualified agencies may apply at www.wrap.com/#/wraptormx.

“Wraptor MX is more than a new product—it reflects the company we are building,” said Jared Novick, President and Chief Operating Officer of WRAP. “Public safety continues to evolve, and the tools available to the men and women who serve our communities must evolve with it. Our focus is on developing technologies designed to give officers and agencies more proportional response options, greater operational flexibility, and better decision support—always keeping trained professionals in control. As detection, communications, and decision-support technologies continue to advance, we're designing our platforms to adapt alongside them while remaining grounded in the policies, legal standards, and human judgment that define modern policing. We believe the future of public safety will combine exceptional officers with exceptional technology, and that's the future WRAP is building through WrapShield.”

About WRAP Technologies, Inc.

WRAP Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRAP) is developing WrapShield™, an autonomous public safety platform intended to unify threat detection, classification, command-and-control, and non-lethal response in a single operating architecture. At the platform’s core is the principle that the technology layer between situational awareness and human force application should be trustworthy, accountable, and — wherever tactically appropriate — non-lethal. Building on the commercial success of BolaWrap®, the Company’s flagship restraint tool deployed across more than 1,000 agencies in over 60 countries, WRAP is building an operating layer between perception and response.

Trademark Information 
WRAP, the Wrap logo, BolaWrap®, Non-Lethal Response™, WrapReality™, Wrap Training Academy, and Non-Lethal Response™ are trademarks of WRAP Technologies, Inc., some of which are registered in the U.S. and abroad. All other trade names used herein are either trademarks or registered trademarks of the respective holders. 

Cautionary Note on Forward-Looking Statements - Safe Harbor Statement 
This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Words such as "expect," "anticipate," "should", "believe", "target", "project", "goals", "estimate", "potential", "predict", "may", "will", "could", "intend", and variations of these terms or the negative of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, among others, statements regarding the completion, capabilities, performance, timing, and commercial readiness of the Wraptor MX platform and the DFR-X system; the structure, timing, and outcomes of the Early Adopter Program, including whether selected agencies place orders or generate revenue; the anticipated size, growth, and addressable opportunity of the non-lethal and public-safety markets; and the expected effects of ATF Ruling 2026-2. These statements are based on current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to WRAP’s ability to complete product development and achieve commercial readiness on expected timelines, the difference between a prototype and a commercially available product, the possibility that Early Adopter Program participation does not result in purchases, competition, supply-chain and manufacturing constraints, and changes in law, regulation, or agency policy. ATF Ruling 2026-2 addresses the classification of the BolaWrap® 150 only, and no assurance can be given that any similar classification will apply to Wraptor MX, the DFR-X system, or any other product. The Company's actual results could differ materially from those stated or implied in forward-looking statements due to a number of factors including other risk factors mentioned in the Company's most recent annual report on Form 10-K, subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and other Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this release and were based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections as well as the beliefs and assumptions of management. WRAP assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement except as required by applicable law.

Investor Relations Contact:
(800) 583-2652
[email protected]
wrap.com

1https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/non-lethal-weapons-market

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/3f5d7a84-06af-4aeb-bab9-00abae5cd2b2
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/f5ef0a1b-506a-4f6f-9cfd-aeeb9057ca41

First Horizon National (FHN - Free Report) came out with quarterly earnings of $0.54 per share, beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.52 per share. This compares to earnings of $0.45 per share a year ago. These figures are adjusted for non-recurring items.

This quarterly report represents an earnings surprise of +3.85%. A quarter ago, it was expected that this bank holding company would post earnings of $0.49 per share when it actually produced earnings of $0.53, delivering a surprise of +8.16%.

Over the last four quarters, the company has surpassed consensus EPS estimates four times.

First Horizon, which belongs to the Zacks Banks - Southwest industry, posted revenues of $887 million for the quarter ended June 2026, surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate by 1.55%. This compares to year-ago revenues of $830 million. The company has topped consensus revenue estimates three times over the last four quarters.

The sustainability of the stock's immediate price movement based on the recently-released numbers and future earnings expectations will mostly depend on management's commentary on the earnings call.

First Horizon shares have added about 7.6% since the beginning of the year versus the S&P 500's gain of 10.2%.

What's Next for First Horizon?While First Horizon has underperformed the market so far this year, the question that comes to investors' minds is: what's next for the stock?

There are no easy answers to this key question, but one reliable measure that can help investors address this is the company's earnings outlook. Not only does this include current consensus earnings expectations for the coming quarter(s), but also how these expectations have changed lately.

Empirical research shows a strong correlation between near-term stock movements and trends in earnings estimate revisions. Investors can track such revisions by themselves or rely on a tried-and-tested rating tool like the Zacks Rank, which has an impressive track record of harnessing the power of earnings estimate revisions.

Ahead of this earnings release, the estimate revisions trend for First Horizon was mixed. While the magnitude and direction of estimate revisions could change following the company's just-released earnings report, the current status translates into a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) for the stock. So, the shares are expected to perform in line with the market in the near future. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

It will be interesting to see how estimates for the coming quarters and the current fiscal year change in the days ahead. The current consensus EPS estimate is $0.55 on $895.6 million in revenues for the coming quarter and $2.15 on $3.54 billion in revenues for the current fiscal year.

Investors should be mindful of the fact that the outlook for the industry can have a material impact on the performance of the stock as well. In terms of the Zacks Industry Rank, Banks - Southwest is currently in the top 19% of the 250 plus Zacks industries. Our research shows that the top 50% of the Zacks-ranked industries outperform the bottom 50% by a factor of more than 2 to 1.

BOK Financial (BOKF - Free Report) , another stock in the same industry, has yet to report results for the quarter ended June 2026. The results are expected to be released on July 20.

This Regional banking operator is expected to post quarterly earnings of $2.56 per share in its upcoming report, which represents a year-over-year change of +16.9%. The consensus EPS estimate for the quarter has remained unchanged over the last 30 days.

BOK Financial's revenues are expected to be $558.9 million, up 4.4% from the year-ago quarter.

Fifth Third Bancorp (NYSE:FITB) will release its second quarter earnings report before the opening bell on Friday, July 17.

Analysts expect the Cincinnati, Ohio-based company to report quarterly earnings of 84 cents per share, down from 88 cents per share in the year-ago period. The consensus estimate for Fifth Third Bancorp’s quarterly revenue is $3.25 billion. It reported $2.25 billion last year, according to Benzinga Pro.

On June 17, Fifth Third announced the launch of an AI‑powered experience within its mobile app.

Shares of Fifth Third Bancorp fell 0.2% to close at $57.05 on Tuesday.

Benzinga readers can access the latest analyst ratings on the Analyst Stock Ratings page. Readers can sort by stock ticker, company name, analyst firm, rating change or other variables.

Let’s have a look at how Benzinga’s most-accurate analysts have rated the company in the recent period.

Considering buying FITB stock? Here’s what analysts think:

Photo via Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

MAYFIELD VILLAGE, OHIO, July 15, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Progressive Corporation (NYSE:PGR) today reported the following results for the month and quarter ended June 30, 2026:

 JuneQuarter(millions, except per share amounts and ratios; unaudited) 2026  2025 Change 2026  2025 ChangeNet premiums written$6,772  $6,605 3 %$21,077 $20,076 5 %Net premiums earned$7,100  $6,954 2 %$21,573 $20,310 6 %Net income$779  $1,124 (31)%$3,311 $3,175 4 %Per share available to common shareholders$1.34  $1.91 (30)%$5.67 $5.40 5 %Total pretax net realized gains (losses) on securities$(13) $179 (107)%$604 $387 56 %Combined ratio 90.0   86.6 3.4 pts. 87.3  86.2 1.1 pts.Average diluted equivalent common shares 583.1   588.0 (1) % 584.2  587.8 (1)%  June 30,(thousands; unaudited)
2026 2025 % ChangePolicies in Force     Personal Lines     Agency – auto11,211 10,423 8Direct – auto16,721 15,245 10Special lines7,297 6,850 7Property3,631 3,608 1Total Personal Lines38,860 36,126 8Commercial Lines1,226 1,189 3Total40,086 37,315 7      
See Progressive’s complete monthly earnings release for additional information.

About Progressive

Progressive Insurance® makes it easy to understand, buy and use car insurance, home insurance, and other protection needs. Progressive offers choices so consumers can reach us however it’s most convenient for them — online at progressive.com, by phone at 1-800-PROGRESSIVE, via the Progressive mobile app, or in-person with a local agent.

Progressive provides insurance for personal and commercial autos and trucks, motorcycles, boats, recreational vehicles, and homes; it is a leading seller of personal auto, commercial auto, motorcycle, and boat insurance, and one of the top 15 homeowners insurance carriers in the United States. 

Founded in 1937, Progressive continues its long history of offering shopping tools and services that save customers time and money, like Name Your Price®, Snapshot®, and HomeQuote Explorer®.

The Common Shares of The Progressive Corporation, the Mayfield Village, Ohio-based holding company, trade publicly at NYSE: PGR.

PDF available: Progressive June 2026 Complete Earnings Release

15.7.2026 14:20, MS

Americká investiční banka Morgan Stanley zveřejnila výsledky hospodaření za druhé čtvrtletí roku 2026. Celkové výnosy výrazně překonaly průměrný odhad analytiků, k čemuž nejvíce přispěly výnosy z obchodování s akciemi. Nad očekáváním skončily i výnosy z investičního bankovnictví a segmentu správy majetku.

Výsledky společnosti Morgan Stanley (MS) za 2Q 2026   2Q 2026 Konsensus 2Q 2026 2Q 2025 Výnosy (mld. USD) 21,35 19,58 16,79 Čistý zisk (mld. USD) 5,58 -- 3,54 Zisk na akcii (EPS, USD/akcie) 3,46 -- 2,13 Výsledky za 2Q Výnosy meziročně vzrostly o 27 % na 21,35 mld. USD, výrazně nad odhadem 19,58 mld. USD.

Výnosy ze segmentu správy majetku (Wealth Management) dosáhly 8,86 mld. USD, meziročně o 14 % výše a nad odhadem 8,68 mld. USD. Zisk před zdaněním z tohoto segmentu činil 2,70 mld. USD (odhad: 2,6 mld. USD) při marži před zdaněním 30,5 % (odhad: 30 %). Segment zaznamenal rekordní čisté nové klientské prostředky ve výši 148,1 mld. USD, oproti loňským 59,2 mld. USD.

Výnosy z obchodování s akciemi dosáhly 6,30 mld. USD, meziročně o 69 % výše a výrazně nad odhadem 4,47 mld. USD. Výnosy z obchodování s dluhopisy, měnami a komoditami (FICC) činily 2,46 mld. USD (+13 % meziročně), mírně pod odhadem 2,56 mld. USD.

Výnosy z institucionálního investičního bankovnictví dosáhly 2,44 mld. USD, meziročně o 58 % výše a nad odhadem 2,2 mld. USD. Z toho poradenské poplatky činily 798 mil. USD (odhad: 772,9 mil. USD; loni 508 mil. USD), výnosy z upisování akcií 851 mil. USD (odhad: 676,9 mil. USD; loni 500 mil. USD) a výnosy z upisování dluhopisů 788 mil. USD (odhad: 723,9 mil. USD; loni 532 mil. USD).

Čistý úrokový výnos dosáhl 2,78 mld. USD, nad odhadem 2,72 mld. USD. Celkové vklady činily 446,07 mld. USD, nad odhadem 432,75 mld. USD.

Tvorba opravných položek na úvěrové ztráty činila 98 mil. USD, nad odhadem 76,8 mil. USD, ale pod loňskými 196 mil. USD.

Rentabilita vlastního kapitálu (ROE) dosáhla 20,7 %, nad odhadem 17,4 % a výrazně nad loňskými 13,9 %. Rentabilita hmotného kapitálu (ROTCE) činila 26,6 %, nad odhadem 22,1 % a nad loňskými 18,2 %.

Kapitálový poměr CET1 (standardizovaný) dosáhl 14,8 %, v souladu s odhadem, mírně pod loňskými 15,0 %.

Objem spravovaných aktiv (AUM) dosáhl 2,00 bil. USD, nad odhadem 1,94 bil. USD. Čisté přílivy aktiv založených na poplatcích (fee-based) činily 39,1 mld. USD, nad odhadem 32,87 mld. USD. Čisté přílivy do alternativních strategií dosáhly 12,7 mld. USD (odhad: 9,99 mld. USD), zatímco akciové strategie zaznamenaly čistý odliv 12,5 mld. USD (odhad: odliv 5,56 mld. USD). Dluhopisové strategie naopak zaznamenaly čistý příliv 7,3 mld. USD (odhad: 4,68 mld. USD).

Komentář CEO Ted Pick, předseda představenstva a generální ředitel Morgan Stanley, uvedl: „Aktivní trhy a konzistentní exekuce napříč všemi třemi regiony přinesly výjimečné výsledky naší integrované firmě, s rekordními výnosy přes 21 mld. USD a rekordním EPS ve výši 3,46 USD. Vynikající výsledky v segmentu institucionálních cenných papírů byly taženy naší vedoucí franšízou v oblasti akciového obchodování s pokračujícím momentem v investičním bankovnictví a dluhopisech. Diferencovaný obsah našich výzkumných týmů nadále pohání vysokou úroveň klientského zapojení. Wealth Management přidal rekordních 148 mld. USD v čistých nových prostředcích, přičemž celková klientská aktiva napříč Wealth a Investment Management dosáhla milníku 10 bil. USD. Nadále navyšujeme kapitál, což nám dává dodatečnou flexibilitu investovat do našich klíčových byznysů a zároveň generovat silné výnosy pro akcionáře.“

Návrat kapitálu akcionářům Společnost v aktuálním kvartále odkoupila vlastní akcie v hodnotě 1,5 mld. USD (8 mil. akcií za průměrnou cenu 197,64 USD). Představenstvo zároveň znovu schválilo víceletý program zpětného odkupu akcií v objemu až 20 mld. USD bez stanoveného data ukončení, počínaje třetím čtvrtletím 2026, a rozhodlo o zvýšení čtvrtletní dividendy o 15 centů na 1,15 USD na akcii.

Akcie Morgan Stanley Akcie Morgan Stanley (MS) v předburzovní fázi obchodování rostou o 1,68 % na 231,50 USD.

Akcie Morgan Stanley (MS) před výsledky uzavřely na 227,67 USD Ukazatel   Ukazatel   Kapitalizace (mld. USD) 359,1 P/E 18,3 Vývoj za letošní rok (%) +28,2 Očekávané P/E 18,7 52týdenní minimum (USD) 135,3 Prům. cílová cena (USD) 223,0 52týdenní maximum (USD) 232,1 Dividendový výnos (%) 1,8 Zdroj: Morgan Stanley, Bloomberg

Michal Šnobl, Fio banka, a.s.

JP Morgan has run the numbers on a renewed bid for Rightmove PLC (LSE:RMV) by REA Group and concluded the deal would deliver little for the Australian buyer's shareholders.

The bank, in a note by analysts Marcus Diebel and Bob Chen, estimates a revived takeover would generate only around 4% earnings per share accretion, an outcome it does not consider attractive on a risk and reward basis.

REA, the Australian property portal majority owned by News Corp (NASDAQ:NWSA), walked away from Rightmove at the end of 2024 after four approaches were rejected.

Its final proposal valued Rightmove at 775p a share plus a 6p special dividend.

That now looks compelling against a share price of around 430p, JP Morgan said, a gap causing some frustration among Rightmove shareholders.

The bank attributes the weakness, which began in September 2025, to two factors.

Rightmove's management has acknowledged years of underinvestment, driving elevated spending needs this year.

The wider online classifieds sector has also de-rated sharply, trading about 43% below its own two-year average on forward enterprise value to earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation, at roughly 11.5 times against 20.0 times.

Investors are worried about disruption from artificial intelligence and further investment requirements across the sector.

JPM's leveraged buyout framework assumes News Corp (NASDAQ:NWSA), which owns 62% of REA, would be unlikely to accept dilution below 50%, and that a fully debt-financed structure is not feasible.

On a 65% debt and 35% equity funding mix, a 45% premium in line with the three-year average, and around three times leverage against net cash today, the accretion maths still falls short.

The bank sees limited appetite from private equity at this stage.

In a recent sector study, JP Morgan argued that near-term catalysts for a re-rating at Rightmove are limited and that earnings risk is skewed to the downside, with potential pressure on margins.

Hyperliquid has added a pre-IPO perpetual market linked to ChangXin Memory Technologies, or CXMT, giving traders synthetic exposure to the Chinese chipmaker before its Shanghai debut.

Summary

Hyperliquid listed a CXMT pre-IPO perpetual as the chipmaker prepares its July 27 Shanghai debut. CXMT’s contract price near $8 implied a $535 billion valuation, 526% above its IPO price. The market offers synthetic exposure, not ownership of CXMT shares listed on Shanghai’s STAR Market. The contract, listed as xyz, traded near $8 on July 15, according to on-chain market data cited by Hyperinsight. Applied to CXMT’s expected post-IPO share count of 66.881 billion shares, that price implies a valuation near $535 billion, about 6.3 times its official IPO valuation.

Hyperliquid Lists CXMT, Potentially A-Share’s Largest IPO and 4th-Largest DRAM Maker

Following the listing of the “CSI STAR Market 50 ETF”, Hyperliquid has officially added ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT). As A-share listings such as CXMT on the STAR Market require a RMB… pic.twitter.com/eGSQvziPpZ

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) July 15, 2026 Hyperliquid opens a synthetic route to CXMT The CXMT contract operates through Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework, which allows outside deployers to create perpetual markets linked to assets beyond cryptocurrencies. These markets trade as derivatives rather than spot securities, so the CXMT contract does not provide ownership, dividends or voting rights in the Shanghai-listed company.

Individual investors on China’s STAR Market generally face a RMB 500,000 asset threshold and a two-year trading-experience requirement. Hyperliquid offers a separate synthetic market that can give eligible users price exposure without access to the underlying A-share. The distinction also means the contract price can differ sharply from CXMT’s official share price.

CXMT contract trades far above IPO valuation CXMT priced its IPO at RMB 8.66 per share and expects to raise about RMB 57.9 billion, or $8.55 billion, before any over-allotment option. Reuters reported that the deal will be Asia’s largest IPO of 2026 so far and China’s biggest A-share semiconductor offering, surpassing SMIC’s 2020 share sale.

At the offer price, CXMT’s expected post-listing value is about RMB 579.2 billion, or roughly $85.5 billion. A synthetic price near $8 implies about $535 billion, placing the Hyperliquid contract around 526% above the dollar equivalent of the IPO price. The gap reflects pricing in a separate derivatives market and does not set CXMT’s official equity valuation.

China’s largest DRAM maker prepares for listing CXMT is China’s largest DRAM producer and ranks fourth globally, behind Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and Micron. Recent market estimates place its global DRAM share near 8%. The company has expanded as China invests heavily in domestic semiconductor production and demand for memory chips grows alongside artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Reuters also reported that CXMT secured a long-term memory supply agreement with Tencent worth more than RMB 20 billion, or about $2.94 billion. Investor subscriptions for the STAR Market offering begin on July 16, while the shares are scheduled to start trading in Shanghai on July 27. CXMT plans to use the IPO proceeds for production and technology investment.

Hyperliquid widens its real-world asset markets Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework allows builders to launch perpetual markets linked to stocks, commodities and other real-world assets. A pre-IPO SpaceX contract also traded through the framework, showing how on-chain derivatives can create markets around companies before their public shares become available.

Hyperliquid has also expanded its connection to tokenized securities. As reported by crypto.news, Ondo Finance brought 35 tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs to HyperEVM in June. Those products differ from the CXMT perpetual because tokenized securities can use structures backed by assets held through custodians, while perpetuals provide synthetic price exposure.

The CXMT market gives traders another route to speculate on a major public offering before its debut. Attention will now turn to whether the 526% premium narrows before subscriptions start and after the underlying shares begin trading on the STAR Market.

For five consecutive days, a launchpad that did not exist a month ago collected more protocol fees than Pump.fun. On its best day, NOXA took in $2.33 million while the Solana incumbent, the platform that has minted eleven million tokens and defined an entire market cycle, managed $575,500.

Summary

NOXA briefly out-earned Pump.fun and became Robinhood Chain’s dominant launchpad before its website went offline. CASHCAT’s $226 million market capitalization depends less on token mechanics than on attention, discovery, and launchpad infrastructure. The outage did not stop CASHCAT from trading, but it threatened the interface that drives creator fees, discovery, and momentum. Locked liquidity protects against one kind of rug, but it does not protect a memecoin from losing attention. The real test is whether NOXA’s interface, fee claims, and market share recover before competitors absorb its launchpad flow. NOXA had launched more than 60,000 tokens, captured roughly 75% of all deployments on Robinhood Chain, and pulled 267,642 unique wallets onto a network that went live on July 1. Its flagship asset, a cat themed memecoin named CASHCAT, had run to a market capitalization of $226 million.Then the website went down. It stayed down for two days.Not the chain. Not the pools. Not the tokens. The front end, the thing that made all of it legible, the interface where creators claimed fees and buyers found what was trending and the entire machinery of manufactured urgency lived. It returned an error, and it kept returning an error while the market it had built continued trading without it.

The official explanation is a Cloudflare problem. The team’s account remains active, telling users a new site is in testing and that creator fees will be claimable through the interface once it goes live. Nothing in the public record contradicts that account. Nothing in the public record confirms it either, and in a market where the base rate for launchpad tokens dying is somewhere around 98%, two days of silence from the infrastructure holding a nine figure ecosystem is not a neutral event. It is a live experiment in what a memecoin is actually worth when the machine that made it stops answering.That experiment has a number attached, and the number is $226 million.

Noxa the launchpad on Robinhood casually decided to rug and take down their website after making $10m in a week

They could've just kept it live and disappeared, they would've made more money

People can't even scam properly these days 😭😭😭 https://t.co/zj2gbXDQar

— Jeremy (@Jeremybtc) July 14, 2026 What CASHCAT is, and why it exists Cash Cat was the original name Robinhood’s founders considered for the company, a detail preserved in a decade old tweet from chief executive Vladimir Tenev and in an early mascot the brokerage used before it became a mainstream financial institution. When Robinhood launched its own layer 2 network on July 1, the mascot was sitting there, unclaimed, perfectly formed as a memecoin premise: the discarded name of a company now worth tens of billions, revived on that company’s own chain.

Somebody launched it on NOXA. It worked spectacularly. CASHCAT rose more than 5,530% over seven days and more than 1,400% in a single twenty four hour stretch, hitting an all time high near $0.1418 while bitcoin fell roughly 2% over the same window, which is the clearest possible evidence that nothing macro was driving it. Onchain analysts surfaced the trades that make these markets self sustaining: one wallet turned $838 into $1.05 million over twenty days, another converted $86 into $1.6 million. Tenev himself posted about the chain’s ability to host both memecoins and real world assets, and attention did the rest.

There were no exchange listings. There was no protocol upgrade, no partnership, no treasury, no roadmap, and no team in any conventional sense. There was a joke about a company’s abandoned name, deployed on that company’s chain, at the exact moment the chain became interesting. That is the entire fundamental basis of a $226 million asset, and stating it plainly is not a criticism. It is a description of the category, one that governs the whole meme coins sector and has for years. Attention was the product, and the product sold.

Công nhận chain Robinhood nhà giàu có khác.

Chỉ trong vòng chư đầy 1 tuần lễ con hàng top 1 meme CASHCAT đạt hơn 180M mcap.

Dòng tiền đang đổ dồn về Robinhood Chain volume mỗi ngày đâu đó toàn gần 1B$ trong lúc market đang down sml.

Nếu mà con hàng meme CASHCAT… pic.twitter.com/apGbjqhdXv

— LeDuc (@LeDuc_03) July 14, 2026 The launchpad that ate Robinhood Chain NOXA’s rise is the more revealing half of the story, because it exposes how much of a memecoin ecosystem is infrastructure rather than tokens.NOXA Fun is a hybrid launchpad. Where Pump.fun runs a custom bonding curve and migrates liquidity to an open exchange at graduation, NOXA deploys an ERC-20 and adds single sided liquidity to a Uniswap V3 pool in one transaction, making the token tradable on a public exchange from its first block. The liquidity position is locked permanently in a locker contract that never moves and cannot be pulled, which removes the classic liquidity drain rug and eliminates the migration window that has historically been the riskiest moment in a bonding curve launch. On its own terms the design is more conservative than the model it competes with, and understanding why requires knowing how liquidity pools and automated market makers actually work.

The platform layered on protections as it scaled: anti-vampire measures, anti-bundling detection, multi wallet controls, iterating fast enough that observers noted it week by week. Its native token, deployed on a different chain entirely and pending migration, carried a fully diluted valuation of $11 to $12 million after the team burned about 40% of supply, against $11 million in cumulative fees across four days. Pump.fun’s fully diluted valuation, for comparison, sits near $1.5 billion.

That gap is the valuation paradox the market has been arguing about all week. A platform earning at the rate of the category leader, valued at under 1% of it. There are three readings and they cannot all be right. The bullish one says the market has not repriced yet and NOXA is the most obvious mispricing on any chain. The structural one says fee run rates from a chain in its second week are not a business, they are a spike, and pricing a spike at Pump.fun multiples would be insane. The dark one says the discount is the market’s estimate of how likely the whole thing disappears.

Two days of downtime moved that argument out of theory.It is worth noting how quickly the market found the argument in the first place. Traders were circulating the fee-to-valuation gap within days of NOXA’s rise, framing it as an obvious mispricing against Pump.fun. That enthusiasm is itself information: a discount this visible on an asset this liquid is rarely a gift. Markets price launchpad tokens cheaply for the same reason they price mining stocks cheaply during a boom, because everyone can see that the current rate of extraction has nothing to do with the durable rate.

The mechanics of a two week fee explosion The scale of what NOXA collected deserves unpacking, because the number is doing something other than what it appears to do.Launchpads earn on activity. A creation fee when a token deploys, a share of trading fees on every swap through the pool, and in NOXA’s structure, fees flowing from Uniswap V3 positions at the 1% tier that the platform’s tokens use. None of that revenue depends on any token succeeding. It depends only on churn, and churn is exactly what a brand new chain with a retail audience and 19,000 daily deployments produces in abundance. Across four days the platform booked roughly $11 million against a token valued at $12 million, which reads as an obvious arbitrage until you ask the question underneath: is that four day rate a business or a weather event?

The comparison to Pump.fun cuts both ways here. Pump.fun’s $1.5 billion valuation rests on two years of proven durability across multiple attention cycles, a graduated exchange of its own, a completed billion dollar token sale, and a fee base that survived the collapse of the memecoin mania that created it. NOXA has a fortnight, on a chain with a fortnight, in the single most favorable conditions any launchpad will ever see: a novel network, a mainstream brand halo, no competitors holding entrenched positions, and a flagship token running 5,000% in a week. Annualizing that is not analysis. It is extrapolation from a peak.

Which is why the outage is such an efficient test. If the fee run rate was a business, it survives two days offline and resumes. If it was a weather event, the two days are the whole event, and the rate never returns because the conditions that produced it were never repeatable. The market gets its answer within a week, and it gets it cheaply, which almost never happens in this asset class.

What the outage actually threatens Here is the part that matters for CASHCAT holders, and it is more subtle than it first appears.The tokens are fine. That is not a reassurance; it is a technical fact with sharp edges. CASHCAT is an ERC-20 on Robinhood Chain, trading against a Uniswap V3 pool whose liquidity is locked in a contract that operates whether or not anyone can load a website. Uniswap does not need NOXA. The chain does not need NOXA. Any wallet can interact with the pool directly, and any aggregator can route to it without the launchpad’s involvement or permission. In the strict sense, a launchpad outage cannot touch the assets it launched, and anyone claiming CASHCAT holders are trapped has confused the interface with the market.

What the outage threatens is everything around the token. Creator fees accrue through the platform, and the team’s own statement acknowledges that claiming them requires the interface, meaning revenue owed to thousands of token deployers currently sits behind a domain that does not resolve. Discovery collapses without the front end: new tokens launch elsewhere, existing tokens lose the trending feeds and progress bars that manufacture the urgency these markets run on. And the flywheel reverses. Onchain data already showed new memecoin creation on Robinhood Chain climbing past 19,500 in a day while competing launchpads including flap.sh, trensh.today, and bankr absorbed share that NOXA could not defend from behind an error page.

So the honest framing of the risk is not that CASHCAT stops trading. It is that CASHCAT stops mattering. A memecoin’s value is the attention flowing through it, the attention is manufactured by an interface, and the interface has been offline for the two most valuable days a two week old ecosystem will ever have.

🔥 Cuộc chiến meme trên Robinhood đang cực kì căng thẳng. Đâu sẽ là cái tên thay thế vị trí Noxa để lại ?

Ngay sau khi Noxa tuyên bố shutdown rất nhiều meme đã dump vì user thất vọng với dự án

Rất nhiều Kols đang thi nhau shill con hàng $Marian như là kẻ thay… https://t.co/fmDwc9qbmb pic.twitter.com/EQ6U6vKi6H

— HC Gem Alerts (@HCGemAlerts) July 15, 2026 Is this a rug? The question is being asked openly, and it deserves a rigorous answer rather than a vibe.Take the case for calm first. The team is publicly communicating during the outage, which is close to disqualifying as rug behavior: the defining feature of an exit is silence, deleted accounts, and vanished channels, not status updates about a staging environment. Liquidity is locked by design and cannot be withdrawn, so the single most common rug mechanism is architecturally unavailable here. The platform burned 40% of its own token supply days before going dark, an odd move for anyone planning to sell the rest. Cloudflare outages are real, routine, and have taken down far larger properties than a two week old launchpad. And the underlying economics are absurd for an exit: a platform earning millions in fees per day has vastly more to gain from staying online than from disappearing with whatever sits in a fee contract.

Now the case for concern. Two days is a long outage for an infrastructure problem that the operator attributes to a third party content delivery network, and it is exactly as long as it takes for competitors to take a market. Creator fees being unclaimable during the outage means real money is unreachable for real users, whatever the cause, and the promise to make them claimable “once the new site goes live” converts a technical failure into a trust exposure with no deadline attached. The platform’s own token lives on a different chain pending migration, which is an added moving part at precisely the wrong moment. And the category’s history is unkind: the industry’s canonical rug taxonomy distinguishes hard rugs, where developers vanish, from soft rugs, where involvement gradually decays while the thing quietly dies, and soft rugs look exactly like an infrastructure problem that never quite resolves.

The evidence, weighed honestly, favors the boring explanation. A team executing an exit does not typically burn its own supply, lock its liquidity permanently, post status updates, and abandon a business printing seven figures a day. But the market is not pricing the probability of a rug. It is pricing the probability of irrelevance, which is a different and much higher number, and two days offline in a launchpad war is how irrelevance starts.

There is also a category error worth naming, because it is corrupting the discourse around this. A rug is an act by an identifiable party who takes something they controlled and should not have taken. A collapse is a market outcome in which nobody did anything wrong and the money disappears regardless. Memecoin markets produce collapses at overwhelming rates without any fraud involved, which means most tokens that go to zero were never rugged, they were simply correct valuations of nothing arriving on schedule. Applying the word rug to a launchpad outage flattens that distinction and, more practically, sets holders up to look for the wrong evidence. They watch for a villain when the thing actually killing their position is indifference.

What would settle it is specific and observable. Watch whether the new interface ships and creator fees actually become claimable. Watch whether NOXA’s fee share recovers or whether flap.sh and its peers keep the ground. Watch the team’s wallets. Watch whether Robinhood Chain’s daily token creation stays near Solana’s or reverts once the novelty burns off. None of those require trusting anyone’s statement.

What the numbers actually say about the ecosystem Look past the fees at the composition of the activity, and a less flattering picture emerges.More than 60,000 tokens launched through NOXA. Of those, the platform’s own interface displays a handful with meaningful market capitalizations, headed by CASHCAT, with the rest of the visible field clustering in the hundreds of thousands or low millions and the long tail invisible entirely. Peak single day volume of $252.9 million across the platform, with a single project accounting for $224 million of a comparable day, means the flagship was not one asset among many. It was the market, and everything else was noise around it.

That concentration is the ecosystem’s actual risk profile. A launchpad whose fee base is one token’s trading is not a platform, it is a single asset’s plumbing, and its revenue lives or dies with the attention on that one asset. The 640,000 unique holder addresses and 267,000 wallets NOXA brought onto Robinhood Chain are impressive as a distribution achievement and mostly irrelevant as a durability signal, because holders of a token that ran 5,000% in a week are not users, they are a queue.

None of this is unique to NOXA. It describes Pump.fun’s first year, Four.Meme’s ascendancy, LetsBonk’s arrival, and every launchpad that has ever briefly topped a fee chart. What is unique here is the timing: a platform reached that concentration and then lost its interface, in the same fortnight, on a chain that had no proven alternative for anyone to fall back to. The stress test arrived before the structure was finished.

The dependency nobody priced Strip the specifics away and the CASHCAT situation exposes a structural feature of this entire market that the fair launch ideology obscures.

The pitch for permissionless launchpads is that they remove intermediaries. No gatekeepers, no vetting, no company standing between a creator and a market. Bonding curves and locked liquidity mean the platform cannot rug you, which the industry has treated as the end of the argument about platform risk.

It is not. The platform cannot take your tokens, and it does not have to. It can simply stop generating the attention that gives them value, and the tokens will die exactly as thoroughly as if it had drained the pool. Locked liquidity protects the mechanism and does nothing for the market. A permanently locked Uniswap position holding a token nobody is looking at is a monument, not an asset. The lock guarantees you can always sell. It guarantees nothing about whether anyone will be there to buy, and those are the only two facts that matter, in that order.

This is the same lesson that keeps arriving in different costumes. When a DAO’s treasury drained through a governance process working exactly as designed, the failure was not in the code, a dynamic crypto.news traced in detail in its account of how BonkDAO lost $20 million in a single vote. When BNB Chain’s Four.Meme briefly flipped Pump.fun on daily revenue, the lesson was that launchpad dominance is a function of where attention currently lives and nothing more durable than that. Infrastructure risk in crypto is rarely custodial. It is attentional, and no audit measures it.

CASHCAT holders own an asset with permanently locked liquidity on a chain backed by a publicly traded brokerage, launched through a platform with better rug protections than the category leader, and every one of those facts is true and none of them answers the only question that determines their outcome, which is whether anyone is still looking in a month.

Robinhood’s problem, arriving on schedule There is a second party to this that has said nothing, and its position gets more uncomfortable by the day.Robinhood Chain launched as infrastructure for onchain finance and real world asset tokenization. What it got in its first fortnight was a memecoin casino, more than $3 billion in decentralized exchange volume, honeypot tokens proliferating fast enough that cross chain provider Relay Protocol began publicly blocking them, and a scam token that used the hijacked accounts of SpaceX and Starlink to rob buyers on its rails, an episode that arrived within weeks of SpaceX joining the Nasdaq-100 with its trade already running on crypto rails. NOXA, the largest single application on the chain, states plainly in its own interface that it is an independent project not affiliated with Robinhood Markets.

That disclaimer is doing an enormous amount of work. It is legally accurate and commercially irrelevant. A retail brokerage’s brand is on the chain, retail users are the audience, and the flagship asset of the ecosystem is literally named after the company’s original name and modeled on its own former mascot. Robinhood did not build CASHCAT, did not endorse it, and under the architecture it chose, cannot remove it. It will nonetheless own every consequence in the public reading, and its silence through both the SCATMAN affair and the NOXA outage suggests a company that has not decided what it wants to say, or has decided that saying anything invites the responsibility it structured the chain to avoid.

The permissionless design that made the chain’s launch explosive is the same design that makes the next fortnight unmanageable. That is not a contradiction anyone has solved, on any chain, including the ones without a brokerage’s name on them.

Where this lands Three outcomes are live, and the market is currently paying for the middle one.NOXA returns, ships the new interface, unlocks creator fees, and reclaims its share. The outage becomes a footnote, the valuation paradox resolves upward, and CASHCAT trades on whatever attention Robinhood Chain retains once its novelty is priced. This is the likeliest single outcome and the least interesting.

NOXA returns and the market has moved. The fees flowed to flap.sh and the rest during the blackout, the trending feeds rebuilt themselves elsewhere, and NOXA is a large historical fee number attached to a platform nobody defaults to anymore. CASHCAT survives as an artifact of a moment, drifting on whatever residual community persists. This is the outcome that history most often delivers, because attention is the least loyal asset in this market and switching costs between launchpads are effectively zero. A creator chooses a platform in seconds and abandons it just as fast.

NOXA does not return in a form anyone trusts. The creator fees stay unclaimed, the explanation stays thin, and a two week old chain learns that its dominant application was a single point of failure with a status page. CASHCAT’s locked liquidity keeps a market technically alive at a price that reflects nobody caring.

The tokens survive all three scenarios. That is precisely the point that the fair launch pitch never quite says out loud: survival of the contract and survival of the value are unrelated propositions, and the second one depends entirely on infrastructure that owes its users nothing and can go dark for two days without breaking a single promise it ever made.The $226 million question is not whether CASHCAT can still be traded. It is whether $226 million was ever a fact about the token, or a fact about the launchpad, briefly measured through it.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Figures on protocol fees, token counts, market capitalizations, and wallet activity derive from third party sources including DefiLlama, Dune, Lookonchain, and platform interfaces, not from audited disclosures. No rug pull has been confirmed and the platform attributes its outage to a third party service failure. Details reflect information current as of July 14, 2026, and are subject to change. Always do your own research.

Galaxy Digital Head of Research Alex Thorn stated that between 2024 and 2025, a significant volume of long-dormant Bitcoin (BTC) was reactivated and transferred on-chain, with the activity’s scale second only to 2017. He noted that the "Great Distribution" phase driven by this wave of old BTC reactivation has now largely concluded, and it is projected that the number of BTC reactivated in 2026 will be less than half of the 2025 figure.

Relevant content

Bank of America: Fund managers’ bullishness on US stocks hits highest level since December 2024.

Bank of America’s Global Fund Manager Survey shows that fund managers’ bullishness toward U.S. stocks has reached its highest level since December 2024. A net 24% of respondents expect U.S. equities to outperform other regions, marking the third-highest allocation weight to U.S. stocks over the past five years. In contrast, investors have cut their allocations to British stocks, with fund managers’ confidence in London-listed shares falling to its lowest point since August 2020. Compared to other regions, the UK stock market has underperformed so far this year: London’s FTSE 100 has risen 5.7% year-to-date, while the S&P 500 has gained more than 10%.

6 minutes ago

SK Hynix's US-listed ADR premium over its Korean shares narrowed to 30.7%.

According to market data from BIT (bit.com), SK Hynix (SKHY) is down 5.8% in U.S. pre-market trading, with its current share price at $182.6. Bitget market data shows that SK Hynix’s closing price on the South Korean stock market today is 2,082,000 won, equivalent to roughly $1,397. Given each SK Hynix ADR represents one-tenth of an ordinary share, the $182.6 price is 30.7% higher than $139.7 (one-tenth of $1,397), a sharp narrowing of the premium from the 51.5% recorded at this morning’s U.S. stock close.

6 minutes ago

Warren Buffett: Not investing in Google back then was a mistake, and it is "more likely to be a winner" now.

Warren Buffett just stated that failing to invest in Google back then was a mistake, noting that based on its current performance, the company is now "more likely to be a winner". He also reaffirmed his optimism about Berkshire Hathaway's investment in Apple. Greg Abel is the current "decision-maker", but neither side will take any action that the other does not endorse. According to market data from BIT (bit.com), Google's US-listed stock is down 0.5% in pre-market trading, while Berkshire Hathaway currently holds approximately $310 billion worth of shares in Alphabet, Google's parent company.

6 minutes ago

Trump’s permanent daylight saving time bill passes the US House of Representatives review.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Sunshine Protection Act in a bipartisan vote of 308 in favor and 117 against. The bill aims to make daylight saving time permanent, adopting the current March-to-November schedule year-round. This would permanently set the U.S. stock market opening time to 9:30 PM (UTC+8), instead of switching to 10:30 PM (UTC+8) during standard time periods. States may opt out before the bill takes effect. The legislation has now been sent to the Senate for consideration and has not yet passed the upper chamber. Donald Trump publicly supports the bill, noting that the biannual clock adjustments impose huge economic costs, and he will work to push it into law. Some Republicans oppose the measure, arguing that later winter sunrises will harm student safety on their way to school, possibly leading to students commuting in darkness or delayed class start times. Supporters contend that eliminating clock changes can improve sleep, reduce accidents, and boost economic activity.

6 minutes ago

BNB has completed its 36th quarterly token burn, totaling approximately 1.6158 million BNB, valued at around $913.7 million.

BNB Chain completed its 36th quarterly BNB burn today, with a total of 1,615,827.795 BNB destroyed, valued at approximately $931.7 million at the time. The burn was executed via BSC’s on-chain Auto-Burn mechanism, and the transaction hash has been made public. The remaining total BNB supply stands at around 133.17 million. BNB’s ongoing goal of reducing its total supply to 100 million is aimed at boosting its deflationary properties and supporting the growth of the BNB Chain ecosystem.

6 minutes ago

Stable announces the launch of StablePay, a global USDT-based daily payment application.

Stable, a USDT blockchain platform focused on stablecoin payments, has announced the launch of StablePay, a global daily USDT payment application that integrates everyday USDT payment and yield-earning features into a single mobile app, with no delays, no fees, and frictionless transactions.

6 minutes ago

In June 2025, a week before the XRP Ledger’s EVM sidechain went live, the team building it published the arithmetic of what was coming. Polygon had contributed somewhere between $2 billion and $6 billion in total value locked to Ethereum, up to a tenth of the whole.

Summary

The XRPL EVM sidechain promised a $600 million to $12 billion TVL uplift but holds only $25,741 after one year. The chain is technically live, audited, and maintained, but almost no users or capital have arrived. Moai Finance has recorded just $95,008 in cumulative spot volume across the sidechain’s entire existence. XRPL’s institutional mainnet activity grew while permissionless EVM DeFi failed to gain traction. The result suggests EVM compatibility alone does not create demand without users already waiting for cheaper or better execution. If the XRPL EVM sidechain matched that trajectory, the post argued, the uplift to the XRP Ledger would run from $600 million to $12 billion, and it would fundamentally change the demand curve for XRP. Ninety entities were already building. Sixty days of testnet had pulled in developers who had never touched the XRP ecosystem. The technology was ready. The builders were here.The sidechain launched on June 30, 2025. The anniversary passed two weeks ago.

As of July 14, 2026, total value locked on the XRPL EVM sidechain is $25,741, according to DefiLlama. Chain fees over the past 24 hours: zero. Chain revenue: zero. Decentralized exchange volume over 24 hours: zero. Over seven days: also zero. The largest protocol on the chain, a decentralized exchange called XRiSE33 Network, holds $11,909. The second largest, a launchpad named Riddle, holds $8,831. Moai Finance, the only protocol on the chain that has ever recorded meaningful trading, has done $95,008 in cumulative spot volume across its entire existence and currently holds $1,117.

The low end of the projection was $600 million. The delivery is $25,741. That is not a shortfall. It is a rounding error against a rounding error, and it is the most instructive number in the XRP ecosystem right now, because of what else the same ledger accomplished during the same twelve months.

What was actually built The technical work was not the problem, and it is worth stating that clearly before the autopsy.The XRPL EVM sidechain is a Cosmos SDK chain running Ethereum Virtual Machine compatibility, connected to the XRP Ledger mainnet through the Axelar bridge, which links more than eighty networks. XRP is the native gas token. Bridged XRP locks on mainnet and mints a synthetic version on the sidechain, so the design preserves mainnet supply integrity while freeing the asset for smart contract use. Consensus is proof of authority, targeting up to 1,000 transactions per second at fees far below Ethereum’s. Squid handles cross-chain transfers as the official interface. Band Protocol supplies oracles, Grove supplies public RPC endpoints. Wormhole integration was slated to follow, extending reach to more than 200 applications across 35 ecosystems.

Ripple built it with Peersyst and contributors from the Cosmos community. crypto.news covered the mainnet launch on June 30, 2025, where Ripple’s David Schwartz framed the sidechain as extending the ecosystem without altering what makes the XRP Ledger reliable. The launch roster included Strobe, a money market for lending and overcollateralized borrowing; Securd, a lending protocol for financing collateralized leverage; Vertex, a derivatives venue; plus Moai, Elys, XRise, and Hammy. The infrastructure was audited end to end. Subsequent releases hardened it further, with a v11 upgrade focused on economic security, IBC transfer hardening, and proof of authority validator management, and an upgrade to Cosmos EVM v0.4.1 adding ERC-20 mint and burn plus current Ethereum improvement proposals.

None of that is vaporware. Every component works. Someone can bridge XRP to the sidechain right now, deploy a Solidity contract, and trade on a decentralized exchange. The chain is live, secure, and functionally complete.It is also empty.That is the part worth sitting with, because it inverts the usual crypto post-mortem. The standard failure story is a project that promised more than it could build: the whitepaper outran the engineers, the deadlines slipped, the product never shipped or shipped broken. XRPL EVM shipped, on schedule, working, audited, and maintained through multiple upgrades over the following year. Every promise about the technology was kept. The only promise that failed was the one about people.

The decline, measured The most damning fact is not the small number. It is the direction.In August 2025, roughly six weeks after launch, DefiLlama showed the sidechain hosting three decentralized exchanges and a single launchpad, with combined total value locked of $100,818. Twenty four hour volume across the entire chain was $3,238, every dollar of it from Moai Finance. Riddle, XRiSE33 Network, and SurgeDefi recorded no trading activity whatsoever. Developer data at the time counted 168 developers on XRPL EVM against 8,448 on Ethereum, a gap of roughly 98%.

That was the bad news at six weeks. Today, eleven months later, total value locked is $25,741. The chain lost roughly three quarters of the little it had. The protocol count is nominally higher, with Midas RWA, Hyperithm, Portal, Axelar, and an NFT marketplace called Mintiq now listed, but every one of those additions reports zero total value locked on this chain. They are multi-chain protocols that support XRPL EVM the way a restaurant supports a dietary restriction: the option exists on the menu and nobody orders it.

The volume figures are what turn an underperformance into something stranger. Zero over 24 hours. Zero over seven days. Moai Finance, the chain’s only functioning exchange by any historical measure, shows $95,008 in cumulative volume since inception. Not per day. Total, across a year of operation, on the flagship DeFi venue of a chain built for a token with a market capitalization near $68 billion.

A chain with $25,741 of capital and no trading is not a slow start. It is a chain nobody is using, and the trend line says that fewer people are using it every month.For scale, the entire TVL of the sidechain is currently less than the value of roughly 24,000 XRP. Ripple releases a billion tokens from escrow on the first of every month. The whole DeFi economy built on top of the XRP Ledger, through the official sidechain, could be funded out of forty thousandths of a single monthly escrow tranche.

Who was supposed to show up Reading the launch roster a year later is the clearest way to see what went wrong, because the roster was not thin. It was specific.Strobe was announced as a money market for lending and overcollateralized borrowing on XRPL. Securd was to provide passive income by financing collateralized leverage across DeFi positions. Vertex was a derivatives platform optimizing capital efficiency. Between them, those three cover the load-bearing categories of any DeFi economy: lending, leverage, and derivatives. Add a decentralized exchange for spot, an oracle from Band, RPC infrastructure from Grove, and a cross-chain interface from Squid, and the stack on paper was complete. Nothing essential was missing.

Today none of those three names appears among the protocols holding capital on the chain. The entire TVL sits in two decentralized exchanges and a launchpad. The lending market that would have made bridged XRP productive, the derivatives venue that would have given traders a reason to keep collateral there, the leverage layer that generates the recursive deposits which inflate every chain’s TVL figure: none of it materialized in a form anyone funded.

That absence explains the volume better than any macro argument. A chain with only spot DEXs and no credit has no reason to hold capital between trades. Money arrives, swaps, and leaves. On chains where TVL compounds, it compounds because deposits are collateral, collateral is borrowed against, and the borrowings are redeposited. Without a lending market, TVL is just the float sitting in a few pools, and $25,741 is what that float looks like when almost nobody is swapping.

The irony is precise. The lending layer the sidechain needed and never got is now being built on the mainnet instead, in a permissioned, institutionally underwritten form that has nothing to do with the EVM. The sidechain was the place DeFi was supposed to happen. Credit went somewhere else, and the sidechain was left holding the part of DeFi that cannot sustain itself alone.

Why the projection was never plausible The Polygon comparison that produced the $600 million to $12 billion range deserves scrutiny, because in retrospect it was comparing two things that share almost no structural features.

Polygon captured Ethereum overflow. It existed because Ethereum’s fees became unbearable during periods of intense demand, and there was a vast population of users and developers already transacting on Ethereum who wanted the same applications for less money. The demand preceded the chain. Polygon did not create appetite for DeFi; it captured appetite that already existed and had nowhere cheaper to go. Add hundreds of millions of dollars in liquidity incentives and a mature Ethereum tooling ecosystem that ported over with a config change, and the TVL followed the demand.

XRPL EVM inverted every one of those conditions. There was no congestion to relieve, because the XRP Ledger has never been congested. There was no population of XRPL DeFi users seeking cheaper execution, because XRPL DeFi barely existed: the ledger’s total value locked has run under 0.05% of its market capitalization, against roughly 20% for Ethereum and 10% for Solana. That statistic was cited in the launch material as the size of the opportunity. It is more accurately read as the size of the demand problem.

Six million XRPL wallet holders were presented as a distribution advantage, but they were six million holders of a payments asset who had spent a decade not asking for smart contracts. The sidechain did not remove a barrier between XRP holders and DeFi. It tested whether the barrier was the reason, and the answer came back no.The Peersyst material was explicit that testnet momentum arrived organically, without incentives or paid marketing, and treated that as evidence of underlying pull. Ninety logos on a testnet is a real signal of developer curiosity. It is not a signal of user demand, and the distinction is the whole story: developers show up to explore new chains constantly, at near zero cost, and the tourism ends when nobody trades.

The comparison that hurts Here is why this matters beyond a dead sidechain: the XRP Ledger had an extraordinary year, on the mainnet, at exactly the same time.

Tokenized real-world assets on the XRP Ledger grew from under a billion dollars at the start of 2026 to roughly $3.5 billion, and the ledger has led the market on 90-day RWA inflows, adding $1.9 billion. In May 2026, Ondo Finance executed the first cross-border, cross-bank redemption of tokenized United States Treasuries on the XRPL, clearing in seconds, with JPMorgan and Mastercard involved in the surrounding work. RLUSD grew past a $1.5 billion market capitalization. The native automated market maker and multi-purpose token amendments both passed validator votes. The XLS-65 and XLS-66 lending amendments are in validator voting now, an effort crypto.news examined in its analysis of what on-chain credit would mean for XRP.

The mainnet, in other words, went and built exactly the thing the sidechain was supposed to enable, using its own native primitives, aimed at institutions instead of Solidity developers, and it worked. Institutional tokenization found the XRP Ledger without an EVM. Permissionless DeFi did not find it with one.

That contrast reframes the sidechain from a failed product into a resolved question. The bet was that XRPL’s problem was programmability, and that giving Ethereum developers a familiar environment on top of XRP liquidity would unlock a DeFi economy. Twelve months of data says the problem was never programmability. It was that the XRP ecosystem’s actual demand is institutional settlement, and institutional settlement does not want an EVM sidechain with proof of authority consensus and a bridge. It wants permissioned pools, credentialed counterparties, and off-chain underwriting, which is precisely what the mainnet amendments deliver.

Notice also where XRP-adjacent DeFi capital actually went. VivoPower allocated $100 million through Flare, a separate network built specifically to give XRP holders DeFi access, rather than through Ripple’s own sidechain. When money did move toward XRP DeFi, it routed around the official product.

The case that this is unfair The bearish read above deserves an honest counterweight, and there is a real one.Timing first. The sidechain launched on June 30, 2025, roughly three weeks before XRP’s cycle high near $3.65, and spent its entire first year inside the worst crypto drawdown since 2022. Bitcoin fell more than 40% from its October peak. Digital asset funds ran multi-billion dollar outflow streaks. Three consecutive losing quarters, the longest streak since the last bear market, with institutional capital rotating into artificial intelligence equities. TVL across the market compressed. Judging a new chain’s ecosystem formation against a projection written in a bull market, and measured entirely inside a bear market, stacks the comparison. Polygon’s $2 billion to $6 billion was built during a mania.

Second, no incentives. Polygon’s TVL was purchased. Hundreds of millions in liquidity mining subsidies pulled capital that largely left when the subsidies stopped. XRPL EVM launched with none, which is defensible as a matter of discipline and fatal as a matter of cold-start economics. Liquidity begets liquidity, and a chain with $25,741 cannot attract a trader who needs to move $50,000 without moving the price against themselves. Every DeFi ecosystem that reached scale bought its first users. Refusing to do so is a choice with predictable consequences, not evidence that the underlying idea is wrong.

Third, sequencing. The credit layer was always the point. RippleX’s own framing describes a deliberate progression: represent value, move value, trade value, finance value. The lending amendments now in voting are the fourth step, and they are being built on the mainnet with institutional design constraints, not on the sidechain. If the strategy is institutional DeFi rather than retail DeFi, then the sidechain was never the main line. It was an option that Ripple bought cheaply, and options that expire worthless are still rational to have purchased.

Fourth, the infrastructure persists. A chain is not a startup that folds. It runs, it gets upgraded, and it costs almost nothing to leave running. If the market turns, if incentives arrive, if a single application finds product-market fit, the environment is there, audited and connected to eighty networks. Twelve months is a short window for infrastructure that took years to build.

Fifth, and least comfortable for the bears: the metric itself is contested. Total value locked measures deposited capital, not usefulness, and it is trivially gamed by recursive lending and mercenary liquidity on chains that do buy their numbers. A chain with honest, unincentivized TVL of $25,741 and a chain with subsidized TVL of $500 million are not obviously ranked the way the figures suggest. That argument does not rescue XRPL EVM, because zero volume is not a metrics artifact, but it is a fair caution against treating one number as a verdict on an entire architecture.

The case that it is worse than it looks Now the harder reading, which the numbers support more directly.The bear market explains compression. It does not explain zero. Solana’s memecoin economy generated tens of billions of dollars of volume through the same drawdown. Robinhood Chain launched on July 1, 2026 into the identical macro and did more than $3 billion in decentralized exchange volume in two weeks, with 19,586 tokens created on a single day. Hyperliquid, Base, and BNB Chain all sustained real activity. Capital did not stop moving in 2026. It moved somewhere else. The absence of incentives explains a smaller number; it does not explain a chain where the flagship exchange has done $95,000 in trading across its entire existence while a two-week-old competitor chain did $3 billion.The declining trend is the tell. $100,818 in August 2025 to $25,741 in July 2026 is not a chain waiting for conditions to improve. It is a chain being abandoned by the little capital that tried it. Bear markets thin the field; they do not usually take three quarters of the liquidity from a chain that started with almost none.

And the developer number from August was the leading indicator everyone skipped: 168 developers against Ethereum’s 8,448. Chains are not built by logos on a testnet. They are built by people shipping applications that someone wants to use, and the ratio said, six weeks in, that the ninety entities had not converted into an ecosystem. The launch roster is the proof. Strobe, Securd, Vertex: named as launch partners, and today the chain’s entire TVL sits in two DEXs and a launchpad nobody trades on. The applications that were supposed to give the chain a reason to exist either never shipped at scale or shipped and found nobody.

The strategic cost is subtler than the wasted engineering. For a year, “XRPfi” and the EVM sidechain functioned as an answer to the hardest question about XRP, which is how any of Ripple’s progress reaches the token. The sidechain made XRP the gas asset of a DeFi economy, which would have generated real, recurring token demand. That answer is now empirically closed, and it closes at the same moment as the structural finding that most of Ripple’s bank partners never touch XRP at all. Two of the three main value-accrual arguments for the token have now been tested against data in the same quarter. Both came back thin.

What the $25,741 is actually evidence of Step back from XRP entirely, because the finding generalizes.The industry has spent five years treating EVM compatibility as a growth strategy. The reasoning is seductive: Ethereum has the developers, the tooling, the mental models, and the applications, so any chain that speaks Solidity inherits access to all of it at the cost of an engineering project. Dozens of chains have run this play. A few worked. Most produced exactly what XRPL EVM produced, which is a technically excellent environment with nobody in it.

The reason is that EVM compatibility removes a supply-side constraint and does nothing to the demand side. It makes building easier. It does not make anyone want the thing built. When a chain has organic demand and a technical barrier, removing the barrier unlocks enormous value, which is the Polygon story and the Arbitrum story. When a chain has a technical option and no demand, removing the barrier produces an empty room with excellent acoustics.

The diagnostic question is therefore simple and almost never asked before a chain commits to the work: is there a queue? Not a waiting list of developers, who are cheap to attract and cost nothing to lose, but users currently doing the thing somewhere worse and paying for the privilege. Polygon had a queue. Arbitrum had a queue. XRPL EVM had a hypothesis that six million payment-asset holders would become DeFi users once the tooling arrived, and hypotheses are not queues.

XRPL had the cleanest possible version of the test. Six million wallets. A top-ten asset. Twelve years of uptime. Deep liquidity. Real regulatory standing. A functioning native DEX. Every input the thesis requires, and a year later the DeFi economy built on top of it holds less capital than a used car. If EVM compatibility were the unlock, it would have worked here. The mechanics of liquidity pools and automated market makers are identical on XRPL EVM to what they are on Ethereum. The pools are simply empty, because pools are filled by people who want something, and nobody wanted this.

The lesson costs Ripple very little and should cost the next chain a great deal. The company retained an option, learned that its DeFi demand is institutional rather than permissionless, and redirected to native amendments aimed at exactly that. That is a reasonable outcome from a cheap experiment. The problem belongs to everyone still pitching an EVM layer as a demand strategy, because the most rigorous public test of that thesis just returned $25,741 and no volume, and the DeFi industry has not noticed.

The number to remember The projection was $600 million to $12 billion. The delivery is $25,741 and zero trading volume, twelve months later, on a chain that works perfectly.That gap is not a failure of engineering, marketing, timing, or macro, though each contributed at the margin. It is a measurement. Somebody asked, with real money and real code and a well-built product, whether the XRP ecosystem wanted permissionless DeFi. The ecosystem answered. The answer was no, and it took a year and a nine-figure projection to hear a number that fits on a single line of a spreadsheet.

XRPL’s institutional story is doing better than it has ever done. Its DeFi story is a chain with $25,741 on it and nobody trading. Both of those things are true at once, and anyone building a thesis on XRP needs to hold both, because the second one used to be an argument and is now just a data point.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Total value locked, volume, and protocol figures are drawn from DefiLlama as of July 14, 2026, and change continuously; TVL is a contested metric and methodologies differ between trackers. Historical figures are attributed to the sources that reported them at the time. Projections cited were published by the sidechain’s development team and are not forecasts by crypto.news. Details reflect information current as of July 14, 2026. Always do your own research.

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has defended XRP advertising in college sports after critics called for tighter restrictions on crypto promotion. 

Summary

David Schwartz argues truthful XRP advertising receives First Amendment protection against broad government restrictions nationwide. His argument cites Supreme Court rulings that struck restrictions on lawful alcohol and gambling advertising. Commercial speech remains regulable, meaning the Constitution does not automatically block every potential advertising restriction. The debate followed the University of Kansas athletics program’s decision to place XRP branding on team uniforms under a multi-year partnership with Ripple.

In a July 15 post on X, Schwartz argued that governments cannot broadly suppress truthful advertising for lawful products simply because officials believe consumers may make poor decisions. His position centers on First Amendment protections for commercial speech.

The United States has the First Amendment. If you want to restrict or can speech, you need to find some exception it fits into. I don't think there is one here. See the cases I cited including one involving liquor and one involving gambling.

— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) July 14, 2026 Schwartz turns XRP advertising debate into constitutional question The discussion began after critics compared crypto promotion in college sports with advertising for gambling, tobacco and alcohol. They argued that universities should not expose students and younger sports fans to digital asset marketing.

Schwartz responded with a legal argument rather than a defense of XRP as an investment. He wrote that the government cannot suppress truthful commercial speech merely to prevent people from making “bad, but lawful, decisions.” His argument draws a distinction between regulating an activity and banning truthful speech about that activity.

Supreme Court cases support protection for lawful advertising Schwartz cited 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, a 1996 Supreme Court case that struck down restrictions on advertising liquor prices. The Court found that Rhode Island could not broadly block truthful price information simply because the state wanted to reduce alcohol consumption.

He also pointed to Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association v. United States. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal restriction could not block advertisements for lawful private casino gambling under the circumstances before the Court.

However, those rulings do not make every restriction on XRP advertising automatically unconstitutional. Under the Supreme Court’s Central Hudson framework, commercial speech receives protection when it concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. Governments may still impose properly tailored restrictions that directly serve a substantial public interest.

Kansas deal puts XRP logo across college sports Kansas Athletics announced the Ripple partnership on July 8. The XRP logo will appear on uniforms across the university’s athletic programs, making it the first cryptocurrency jersey patch used across a major college athletics program, according to Kansas.

The agreement also covers branding at athletic venues, digital properties and events. Ripple will fund financial and technology education programs for student-athletes and the wider campus community. The partnership also expands an existing recruitment link between Ripple and Kansas graduates.

As previously reported, the agreement runs for five years and has personal ties to Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, a University of Kansas alumnus. The sponsorship has since drawn wider attention to how universities should handle digital asset advertising.

XRP legal history adds context to advertising dispute The debate comes three years after a federal court issued its split ruling in the SEC’s case against Ripple. The court found that Ripple’s programmatic XRP sales did not qualify as securities transactions under the circumstances examined, while certain institutional sales violated securities laws. The case formally ended in 2025 with a $125 million penalty and an injunction remaining in place.

That history makes broad claims about XRP’s legal status more complex than simply calling the asset universally exempt from financial regulation. Schwartz’s First Amendment argument instead rests on a narrower point: truthful commercial speech concerning lawful activity receives constitutional protection.

A government attempt to impose a blanket ban on XRP advertising could therefore face a serious First Amendment challenge. But existing Supreme Court doctrine still allows some commercial advertising rules when regulators can satisfy the required constitutional test.

Japan’s House of Councillors passed an amendment to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, which officially recognizes cryptocurrencies as financial products rather than payment tools.

With this, the country is now planning to cut crypto taxes from 55% to 20% and open the door to Bitcoin ETFs.

Japan Moves Crypto Under Financial Product RulesJapan’s parliament has officially passed a landmark law amendment reclassifying cryptocurrencies as “financial assets.” Until now, cryptocurrencies have been mainly regulated under the Payment Services Act as a payment method. 

Under the new law, Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and other cryptocurrencies will be classified as financial products under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA), bringing them closer to stocks and other investment assets.

The new law also clears the way for spot crypto ETFs in Japan. 

Regulators are aiming to launch them on the Tokyo Stock Exchange by 2027 or 2028, while major firms like Nomura Holdings and SBI Holdings are already preparing crypto ETF products.

List of Changes Under the New LawThe new framework introduces several rules that already apply to traditional financial markets. These include,

Insider trading ban: Trading using non-public information will be strictly prohibited.Annual disclosures: Token issuers must publish annual operational and financial disclosures.Strict penalties: Violators face up to 10 years in prison or 10 million Japanese yen fines.Retail investment cap: High-risk tokens will have a 2 million Japanese yen retail investment limitBigger Fines and Lower Crypto TaxesThe new law also brings stricter rules for the crypto industry. However, the maximum jail term for running an illegal crypto business will increase from three years to 10 years.

And the maximum fine will also increase from 3 million yen to 10 million yen, approximately $18,500 to $61,600. The government says these changes will help make the crypto market safer and protect investors.

Along with the bill, lawmakers are planning to cut the tax on crypto profits from the current maximum of 55% to a flat 20%, the same tax rate used for stock investments.

Another planned change is a three-year loss carryforward. This means investors will be able to use their past trading losses to reduce taxes on future crypto profits. If approved, these tax changes are expected to start in 2028.

Story Ends Here

Trust with CoinPedia:CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.

Investment Disclaimer:All opinions and insights shared represent the author's own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.

Sponsored and Advertisements:Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.

Read the Next News

The ADA community has reacted strongly after Intersect confirmed that responsibility for delivering Cardano’s presence at TOKEN2049 Singapore will shift from EMURGO to the Cardano Foundation.

The decision has sparked a governance debate across the Cardano ecosystem, with several community members arguing that the transfer bypasses the treasury governance process approved by Delegated Representatives (DReps). 

Intersect Explains Why the Cardano Foundation Will Lead TOKEN2049 In a recent announcement, Intersect revealed that EMURGO has been focusing its resources on managing the aftermath of the SecondFi incident. Consequently, the company informed Intersect that it could no longer allocate the personnel required to organize and execute Cardano’s participation at TOKEN2049.

Following discussions among EMURGO, the Cardano Foundation, and Intersect, the three parties agreed to transfer delivery responsibility for the event to the Cardano Foundation.

As the administrator of the treasury process, Intersect emphasized that its priority is to ensure approved governance actions are successfully delivered. Therefore, it described the change in the executing entity as the most practical solution, citing the limited time before the October conference and the need to avoid uncertainty surrounding Cardano’s participation.

The controversy traces back to an earlier governance decision. Cardano’s DReps previously approved EMURGO’s standalone treasury proposal requesting 3.3 million ADA to fund an official Cardano presence at TOKEN2049 Singapore. 

Now, Intersect confirmed that the Cardano Foundation would receive the approved funds and execute the project instead.

Community Questions Governance Process Meanwhile, Intersect’s announcement immediately drew criticism from several community members, who argued that the approved proposal specifically authorized EMURGO, not the Cardano Foundation, to execute the project.

Popular DRep Chris O described the decision as a breach of Cardano’s governance framework. According to him, DReps approved a proposal that explicitly assigned execution to EMURGO. Therefore, if EMURGO could no longer fulfill its obligations, the treasury funds should have been returned rather than reassigned to another entity.

Chris also argued that the Cardano Foundation should submit its own treasury proposal if it intends to organize the event. He also criticized what he viewed as Intersect and the Foundation unilaterally changing the terms of an approved governance action without seeking another DRep vote.

Additionally, community member Dramz called for the funds to be returned entirely, expressing frustration with EMURGO’s role in the situation. 

Similarly, another community member questioned why Intersect decided on behalf of the broader Cardano ecosystem. He urged the organization to return the funds to the treasury and allow a fresh governance proposal rather than modify the existing one. 

Just one quick problem with this. The DReps didn’t vote to fund CF to do Token2049. They voted Emurgo. I think it’d’ve been proper to at least seek DReps’ opinions on the swap before it happened rather than telling us about it after the event.

— Kit Willow 𖤍 (@willow_kit) July 14, 2026

Despite the criticism, not everyone opposed the decision. Some Cardano supporters argued that maintaining an official presence at TOKEN2049 outweighs the need to restart the treasury process.

They contend that requiring a new proposal could delay preparations and potentially jeopardize Cardano’s participation in one of the cryptocurrency industry’s largest conferences. From their perspective, transferring execution to the Cardano Foundation ensures the original objective of the approved proposal is achieved despite EMURGO’s operational constraints. 

DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.

A specially designed Google logo, during the opening of Google's new Artificial Intelligence (AI) centre in Berlin, Germany, March 5, 2026. REUTERS/Annegret Hilse/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

CompaniesLUXEMBOURG, July 15 (Reuters) - Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab unit Google on Wednesday urged Europe's top court to dismiss EU antitrust regulators' appeal against a lower court ​ruling that scrapped a €1.49 billion ($1.7 billion) fine, saying the regulators' ‌arguments were flawed.

The dispute reached the Court of Justice of the European Union after regulators appealed a 2024 General Court ruling that annulled the fine imposed on Google in 2019. ​The lower court cited errors in the European Commission's assessment of ​the case.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

The Commission, the EU's competition watchdog, said Google used ⁠restrictive clauses in contracts with publishers that prevented rivals from placing search ​advertisements on the publishers' websites, reinforcing Google's dominance in online search advertising.

The ​Commission said the practices ran from 2006 to 2016. Google, whose AdSense platform provides search advertising, removed the contested clauses from publisher agreements in 2016.

Google's lawyer, Josh Holmes, rejected ​the Commission's arguments.

"The Commission's new arguments are flawed. The General Court's reasons ​are clear and complete," he told the panel of five judges.

Holmes said the Commission had ‌ignored ⁠evidence showing Google's rivals had substantial opportunities to compete.

Commission lawyer Anthony Dawes criticised the lower court's ruling, saying it imposed an unprecedented obligation on regulators to analyse issues already settled by case law.

"This finding turns case law ​on its head," he ​said, adding that ⁠the lower court's reasoning would effectively treat exclusive clauses as lawful by default.

A court adviser is due to ​issue a non-binding opinion on November 12, with a final ​ruling expected ⁠in the following months.

The AdSense fine was one of four EU antitrust penalties that have cost Google €9.5 billion during its nearly two-decade dispute with the ⁠Commission. The ​lower court's decision to annul the fine ​marked a rare legal setback for the EU watchdog.

The case is C-826/24 P Commission v Google ​and Alphabet (Google AdSense)

($1 = 0.8771 euros)

Reporting by Foo Yun Chee. Editing by Mark Potter

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

An agenda-setting and market-moving journalist, Foo Yun Chee is a 21-year veteran at Reuters. Her stories on high profile mergers have pushed up the European telecoms index, lifted companies' shares and helped investors decide on their next move. Her knowledge and experience of European antitrust laws and developments helped her break stories on Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta and Apple, numerous market-moving mergers and antitrust investigations. She has previously reported on Greek politics and companies, when Greece's entry into the eurozone meant it punched above its weight on the international stage, as well as on Dutch corporate giants and the quirks of Dutch society and culture that never fail to charm readers.

The BNB Foundation has officially announced the successful completion of the 36th quarterly BNB token burn by BNB Chain.

Here are the facts and figures from the latest burn:

Total BNB burned:  1,615,827.795 BNB Approximate value in USD around the time of burn: ~$931,702,464 Transaction ID (TXID) for BNB burn: View transactionRemaining to be burned: Check real-time data hereRemaining total supply: 133,166,127.91 BNB*at time of writing 15 July, 2026 at 10:35AM UTC.

What You Need to Know About the BNB BurnBNB is the native coin of the BNB Chain ecosystem, essential for powering its multifaceted Web3 environment. It supports transactions on the BNB Smart Chain (BSC), the opBNB L2s, and BNB Greenfield blockchain. Besides transaction fees, BNB serves as a governance token, granting holders the ability to participate in the BNB Chain’s decentralized on-chain governance. Additionally, BNB functions as a strategic reserve asset and enters the radar of more mainstream financial institutions, driving ecosystem growth and incentivizing adoption.  

Following its mainnet launch on April 18, 2019, BNB transitioned from the Ethereum Network to BNB Chain. "Build and Build" is the philosophy behind BNB, reflecting its role in fostering development within the ecosystem. BNB employs an Auto-Burn system to gradually reduce its total supply to 100,000,000 BNB. The burn amount is adjusted based on BNB's price and the number of blocks generated on BSC during a quarter, ensuring transparency and predictability. 

BNB Auto BurnThe BNB Auto-Burn provides an independently auditable, objective process. The figures are reported quarterly, and the mechanism is independent of the Binance centralized exchange. 

This quarter's burn and future burns will occur directly on BSC due to the BNB Chain Fusion. The corresponding BNB amount will be sent to the "blackhole" address: 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD.

Note: Due to the recent Lorentz, Maxwell and Fermi upgrades, BSC is producing blocks more frequently, compared with the time when the Auto Burn formula was originally defined. The parameters used in the formula have been adjusted to keep the idea and spirit consistent.

BNB Real-time BurnAdditionally, BNB implements a real-time burning mechanism based on gas fees. BSC validators determine the ratio of gas fees collected in each block, which is burned at a fixed rate. Since the introduction of BEP95, roughly 291K BNB has been burnt under this mechanism.

Further Reading35th BNB BurnDesign Mechanisms of the BNB TokenReal-Time Burning MechanismWhat is BNB Greenfield?What is opBNB?

Warren Buffett said Wednesday he — not Berkshire Hathaway's new CEO Greg Abel — was the driving force behind the recent big investment in Alphabet.

"I initiated it," Buffett said in an interview with CNBC's Becky Quick. "I am not doing anything that he doesn't approve of. He's not doing anything I don't approve of. We talk all the time, but he is the decider."

Berkshire first disclosed a stake in Alphabet during the third quarter of 2025 and has dramatically increased its investment since. Last month, the conglomerate invested an additional $10 billion through a private stock purchase.

"The trick in life is to find — I mean investing — is to find businesses that are going to earn high returns on capital for an extended period of time," Buffett said.

Buffett, who stepped down as Berkshire's chief executive earlier this year but remains chairman, said he and CEO Greg Abel continue to work closely together on investment decisions.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Key Takeaways Bank of America expects 2026 NII growth at the high end of 6-8%, backed by loans, deposits and repricing.BAC raised full-year operating leverage guidance to 300-400 basis points after a strong first half.More than 200,000 employees use AI tools as broad segment growth supports stronger earnings power. Bank of America Corporation (BAC - Free Report) used its second-quarter 2026 call to push a forward-looking message rather than simply celebrate a beat. Management framed the quarter as evidence that broad client activity, disciplined expenses and steady balance sheet optimization are translating into stronger earnings power.

That mattered because executives also tightened the focus on what comes next: net interest income at the high end of prior guidance, continued loan and deposit growth, and more operating leverage even as the company keeps spending on technology, marketing and AI tools.

BAC Raises the Bar on 2026 NIIChairman and CEO Brian Moynihan said the quarter showed organic growth across every business segment. Revenues of $31.6 billion beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $30.62 billion and rose 15% year over year. EPS of $1.21 topped the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.13 and increased 34% from the prior-year quarter. 

The more important takeaway was the outlook. Chief financial officer Alastair Borthwick said Bank of America now expects full-year 2026 net interest income growth at the upper end of its 6% to 8% range, supported by loan and deposit growth, fixed-rate asset repricing and balance sheet optimization.

Borthwick also said the company’s banking book remains asset sensitive, while a 100-basis point parallel shift above the forward curve would add about $1 billion of NII over the next 12 months. That gave investors a clearer sense of the embedded earnings lift management still sees in the core franchise.

Bank of America Defends Deposit StrategyA KBW analyst pressed management on deposit pricing and whether BAC could keep outperforming peers in a higher-for-longer setting. Borthwick’s answer centered on client mix rather than rate competition. He said the company is prioritizing operating accounts and relationship deposits, not chasing rate-sensitive balances.

That response aligned with the quarter’s balance sheet trends. Average deposits rose to $2.02 trillion, the 12th straight quarter of sequential growth, while average loans and leases increased 8% from a year earlier to $1.22 trillion. Average consumer deposits were $957 billion, and Moynihan said spending trends strengthened during the quarter.

Management also sounded constructive on the second-half loan demand. In Q&A, Borthwick said commercial growth remains healthy and card balances are moving toward management’s target pace, reinforcing the view that NII growth is being driven by underlying business activity rather than a temporary market tailwind.

BAC Keeps Leaning Into Operating LeverageMoynihan and Borthwick repeatedly returned to operating leverage as one of the quarter’s defining features. The bank posted 6.6% operating leverage in the quarter, while the efficiency ratio improved 359 basis points from a year ago to 59%.

Borthwick said first-half 2026 operating leverage exceeded 450 basis points, leading management to lift its full-year expectation to 300-400 basis points from prior commentary of more than 200 basis points. He cautioned that second-half comparisons get harder because NII and investment banking were already accelerating in the back half of 2025.

A Bernstein analyst and a Citi analyst both tested whether that leverage outlook implied underinvestment. Moynihan rejected that framing, saying Bank of America is still investing heavily in financial centers, marketing, rewards, digital capabilities and AI, while productivity gains are helping offset some of that spending.

Bank of America Highlights AI and Segment BreadthManagement treated AI as a practical productivity story, not a separate growth narrative. Moynihan said more than 200,000 employees are using AI-enabled capabilities, generating over 400,000 prompts a day, with 300-plus approved AI use cases and 114 live generative AI use cases.

That message was tied directly to execution inside the businesses. Consumer Banking posted 10% net income growth, Global Wealth and Investment Management delivered 42% net income growth on record revenues, Global Banking benefited from a 50% jump in total corporation investment banking fees and Global Markets produced its 17th consecutive quarter of year-over-year sales and trading revenue growth.

In Q&A, management also linked AI enthusiasm to underwriting discipline. Moynihan said the bank is evaluating how AI affects borrowers and industries while also using the technology internally to improve speed, consistency and client coverage. That kept the tone measured even as executives sounded upbeat on the long-term opportunity.

BAC Leaves an Upbeat But Disciplined ToneThe call ended with a management team emphasizing breadth, not a single standout line item. Moynihan pointed to resilient consumers, healthy commercial activity, strong capital markets pipelines and continued capital returns, including $8 billion returned to its shareholders in the quarter through dividends and repurchases.

Borthwick’s closing tone was similarly disciplined. He described activity as healthy across lending, payments, wealth, investment banking and markets, while maintaining that credit quality remains stable and the balance sheet remains a source of strength.

Zacks Signals for Bank of AmericaBAC currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) with a Value Score of C, Growth Score of C, Momentum Score of A and VGM Score of B. Under the Zacks framework, the rank is the first screen because earnings estimate revisions are the most important driver, while Style Scores help refine opportunity by value, growth and momentum characteristics.

That combination points to balanced style characteristics with stronger momentum than value or growth at the moment. The VGM Score of B is constructive, but the Style Score framework is most favorable when paired with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or 2 (Buy) stocks. A Zacks Rank can change after earnings as analyst estimate revisions move in response to the just-reported results. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

New IBM Power Autonomous Operations software identifies and resolves capacity constraints up to 15x1 faster than manually performing the operation IBM Bob™ Premium Package for i helps accelerate application development on IBM i Entry-level Power S1112 server helps enterprises innovate at every scale , /PRNewswire/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced IBM Power Autonomous Operations, an AI agent that can help continuously monitor Power systems and autonomously resolve issues to keep operations running smoothly. It complements the recently launched IBM Bob™ Premium Package for i, which brings agentic-driven software designed to accelerate application development on IBM i. These capabilities can accelerate building modern applications so enterprises can innovate at the pace required by their business. Additionally, the entry-level Power S1112 server provides a new compact, efficient option powerful enough to run AI inference locally.

IBM Power S1112, a 1-socket, half-wide Power11 server. (Image credit: Thomas Prior for IBM)

IBM PowerS1112, tower chassis form factor. (Image credit: Thomas Prior for IBM) IBM Power has long been IBM's platform for mission-critical enterprise workloads. As AI becomes part of that critical infrastructure, Power is built to support it.  IBM introduced Power11 last year as autonomous IT for the AI era, built for availability, resiliency, and scale across on-premises and IBM Cloud environments. IBM Power Virtual Server is a fully managed cloud service on which enterprises can run AIX, IBM i and Linux workloads while offloading much of the routine management for system operations. Now, IBM is embedding autonomous IT across the Power platform, from code to runtime, with new capabilities and systems.

According to the IBM IBV 2026 Tech Leader Study: Building the IT foundation for agentic AI at scale, by 2027, enterprises expect to deploy an average of 1,661 AI agents—a 38% increase. At that rate, tech leaders are tasked with managing hundreds of thousands of autonomous decisions daily. And manual governance can't keep up with that math.2 Additionally, according to the IBM Institute for Business Value, Enterprise 2030 study, AI is changing what companies do and how they do it.3 Closing that gap in scale requires an IT foundation that can run and optimize itself while teams focus on innovation.

These newly announced capabilities utilize AI agents to build automation directly into IBM Power across operations, security, and application development so clients can innovate with AI while prioritizing control and resilience. Power Autonomous Operations automates running and optimizing systems, with an embedded agent that lets teams manage Power through simple chat-style prompts. IBM Bob Premium Package for i makes IBM i development accessible to a broad range of engineers, expanding who can build and modernize their applications on the platform.

"Enterprises should not need to choose between moving at the speed of AI and keeping their systems stable and secure," said Hillery Hunter, General Manager for IBM Power and CTO, IBM Infrastructure. "We're making Power increasingly self-operating, so the routine work of helping to keep systems available, optimized, and secured can happen autonomously, and our clients' teams can spend their time on innovation instead of upkeep. That's how a business scales AI with control and resilience."

IBM Power S1112: Extending the Capabilities of Power Servers

As enterprises push AI workloads beyond the data center, the IBM Power S1112 is a new one-socket Power11 system built for compact on-prem deployment. The S1112 runs AI workloads locally using Power11 on-chip Matrix Math Acceleration (MMA) for faster inferencing. Power S1112 offers 2x better core performance versus Power S9144 and 3x better core performance versus Power S8145  — with up to 69% greater energy efficiency than the S9146.

To provide clients with the right level of support for this new system, IBM Technology Lifecycle Services is introducing IBM Power Expert Care Premium Essentials, a new incident-focused support tier available exclusively for the Power S1112. Premium Essentials delivers priority access to IBM experts, accelerated response, and intelligent support automation.

IBM Power Autonomous Operations: Managing Infrastructure Through Conversation

IBM Power Autonomous Operations resolves capacity constraint issues up to 15x faster than manual intervention7. Today's enterprise systems can seem to demand constant attention, but manual operations management can make it difficult to manage. IBM Power Autonomous Operations redefines this model by automating and optimizing day-to-day operations across the IBM Power environment. An embedded AI agent that enables natural, conversational interaction can help teams to manage, tune, and streamline their environments without relying on deep domain expertise for every task. The result is a resilient, self-optimizing infrastructure architected to reduce operational burden while accelerating performance and uptime.

IBM Bob Premium Package for i: Making IBM i Development Accessible to More Engineers

IBM i is a fully integrated operating system that remains a vital part of the core business of many companies across major industries, yet modernizing IBM i applications has historically required specialized skills for RPG applications. To help address this challenge, IBM Bob is an AI-powered development assistant that offers an agentic SDLC experience for enterprise developers.

IBM Bob Premium Package for i is engineered to provide built-in support for IBM i conventions and patterns across the full development lifecycle, to help engineers make changes faster, onboard sooner, and evolve applications while prioritizing team capacity along the way. From understanding complex code to moving modernization and AI projects forward, IBM Bob can expand the pool of developers who improve the IBM i applications that organizations depend on every day. Early adopters are already seeing results: Heartland Co-Op estimates 60% faster time for new-to-platform developers to understand complex applications.8

Client Momentum

Clients and partners are already running IBM Power on premises and in the cloud, drawn by its performance, resilience, and hybrid flexibility:

"For a business like ours, reliability and simplicity matter because our customers depend on us every day. IBM Power and IBM i have consistently delivered the stability and security we need to support our operations with confidence. And that continues with the introduction of IBM Bob and the IBM Power S1112. What excites me most about the new Power S1112 is the ability to do more with less through increased capacity, energy efficiency, and the growing focus IBM has on automation, making systems easier to manage for small and midsized businesses. We are also excited about how IBM Bob for IBM i can help our team accelerate modernization by quickly interpreting older RPG code, tracing field logic, generating documentation, and making decades of system knowledge easier to understand and act on. Together, IBM Power, IBM i, and IBM Bob give us a forward-looking foundation to modernize with confidence while continuing to deliver the reliability our business depends on." Jasmine Kaczmarek, vice president of technology, M.R. Williams.

"What I noticed about IBM Bob almost immediately was the level of detail provided as compared to other AIs. I like using AI to build and execute plans for specific projects. Given the exact same prompt, Bob's planning was always 10-fold more detailed than other AIs. More specifics, more details, and provided a better understanding of the steps through the project from beginning to end." Bob Richardson, ERP Support Analyst, Wynne Systems, Inc.

"The new IBM Power S1112 provides us with the flexibility to expand beyond traditional workloads and explore new AI opportunities by running Linux partitions alongside our IBM i environment," said Andy Buchholtz, Owner, Innovative Software Solutions. "Combining that flexibility with the security, reliability, and resilience we trust from the IBM Power platform gives us confidence as we continue to innovate and modernize our business."

"We're no longer reacting to weather. We're prepared for it," said Chad Simpson, CIO, City Home. "Our infrastructure is built to keep the business running, no matter what. We've honed our process to perform role swaps every quarter, and this capability gives us great confidence in our business continuity posture. It's a powerful thing, and it's all thanks to IBM Cloud and Power Virtual Server."

Availability

IBM Power S1112 is expected to be generally available on July 24, 2026, IBM Power Autonomous Operations is expected to be generally available on September 23, 2026, and IBM Bob Premium Package for i was made generally available on June 24, 2026. To learn more, visit ibm.com/power.

Statements regarding IBM's future direction and intent are subject to change or withdrawal without notice and represent goals and objectives only.

About IBM

IBM is a leading provider of global hybrid cloud and AI, and consulting expertise. We help clients in more than 175 countries capitalize on insights from their data, streamline business processes, reduce costs and gain the competitive edge in their industries. Thousands of government and corporate entities in critical infrastructure areas such as financial services, telecommunications and healthcare rely on IBM's hybrid cloud platform and Red Hat OpenShift to affect their digital transformations quickly, efficiently and securely. IBM's breakthrough innovations in AI, quantum computing, industry-specific cloud solutions and consulting deliver open and flexible options to our clients. All of this is backed by IBM's long-standing commitment to trust, transparency, responsibility, inclusivity and service.

Additional Sources

Power S1112 and autonomous IT capabilities blog IBM Power S1112 product page  IBM Institute for Business Value Enterprise 2030 study  Media contact:

Sarah Fraser
IBM Infrastructure Communications
[email protected]

1 Disclaimer 1: The performance and capacity management efficiency claim is based on IBM internal testing conducted in a controlled, representative IBM Power infrastructure environment consisting of eleven IBM Power systems. Capacity thresholds and alerting policies were preconfigured prior to test execution. Under this configuration, the manual operational process entailed—navigating to the performance dashboard for each system, exporting performance data to CSV/XLS format, reviewing and analyzing the data to identify required capacity adjustments, and implementing the changes—required on average 52.59 minutes to detect and resolve capacity‑related conditions across the eleven systems. In a comparable scenario, IBM Power Autonomous Operations, which includes alert ingestion and AI-based, agent-driven diagnostic analysis producing recommended and remedial actions with human-in-the-loop approval to remediate, completed the same process in on average 3.33 minutes.
2 https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/en-us/c-suite-study/cxo
3 https://www.ibm.com/thought-leadership/institute-business-value/en-us/report/enterprise-2030
4 Based on published CPW results comparing Power S1112/4 core to IBM Power S914/4 core. Valid as of 7/14/2026 and available at: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/documents/us-en/10c31775c5d40fed
5 Based on published CPW results comparing Power S1112/4 core to IBM Power S814/4 core. Valid as of 7/14/2026 and available at: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/documents/us-en/10c31775c5d40fed
6 Based on system capability of Power S1112/10c performance 291,300E CPW (extrapolated from 116,500 CPW for 4-cores) @ 540E Watts (539 Performance/Watt) compared to Power S914/8cperformance of 122,500 CPW @ 383 Watts (319 Performance/Watt); 539 / 319 = 1.69 more Performance/Watt
7 Disclaimer 1: The performance and capacity management efficiency claim is based on IBM internal testing conducted in a controlled, representative IBM Power infrastructure environment consisting of eleven IBM Power systems. Capacity thresholds and alerting policies were preconfigured prior to test execution. Under this configuration, the manual operational process entailed—navigating to the performance dashboard for each system, exporting performance data to CSV/XLS format, reviewing and analyzing the data to identify required capacity adjustments, and implementing the changes—required on average 52.59 minutes to detect and resolve capacity‑related conditions across the eleven systems. In a comparable scenario, IBM Power Autonomous Operations, which includes alert ingestion and AI-based, agent-driven diagnostic analysis producing recommended and remedial actions with human-in-the-loop approval to remediate, completed the same process in on average 3.33 minutes.
8 Heartland Co-op Modernizes Grain Operations with IBM i and IBM Bob

SOURCE IBM

, /PRNewswire/ -- M&T Bank Corporation ("M&T" or "the Company") reports quarterly net income of $818 million or $5.32 of diluted earnings per common share.

(Dollars in millions, except per share data)

2Q26

1Q26

2Q25

Earnings Highlights

Net interest income

$        1,792

$        1,752

$        1,713

Taxable-equivalent adjustment

12

11

9

Net interest income - taxable-equivalent

1,804

1,763

1,722

Provision for credit losses

120

140

125

Noninterest income

740

689

683

Noninterest expense

1,349

1,438

1,336

Net income

818

664

716

Net income available to common shareholders - diluted

781

620

679

Diluted earnings per common share

5.32

4.13

4.24

Return on average assets - annualized

1.51 %

1.26 %

1.37 %

Return on average common shareholders' equity - annualized

12.30

9.67

10.39

Average Balance Sheet

Total assets

$     216,532

$     213,828

$    210,261

Interest-bearing deposits at banks

15,061

16,231

19,698

Investment securities

38,728

37,845

35,335

Loans

141,427

138,423

135,407

Deposits (1)

163,524

164,176

163,258

Borrowings

20,794

16,759

14,263

Selected Ratios

(Amounts expressed as a percent, except per share data)

Net interest margin (1)

3.70 %

3.70 %

3.62 %

Efficiency ratio (2)

52.8

58.3

55.2

Net charge-offs to average total loans - annualized

.23

.31

.32

Allowance for loan losses to total loans

1.52

1.53

1.61

Nonaccrual loans to total loans

.84

.89

1.16

Common equity Tier 1 ("CET1") capital ratio (3)

10.19

10.33

10.99

Common shareholders' equity per share

$      176.03

$      173.82

$      166.94

(1)

In conjunction with the implementation of a new general ledger platform during the second quarter of 2026, the Company modified its methodology for calculating annualized taxable-equivalent rates for certain earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, including certain average deposit balances. Previously reported amounts have been adjusted to conform to the current presentation.

(2)

A reconciliation of non-GAAP measures is included in the tables that accompany this release.

(3)

CET1 capital ratio at June 30, 2026 is estimated.

Financial Highlights

Taxable-equivalent net interest income increased $41 million in the recent quarter as compared with the first quarter of 2026 reflecting an additional day in the recent quarter, higher interest income on nonaccrual loans and growth in average earning assets. The net interest margin remained at 3.70%. A $3.0 billion increase in average loan balances in the recent quarter spanned all loan categories including $2.3 billion of growth in average commercial and industrial loans. Commercial real estate loans at June 30, 2026 increased $1.1 billion from March 31, 2026. Noninterest income in the recent quarter reflects a higher distribution from M&T's investment in Bayview Lending Group LLC ("BLG"), an increase in trust income and a rise in revenues from interest rate swap agreements entered into for commercial customers. The decline in noninterest expense reflects seasonal salaries and employee benefits expense recognized in the first quarter of 2026. The allowance for loan losses as a percent of total loans declined 1 basis point to 1.52% at June 30, 2026. In the recent quarter, M&T repurchased 2.1 million shares of its common stock at a total cost of $465 million. M&T's CET1 capital ratio is estimated to be 10.19% at June 30, 2026. Chief Financial Officer Commentary

"M&T generated record earnings per share in the second quarter, reflecting strong contributions from our commercial, retail and institutional services and wealth management businesses. These results reflect the enduring strength of our franchise and the dedication of our employees to making a meaningful difference in the lives of our customers and communities. I want to thank my M&T colleagues. As a result of their commitment, M&T continues to create lasting value for everyone we serve."

- Daryl N. Bible, M&T's Chief Financial Officer

Contact:

Investor Relations: 

Rajiv Ranjan       

716.842.5138

Steve Wendelboe

716.842.5138

Media Relations: 

Frank Lentini   

929.651.0447

 Non-GAAP Measures (1)

(Dollars in millions, except per share data)

2Q26

1Q26

Change
2Q26 vs.
1Q26

2Q25

Change
2Q26 vs.
2Q25

Net operating income

$            823

$            671

23 %

$            724

14 %

Diluted net operating earnings per common share

5.35

4.18

28

4.28

25

Annualized return on average tangible assets

1.59 %

1.33 %

1.44 %

Annualized return on average tangible common equity

18.57

14.51

15.54

Efficiency ratio

52.8

58.3

55.2

Tangible equity per common share

$       117.41

$       115.96

1

$       112.48

4

(1)

A reconciliation of non-GAAP measures is included in the tables that accompany this release.

M&T consistently provides supplemental reporting of its results on a "net operating" or "tangible" basis, from which M&T excludes the after-tax effect of amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets (and the related goodwill and core deposit and other intangible asset balances, net of applicable deferred tax amounts) and expenses associated with merging acquired operations into M&T (when incurred), since such items are considered by management to be "nonoperating" in nature.

 Taxable-equivalent Net Interest Income (1)

(Dollars in millions)

2Q26

1Q26

Change

2Q26 vs.
1Q26

2Q25

Change

2Q26 vs. 
2Q25

Average earning assets

$     195,216

$     192,594

1 %

$     190,535

2 %

Average interest-bearing liabilities (2)

140,354

136,388

3

132,368

6

Net interest income - taxable-equivalent

1,804

1,763

2

1,722

5

Yield on average earning assets (2)

5.40 %

5.35 %

5.51 %

Cost of interest-bearing liabilities (2)

2.36

2.32

2.71

Net interest spread

3.04

3.03

2.80

Net interest margin (2)

3.70

3.70

3.62

(1)

Condensed Consolidated Average Balance Sheet and Annualized Taxable-equivalent Rates are included in the accompanying table herein.

(2)

In conjunction with the implementation of a new general ledger platform during the second quarter of 2026, the Company modified its methodology for calculating annualized taxable-equivalent rates for certain earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, including certain average deposit balances. Previously reported amounts have been adjusted to conform to the current presentation.

Taxable-equivalent net interest income increased $41 million, or 2%, compared with the first quarter of 2026 reflecting an additional calendar day, higher interest income from nonaccrual loans and growth in average loans in the recent quarter. Taxable-equivalent net interest income increased $82 million, or 5%, as compared with the year-earlier second quarter reflecting growth in average loans and investment securities and favorable earning asset and interest-bearing liability repricing, including an improved impact from interest rate swap agreements.

 Average Earning Assets

(Dollars in millions)

2Q26

1Q26

Change

2Q26 vs. 
1Q26

2Q25

Change

2Q26 vs.
2Q25

Interest-bearing deposits at banks

$      15,061

$      16,231

-7 %

$      19,698

-24 %

Investment securities

38,728

37,845

2

35,335

10

Loans (1)

Commercial and industrial

66,069

63,804

4

61,036

8

Real estate - commercial

23,553

23,496

—

25,333

-7

Real estate - residential

25,086

24,817

1

23,684

6

Consumer

26,719

26,306

2

25,354

5

Total loans

141,427

138,423

2

135,407

4

Other

—

95

-100

95

-100

Total earning assets

$    195,216

$    192,594

1

$    190,535

2

(1)

  Supplemental information on loan balances is included in the accompanying table herein.

Average earning assets rose $2.6 billion from the first quarter of 2026 reflecting loan growth and the purchases of investment securities predominantly in the immediately preceding quarter. The increase in average loans reflected broad-based growth in average commercial and industrial loan balances of $2.3 billion and higher average commercial real estate loan balances of $57 million, average residential real estate loan balances of $269 million and average consumer loan balances of $413 million.

Average earning assets increased $4.7 billion from the second quarter of 2025. Average interest-bearing deposits at banks decreased $4.6 billion as liquidity was deployed to originate loans and purchase investment securities. The growth in average loans reflected higher average balances of commercial and industrial loans of $5.0 billion, including growth in loans spanning most industry types, residential real estate loans of $1.4 billion and consumer loans of $1.4 billion. Those increases were partially offset by a $1.8 billion decline in average commercial real estate loan balances, reflecting payoffs.

 Average Interest-bearing Liabilities

(Dollars in millions)

2Q26

1Q26

Change

2Q26 vs.
1Q26

2Q25

Change

2Q26 vs.
2Q25

Interest-bearing deposits

Savings and interest-checking deposits (1)

$       105,752

$       106,570

-1 %

$       103,934

2 %

Time deposits (1)

13,808

13,059

6

14,171

-3

Total interest-bearing deposits (1)

119,560

119,629

—

118,105

1

Short-term borrowings

8,016

5,695

41

3,327

141

Long-term borrowings

12,778

11,064

15

10,936

17

Total interest-bearing liabilities (1)

$       140,354

$       136,388

3

$       132,368

6

(1)

In conjunction with the implementation of a new general ledger platform during the second quarter of 2026, the Company modified its methodology for calculating annualized taxable-equivalent rates for certain earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, including certain average deposit balances. Previously reported amounts have been adjusted to conform to the current presentation.

Average interest-bearing liabilities in the recent quarter rose $4.0 billion from the first quarter of 2026 reflecting an increase in average short-term borrowings from the FHLB of New York and average long-term borrowings from issuances of senior notes and securitizations.

Average interest-bearing liabilities increased $8.0 billion from the second quarter of 2025 reflecting growth in average savings and interest-checking deposits of $1.8 billion and higher average short-term borrowings from the FHLB of New York and long-term borrowings from issuances of senior notes and securitizations.

Provision for Credit Losses/Asset Quality

(Dollars in millions)

2Q26

1Q26

Change

2Q26 vs.

1Q26

2Q25

Change

2Q26 vs.

2Q25

At end of quarter

Nonaccrual loans

$         1,208

$         1,240

-3 %

$          1,573

-23 %

Real estate and other foreclosed assets

23

27

-14

30

-25

Total nonperforming assets

1,231

1,267

-3

1,603

-23

Accruing loans past due 90 days or more (1)

603

646

-7

496

22

Nonaccrual loans as % of loans outstanding

.84 %

.89 %

1.16 %

Allowance for loan losses

$         2,176

$         2,136

2

$          2,197

-1

Allowance for loan losses as % of loans outstanding

1.52 %

1.53 %

1.61 %

Reserve for unfunded credit commitments

$               95

$               95

—

$                80

19

For the period

Provision for loan losses

$             120

$             125

-4

$             105

14

Provision for unfunded credit commitments

—

15

-100

20

-100

Total provision for credit losses

120

140

-14

125

-4

Net charge-offs

80

105

-23

108

-26

Net charge-offs as % of average loans (annualized)

.23 %

.31 %

.32 %

(1)

Predominantly government-guaranteed residential real estate loans.

The provision for credit losses was $120 million in the second quarter of 2026 as compared with $140 million in the immediately preceding quarter and $125 million in the second quarter of 2025. The allowance for loan losses as a percent of loans outstanding was 1.52% at June 30, 2026 and 1.53% at March 31, 2026, improved from 1.61% at June 30, 2025. That improvement reflects lower levels of criticized loans.

Nonaccrual loans were $1.2 billion at each of June 30, 2026 and March 31, 2026, compared with $1.6 billion at June 30, 2025. The lower level of nonaccrual loans at June 30, 2026 and March 31, 2026 as compared with June 30, 2025 reflects a decrease in commercial and industrial and commercial real estate nonaccrual loans.

 Noninterest Income

(Dollars in millions)

2Q26

1Q26

Change

2Q26 vs. 
1Q26

2Q25

Change

2Q26 vs.
2Q25

Mortgage banking revenues (1)

$          127

$          127

— %

$          130

-2 %

Service charges on deposit accounts

144

139

4

137

4

Trust income

197

183

8

182

9

Brokerage services income

35

35

2

31

13

Trading account and other non-hedging derivative gains

22

14

61

12

100

Gain (loss) on bank investment securities

2

4

-57

—

—

Other revenues from operations (2)

213

187

14

191

12

Total

$          740

$          689

8

$          683

8

(1)

Supplemental information on mortgage banking activities is included in the accompanying table herein.

(2)

Supplemental information on other revenues from operations is included in the accompanying table herein.

Effective January 1, 2026, the Company elected to prospectively measure its residential mortgage loan servicing right assets at fair value with changes in fair value reflected in mortgage banking revenues. As a result, amortization associated with residential mortgage loan servicing right assets previously recognized in other costs of operations before 2026 is no longer recorded. Instead beginning in 2026, fair value changes in residential mortgage loan servicing right assets, inclusive of the realization of expected net servicing revenues over time, are included in mortgage banking revenues. On December 31, 2025, the Company began economically hedging the risk of fair value changes in these assets through the use of various interest rate derivative contracts, for which changes in fair value are also reflected in mortgage banking revenues.

Noninterest income in the second quarter of 2026 increased $51 million, or 8%, from 2026's first quarter.

Trust income rose $14 million reflecting higher revenues from the Company's institutional services and wealth management businesses, including seasonal tax service fees. Trading account and other non-hedging derivative gains increased $8 million reflecting higher revenues from interest rate swap transactions with commercial customers. Other revenues from operations increased $26 million reflecting a $47 million distribution from M&T's investment in BLG in the recent quarter as compared with $33 million in the first quarter of 2026 and higher merchant discount and credit card fees. Noninterest income rose $57 million, or 8%, as compared with the second quarter of 2025.

Service charges on deposit accounts increased $7 million reflecting higher commercial and consumer service charges. Trust income rose $15 million reflecting higher revenues from the Company's institutional services and wealth management businesses. Trading account and other non-hedging derivative gains increased $10 million reflecting higher revenues from interest rate swap transactions with commercial customers. Other revenues from operations increased $22 million reflecting a $47 million distribution from M&T's investment in BLG in the recent quarter, partially offset by a $15 million gain on the sale of an out-of-footprint residential builder and developer loan portfolio and a $10 million gain on the sale of a subsidiary that specialized in institutional services each in the second quarter of 2025.  Noninterest Expense

(Dollars in millions)

2Q26

1Q26

Change

2Q26 vs.
1Q26

2Q25

Change

2Q26 vs.
2Q25

Salaries and employee benefits

$          826

$          914

-10 %

$          813

2 %

Equipment and net occupancy

129

133

-2

130

—

Outside data processing and software

154

144

8

138

12

Professional and other services

89

93

-5

86

2

FDIC assessments

18

23

-27

22

-21

Advertising and marketing

27

21

31

25

8

Amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets

7

9

-26

9

-27

Other costs of operations

99

101

-2

113

-12

Total

$       1,349

$       1,438

-6

$       1,336

1

Noninterest expense declined $89 million, or 6%, from the first quarter of 2026.

Salaries and employee benefits expense decreased $88 million reflecting seasonally higher stock-based compensation, payroll-related taxes and other employee benefits expense in the first quarter of 2026 and lower average staffing levels in the recent quarter, partially offset by the full-quarter impact of annual merit increases and an additional working day in the recent quarter. Outside data processing and software costs increased $10 million reflecting costs associated with enhancements to the Company's technology infrastructure, cybersecurity and financial recordkeeping and reporting systems. Noninterest expense increased $13 million, or 1%, from the second quarter of 2025.

Salaries and employee benefits expense increased $13 million reflecting higher salaries expense from annual merit and other increases and a rise in incentive compensation, partially offset by lower staffing levels in the recent quarter. Outside data processing and software costs rose $16 million reflecting costs associated with enhancements to the Company's technology infrastructure, cybersecurity and financial recordkeeping and reporting systems. Other costs of operations decreased $14 million reflecting the amortization associated with residential mortgage loan servicing right assets in the second quarter of 2025, partially offset by higher expense associated with the Company's supplemental executive retirement savings plan. Income Taxes

The Company's effective income tax rate was 23.1% in the second quarter of 2026, compared with 23.0% and 23.4% in the first quarter of 2026 and the second quarter of 2025, respectively.

Capital and Liquidity

2Q26

1Q26

2Q25

CET1

10.19 %

(1)

10.33 %

10.99 %

Tier 1 capital

11.64

(1)

11.81

12.50

Total capital

13.72

(1)

13.61

13.96

Tangible capital – common

8.07

8.26

8.67

(1)

Capital ratios at June 30, 2026 are estimated.

M&T's capital ratios remained well above the minimum set forth by regulatory requirements. Cash dividends declared on M&T's common and preferred stock totaled $220 million and $35 million, respectively, for the quarter ended June 30, 2026. M&T's current stress capital buffer is 2.7%.

M&T repurchased shares of its common stock at a cost of $465 million during the recent quarter, compared with $1.25 billion and $1.08 billion in the first quarter of 2026 and the second quarter of 2025, respectively.

The CET1 capital ratio for M&T was estimated at 10.19% as of June 30, 2026. M&T's total risk-weighted assets at June 30, 2026 are estimated to be $167.9 billion. Reflecting loan growth and share repurchase activity in the recent quarter, M&T's tangible common equity to tangible asset ratio at June 30, 2026 decreased 19 basis points from March 31, 2026 and 60 basis points from June 30, 2025.

While not subject to the liquidity coverage ratio ("LCR") requirements, M&T estimates that its LCR on June 30, 2026 was 106%, exceeding the regulatory minimum standards that would be applicable if it were a Category III institution subject to the Category III reduced LCR requirements.

Conference Call

Investors will have an opportunity to listen to M&T's conference call to discuss second quarter financial results today at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Those wishing to participate in the call may dial (800) 347-7315. International participants, using any applicable international calling codes, may dial (785) 424-1755. Callers should reference M&T Bank Corporation or the conference ID #MTBQ226. The conference call will be webcast live through M&T's website at https://ir.mtb.com/news-events/events-presentations. A replay of the call will be available through Wednesday July 22, 2026, by calling (800) 695-2533 or (402) 530-9029 for international participants. No conference ID or passcode is required. The event will also be archived and available by 3:00 p.m. today on M&T's website at https://ir.mtb.com/news-events/events-presentations. 

About M&T

M&T is a financial holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York. M&T's principal banking subsidiary, M&T Bank, provides banking products and services with a branch and ATM network spanning the eastern U.S. from Maine to Virginia and Washington, D.C. Trust-related services are provided in select markets in the U.S. and abroad by M&T's Wilmington Trust-affiliated companies and by M&T Bank. For more information on M&T Bank, visit www.mtb.com. 

Forward-Looking Statements

This news release and related conference call may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the rules and regulations of the SEC. Any statement that does not describe historical or current facts is a forward-looking statement, including statements based on current expectations, estimates and projections about M&T's business, and management's beliefs and assumptions.

Statements regarding the potential effects of events or factors specific to M&T and/or the financial industry as a whole, as well as national and global events generally, on M&T's business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations may constitute forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to the risk that the actual effects may differ, possibly materially, from what is reflected in those forward-looking statements due to factors and future developments that are uncertain, unpredictable and in many cases beyond M&T's control.

Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "intend," "target," "estimate," "continue," or "potential," by future conditional verbs such as "will," "would," "should," "could," or "may," or by variations of such words or by similar expressions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions which are difficult to predict and may cause actual outcomes to differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted.

While there can be no assurance that any list of risks and uncertainties is complete, important factors that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from those contemplated by forward-looking statements include the following, without limitation: economic conditions and growth rates, including inflation and market volatility; events, developments and current conditions in the financial services industry, including trust, brokerage and investment management businesses; changes in interest rates, spreads on earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, and interest rate sensitivity; prepayment speeds, loan originations, loan concentrations by type and industry, credit losses and market values on loans, collateral securing loans, and other assets; sources of liquidity; levels of client deposits; ability to contain costs and expenses; changes in M&T's credit ratings; domestic or international political developments and other geopolitical events, including trade and tariff policies and international conflicts and hostilities; changes and trends in the securities markets; common shares outstanding and common stock price volatility; fair value of and number of stock-based compensation awards to be issued in future periods; the impact of changes in market values on trust-, brokerage-, and investment management-related revenues; federal, state or local legislation and/or regulations affecting the financial services industry, or M&T and its subsidiaries individually or collectively, including tax policy; regulatory supervision and oversight, including monetary policy and capital requirements; governmental and public policy changes; political conditions, either nationally or in the states in which M&T and its subsidiaries do business; the initiation and outcome of potential, pending and future litigation, investigations and governmental proceedings, including tax-related examinations and other matters; operational risk events, including loss resulting from fraud by employees or persons outside M&T and breaches in data and cybersecurity; changes in accounting policies or procedures as may be required by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, regulatory agencies or legislation; increasing price, product and service competition by competitors, including new entrants; technological developments and changes; the ability to continue to introduce competitive new products and services on a timely, cost-effective basis; the mix of products and services; protection and validity of intellectual property rights; reliance on large customers; technological, implementation and cost/financial risks in large, multi-year contracts; continued availability of financing; financial resources in the amounts, at the times and on the terms required to support M&T and its subsidiaries' future businesses; and material differences in the actual financial results of merger, acquisition, divestment and investment activities compared with M&T's initial expectations, including the full realization of anticipated cost savings and revenue enhancements.

These are representative of the factors that could affect the outcome of the forward-looking statements. In addition, as noted, such statements could be affected by general industry and market conditions and growth rates, general economic and political conditions, either nationally or in the states in which M&T and its subsidiaries do business, and other factors.

M&T provides further detail regarding these risks and uncertainties in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, including in the Risk Factors section of such report, as well as in other SEC filings. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and M&T assumes no duty and does not undertake to update forward-looking statements.

Financial Highlights

Three Months Ended

Six Months Ended

June 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions, except per share, shares in thousands)

2026

2025

Change

2026

2025

Change

Performance

Net income

$         818

$         716

14 %

$       1,482

$       1,300

14 %

Net income available to common shareholders

781

679

15

1,401

1,226

14

Per common share:

Basic earnings

5.35

4.26

26

9.49

7.58

25

Diluted earnings

5.32

4.24

25

9.44

7.55

25

Cash dividends

1.50

1.35

11

3.00

2.70

11

Common shares outstanding:

Average - diluted

146,758

160,005

-8

148,424

162,511

-9

Period end

144,933

156,532

-7

144,933

156,532

-7

Return on (annualized):

Average total assets

1.51 %

1.37 %

1.39 %

1.25 %

Average common shareholders' equity

12.30

10.39

10.98

9.37

Taxable-equivalent net interest income

$       1,804

$       1,722

5

$       3,567

$       3,429

4

Yield on average earning assets (1)

5.40 %

5.51 %

5.38 %

5.51 %

Cost of interest-bearing liabilities (1)

2.36

2.71

2.35

2.70

Net interest spread (1)

3.04

2.80

3.03

2.81

Contribution of interest-free funds (1)

.66

.82

.67

.83

Net interest margin

3.70

3.62

3.70

3.64

Net charge-offs to average total net loans (annualized)

.23

.32

.27

.33

Net operating results (2)

Net operating income

$         823

$         724

14

$       1,494

$       1,318

13

Diluted net operating earnings per common share

5.35

4.28

25

9.52

7.66

24

Return on (annualized):

Average tangible assets

1.59 %

1.44 %

1.46 %

1.32 %

Average tangible common equity

18.57

15.54

16.52

14.03

Efficiency ratio

52.8

55.2

55.5

57.8

At June 30,

Loan quality

2026

2025

Change

Nonaccrual loans

$       1,208

$       1,573

-23 %

Real estate and other foreclosed assets

23

30

-25

Total nonperforming assets

$       1,231

$       1,603

-23

Accruing loans past due 90 days or more

$         603

$         496

22

Government guaranteed loans included in totals above:

Nonaccrual loans

$           78

$           75

4

Accruing loans past due 90 days or more

586

450

30

Nonaccrual loans to total loans

.84 %

1.16 %

Allowance for loan losses to total loans

1.52

1.61

Additional information

Period end common stock price

$     238.01

$     193.99

23

Full-service domestic banking offices (3)

911

941

-3

Full-time equivalent employees

21,662

22,590

-4

(1)

In conjunction with the implementation of a new general ledger platform during the second quarter of 2026, the Company modified its methodology for calculating annualized taxable-equivalent rates for certain earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, including certain average deposit balances. Previously reported amounts have been adjusted to conform to the current presentation.

(2)

Excludes amortization and balances related to goodwill and core deposit and other intangible assets and merger-related expenses which, except in the calculation of the efficiency ratio, are net of applicable income tax effects. Reconciliations of net income with net operating income appear herein.

(3)

In the first quarter of 2026, thirteen domestic branches formerly classified as full service were designated as limited service per regulatory filings.

Financial Highlights, Five Quarter Trend

Three Months Ended

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions, except per share, shares in thousands)

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

Performance

Net income

$             818

$             664

$             759

$             792

$             716

Net income available to common shareholders

781

620

718

754

679

Per common share:

Basic earnings

5.35

4.16

4.71

4.85

4.26

Diluted earnings

5.32

4.13

4.67

4.82

4.24

Cash dividends

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.35

Common shares outstanding:

Average - diluted

146,758

150,109

153,712

156,553

160,005

Period end

144,933

146,917

151,840

154,518

156,532

Return on (annualized):

Average total assets

1.51 %

1.26 %

1.41 %

1.49 %

1.37 %

Average common shareholders' equity

12.30

9.67

10.87

11.45

10.39

Taxable-equivalent net interest income

$           1,804

$           1,763

$           1,790

$           1,773

$           1,722

Yield on average earning assets (1)

5.40 %

5.35 %

5.47 %

5.60 %

5.51 %

Cost of interest-bearing liabilities (1)

2.36

2.32

2.52

2.72

2.71

Net interest spread

3.04

3.03

2.95

2.88

2.80

Contribution of interest-free funds (1)

.66

.67

.75

.81

.82

Net interest margin (1)

3.70

3.70

3.70

3.69

3.62

Net charge-offs to average total net loans (annualized)

.23

.31

.54

.42

.32

Net operating results (2)

Net operating income

$             823

$             671

$             767

$             798

$             724

Diluted net operating earnings per common share

5.35

4.18

4.72

4.87

4.28

Return on (annualized):

Average tangible assets

1.59 %

1.33 %

1.49 %

1.56 %

1.44 %

Average tangible common equity

18.57

14.51

16.24

17.13

15.54

Efficiency ratio

52.8

58.3

55.1

53.6

55.2

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

Loan quality

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

Nonaccrual loans

$           1,208

$           1,240

$           1,252

$           1,512

$           1,573

Real estate and other foreclosed assets

23

27

35

37

30

Total nonperforming assets

$           1,231

$           1,267

$           1,287

$           1,549

$           1,603

Accruing loans past due 90 days or more

$              603

$              646

$              561

$              432

$              496

Government guaranteed loans included in totals above:

Nonaccrual loans

78

85

83

71

75

Accruing loans past due 90 days or more

586

634

543

403

450

Nonaccrual loans to total loans

.84 %

.89 %

.90 %

1.10 %

1.16 %

Allowance for loan losses to total loans

1.52

1.53

1.53

1.58

1.61

Additional information

Period end common stock price

$         238.01

$         206.72

$         201.48

$         197.62

$         193.99

Full-service domestic banking offices (3)

911

930

942

942

941

Full-time equivalent employees

21,662

21,866

22,080

22,383

22,590

(1)

In conjunction with the implementation of a new general ledger platform during the second quarter of 2026, the Company modified its methodology for calculating annualized taxable-equivalent rates for certain earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, including certain average deposit balances. Previously reported amounts have been adjusted to conform to the current presentation.

(2)

Excludes amortization and balances related to goodwill and core deposit and other intangible assets and merger-related expenses which, except in the calculation of the efficiency ratio, are net of applicable income tax effects. Reconciliations of net income with net operating income appear herein.

(3)

In the first quarter of 2026, thirteen domestic branches formerly classified as full service were designated as limited service per regulatory filings.

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income

Three Months Ended

Six Months Ended

June 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2025

Change

2026

2025

Change

Interest income

$   2,620

$   2,609

— %

$   5,156

$   5,169

— %

Interest expense

828

896

-8

1,612

1,761

-8

Net interest income

1,792

1,713

5

3,544

3,408

4

Provision for credit losses

120

125

-4

260

255

2

Net interest income after provision for credit losses

1,672

1,588

5

3,284

3,153

4

Other income

Mortgage banking revenues

127

130

-2

254

248

2

Service charges on deposit accounts

144

137

4

283

270

5

Trust income

197

182

9

380

359

6

Brokerage services income

35

31

13

70

63

11

Trading account and other non-hedging

derivative gains

22

12

100

36

21

74

Gain (loss) on bank investment securities

2

—

—

6

—

—

Other revenues from operations

213

191

12

400

333

20

Total other income

740

683

8

1,429

1,294

10

Other expense

Salaries and employee benefits

826

813

2

1,740

1,700

2

Equipment and net occupancy

129

130

—

262

262

—

Outside data processing and software

154

138

12

298

274

9

Professional and other services

89

86

2

182

170

7

FDIC assessments

18

22

-21

41

45

-10

Advertising and marketing

27

25

8

48

47

1

Amortization of core deposit and other

intangible assets

7

9

-27

16

22

-27

Other costs of operations

99

113

-12

200

231

-13

Total other expense

1,349

1,336

1

2,787

2,751

1

Income before taxes

1,063

935

14

1,926

1,696

14

Income taxes

245

219

12

444

396

12

Net income

$      818

$      716

14 %

$   1,482

$   1,300

14 %

Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income, Five Quarter Trend

Three Months Ended

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

Interest income

$        2,620

$        2,536

$             2,637

$             2,680

$        2,609

Interest expense

828

784

858

919

896

Net interest income

1,792

1,752

1,779

1,761

1,713

Provision for credit losses

120

140

125

125

125

Net interest income after provision for credit losses

1,672

1,612

1,654

1,636

1,588

Other income

Mortgage banking revenues

127

127

155

147

130

Service charges on deposit accounts

144

139

140

141

137

Trust income

197

183

184

181

182

Brokerage services income

35

35

34

34

31

Trading account and other non-hedging
     derivative gains

22

14

19

18

12

Gain (loss) on bank investment securities

2

4

1

1

—

Other revenues from operations

213

187

163

230

191

Total other income

740

689

696

752

683

Other expense

Salaries and employee benefits

826

914

809

833

813

Equipment and net occupancy

129

133

134

129

130

Outside data processing and software

154

144

146

138

138

Professional and other services

89

93

105

81

86

FDIC assessments

18

23

(8)

13

22

Advertising and marketing

27

21

32

23

25

Amortization of core deposit and other
     intangible assets

7

9

10

10

9

Other costs of operations

99

101

151

136

113

Total other expense

1,349

1,438

1,379

1,363

1,336

Income before taxes

1,063

863

971

1,025

935

Income taxes

245

199

212

233

219

Net income

$            818

$            664

$                759

$                792

$            716

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2025

Change

ASSETS

Cash and due from banks

$         1,939

$         2,128

-9 %

Interest-bearing deposits at banks

15,499

19,297

-20

Investment securities

38,374

35,568

8

Loans:

Commercial and industrial

66,143

61,660

7

Real estate - commercial

24,492

24,567

—

Real estate - residential

25,384

24,117

5

Consumer

27,174

25,772

5

Total loans

143,193

136,116

5

Less: allowance for loan losses

2,176

2,197

-1

Net loans

141,017

133,919

5

Goodwill

8,465

8,465

—

Core deposit and other intangible assets

48

84

-43

Other assets

13,919

12,123

15

Total assets

$     219,261

$     211,584

4 %

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

Noninterest-bearing deposits

$       48,295

$       47,485

2 %

Interest-bearing deposits

120,590

116,968

3

Total deposits

168,885

164,453

3

Short-term borrowings

4,614

2,071

123

Long-term borrowings

13,568

12,380

10

Accrued interest and other liabilities

4,248

4,155

2

Total liabilities

191,315

183,059

5

Shareholders' equity:

Preferred

2,434

2,394

2

Common

25,512

26,131

-2

Total shareholders' equity

27,946

28,525

-2

Total liabilities and shareholders' equity

$     219,261

$     211,584

4 %

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, Five Quarter Trend

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

ASSETS

Cash and due from banks

$             1,939

$             1,903

$             1,701

$             1,950

$             2,128

Interest-bearing deposits at banks

15,499

14,445

17,068

16,751

19,297

Investment securities

38,374

38,621

36,649

36,864

35,568

Loans:

Commercial and industrial

66,143

65,391

63,548

61,887

61,660

Real estate - commercial

24,492

23,345

23,819

24,046

24,567

Real estate - residential

25,384

24,857

24,874

24,662

24,117

Consumer

27,174

26,321

26,461

26,379

25,772

Total loans

143,193

139,914

138,702

136,974

136,116

Less: allowance for loan losses

2,176

2,136

2,116

2,161

2,197

Net loans

141,017

137,778

136,586

134,813

133,919

Goodwill

8,465

8,465

8,465

8,465

8,465

Core deposit and other intangible assets

48

55

64

74

84

Other assets

13,919

13,469

12,977

12,360

12,123

Total assets

$        219,261

$        214,736

$        213,510

$        211,277

$        211,584

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

Noninterest-bearing deposits

$          48,295

$          45,892

$          46,509

$          44,994

$          47,485

Interest-bearing deposits

120,590

117,849

120,400

118,432

116,968

Total deposits

168,885

163,741

166,909

163,426

164,453

Short-term borrowings

4,614

7,851

2,149

2,059

2,071

Long-term borrowings

13,568

11,175

10,911

12,928

12,380

Accrued interest and other liabilities

4,248

3,997

4,364

4,136

4,155

Total liabilities

191,315

186,764

184,333

182,549

183,059

Shareholders' equity:

Preferred

2,434

2,434

2,834

2,394

2,394

Common

25,512

25,538

26,343

26,334

26,131

Total shareholders' equity

27,946

27,972

29,177

28,728

28,525

Total liabilities and shareholders' equity

$        219,261

$        214,736

$        213,510

$        211,277

$        211,584

Condensed Consolidated Average Balance Sheet and Annualized Taxable-equivalent Rates

Three Months Ended

Change in Balance

Six Months Ended

June 30,

March 31,

June 30,

June 30, 2026 from

June 30,

Change

2026

2026

2025

March 31,

June 30,

2026

2025

in

(Dollars in millions)

Balance

Rate

Balance

Rate

Balance

Rate

2026

2025

Balance

Rate

Balance

Rate

Balance

ASSETS

Interest-bearing deposits at banks

$   15,061

3.72 %

$   16,231

3.71 %

$   19,698

4.47 %

-7 %

-24 %

$   15,642

3.72 %

$   19,697

4.48 %

-21 %

Investment securities (1) (2)

38,728

4.29

37,845

4.22

35,335

3.80

2

10

38,289

4.25

34,909

3.88

10

Loans:

Commercial and industrial

66,069

6.00

63,804

6.00

61,036

6.40

4

8

64,942

6.00

61,046

6.38

6

Real estate - commercial (1)

23,553

6.27

23,496

6.11

25,333

6.40

—

-7

23,525

6.19

25,794

6.32

-9

Real estate - residential

25,086

4.64

24,817

4.56

23,684

4.52

1

6

24,952

4.60

23,431

4.48

6

Consumer

26,719

6.46

26,306

6.48

25,354

6.57

2

5

26,514

6.47

24,856

6.57

7

Total loans (1)

141,427

5.89

138,423

5.85

135,407

6.10

2

4

139,933

5.87

135,127

6.08

4

Other (1)

—

—

95

3.49

95

3.47

-100

-100

47

—

96

3.47

-51

Total earning assets (1)

195,216

5.40

192,594

5.35

190,535

5.51

1

2

193,911

5.38

189,829

5.51

2

Goodwill

8,465

8,465

8,465

—

—

8,465

8,465

—

Core deposit and other intangible assets

51

59

89

-13

-42

55

90

-39

Other assets

12,800

12,710

11,172

1

15

12,755

10,912

17

Total assets

$   216,532

$   213,828

$   210,261

1 %

3 %

$   215,186

$   209,296

3 %

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY

Interest-bearing deposits

Savings and interest-checking

      deposits (1)

$   105,752

1.81 %

$   106,570

1.84 %

$   103,934

2.24 %

-1 %

2 %

$   106,159

1.82 %

$   102,741

2.22 %

3 %

Time deposits (1)

13,808

3.02

13,059

3.02

14,171

3.48

6

-3

13,435

3.02

14,140

3.52

-5

Total interest-bearing deposits (1)

119,560

1.95

119,629

1.97

118,105

2.39

—

1

119,594

1.96

116,881

2.38

2

Short-term borrowings

8,016

3.86

5,695

3.86

3,327

4.49

41

141

6,862

3.86

3,100

4.51

121

Long-term borrowings (1)

12,778

5.33

11,064

5.41

10,936

5.70

15

17

11,926

5.37

11,109

5.64

7

Total interest-bearing liabilities (1)

140,354

2.36

136,388

2.32

132,368

2.71

3

6

138,382

2.35

131,090

2.70

6

Noninterest-bearing deposits

43,964

44,547

45,153

-1

-3

44,254

45,294

-2

Other liabilities (1)

4,275

4,245

4,074

1

5

4,259

4,081

4

Total liabilities

188,593

185,180

181,595

2

4

186,895

180,465

4

Shareholders' equity

27,939

28,648

28,666

-2

-3

28,291

28,831

-2

Total liabilities and shareholders' equity

$   216,532

$   213,828

$   210,261

1 %

3 %

$   215,186

$   209,296

3 %

Net interest spread (1)

3.04

3.03

2.80

3.03

2.81

Contribution of interest-free funds (1)

.66

.67

.82

.67

.83

Net interest margin (1)

3.70 %

3.70 %

3.62 %

3.70 %

3.64 %

(1)

In conjunction with the implementation of a new general ledger platform during the second quarter of 2026, the Company modified its methodology for calculating annualized taxable-equivalent rates for certain earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, including certain average deposit balances. Previously reported amounts have been adjusted to conform to the current presentation.

(2)

Yields on investment securities for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2025 reflect $20 million and $18 million, respectively, of lower taxable-equivalent interest income resulting from an alignment of amortization periods for certain municipal bonds obtained from the acquisition of People's United Financial, Inc.

Supplemental Information - Loan Balances

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

Commercial and industrial

Commercial and industrial excluding

   owner-occupied real estate by industry:

Financial and insurance

$         13,852

$         13,545

$         12,794

$         12,084

$         12,138

Services

8,559

8,235

7,910

7,689

7,646

Motor vehicle and recreational finance dealers

6,972

7,069

7,191

6,637

6,502

Manufacturing

6,407

6,424

6,112

6,241

6,189

Wholesale

4,343

4,359

4,386

4,246

4,246

Transportation, communications, utilities

4,208

3,937

3,890

3,755

3,807

Retail

3,330

3,316

3,098

3,114

3,079

Construction

2,450

2,311

2,265

2,206

2,275

Health services

1,712

1,841

1,822

1,780

1,879

Real estate investors

1,526

1,668

1,579

1,506

1,314

Other

1,400

1,365

1,303

1,568

1,377

Total commercial and industrial

   excluding owner-occupied real estate

54,759

54,070

52,350

50,826

50,452

Owner-occupied real estate by industry:

Services

2,362

2,377

2,368

2,308

2,402

Motor vehicle and recreational finance dealers

2,180

2,217

2,234

2,162

2,239

Retail

1,926

1,916

1,893

1,825

1,808

Health services

1,464

1,335

1,268

1,320

1,313

Wholesale

1,035

1,029

978

975

951

Manufacturing

712

727

791

783

785

Real estate investors

607

617

616

634

630

Other

1,098

1,103

1,050

1,054

1,080

Total owner-occupied real estate

11,384

11,321

11,198

11,061

11,208

Total commercial and industrial

66,143

65,391

63,548

61,887

61,660

Commercial real estate

Permanent finance by property type:

Apartments/Multifamily

7,124

6,628

6,837

6,548

6,082

Retail/Service

4,259

4,237

4,164

4,320

4,435

Industrial/Warehouse

3,276

2,462

2,297

2,175

2,098

Office

3,147

3,282

3,423

3,487

3,720

Hotel

1,665

1,727

1,743

1,776

1,889

Health Services

1,583

1,507

1,548

1,554

1,669

Other

180

187

180

202

262

Total permanent

21,234

20,030

20,192

20,062

20,155

Construction/Development

3,258

3,315

3,627

3,984

4,412

Total commercial real estate

24,492

23,345

23,819

24,046

24,567

Residential real estate

Residential real estate

25,384

24,857

24,874

24,662

24,117

Consumer

Home equity lines and loans

4,891

4,796

4,807

4,730

4,634

Recreational finance

14,856

14,144

14,092

14,152

13,666

Automobile

4,969

5,016

5,167

5,223

5,260

Other

2,458

2,365

2,395

2,274

2,212

Total consumer

27,174

26,321

26,461

26,379

25,772

Total loans

$       143,193

$       139,914

$       138,702

$       136,974

$       136,116

Supplemental Information - Mortgage Banking Activities

Three Months Ended

Change

Six Months Ended

Change

June 30,

March 31,

June 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

Amount

%

2026

2025

Amount

%

Residential mortgage banking revenues

Gains on loans originated for sale

$               7

$                8

$       (1)

-9 %

$             15

$            14

$         1

5 %

Loan servicing:

Loan servicing fees

33

32

1

2

65

70

(5)

-6

Changes in fair value of mortgage loan

   servicing right assets, net of hedging activities

(11)

(13)

2

15

(24)

—

(24)

—

Loan sub-servicing and other fees

67

62

5

9

129

95

34

35

Total loan servicing

89

81

8

10

170

165

5

3

Total residential mortgage banking revenues

$             96

$              89

$         7

8 %

$           185

$          179

$         6

3 %

New commitments to originate loans for sale

$           411

$            400

$       11

3 %

$           811

$          612

$     199

33 %

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

Balances at period end

Loans held for sale

$               256

$               327

$               441

$               327

$               222

Commitments to originate loans for sale

258

222

224

329

248

Commitments to sell loans

467

544

645

576

407

Capitalized mortgage loan servicing assets

540

542

287

305

326

Loans serviced for others

35,253

35,586

35,873

36,421

36,952

Loans sub-serviced for others

183,599

123,968

156,938

161,785

157,608

Total loans serviced for others

$        218,852

$        159,554

$        192,811

$        198,206

$        194,560

Three Months Ended

Change

Six Months Ended

Change

June 30,

March 31,

June 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

Amount

%

2026

2025

Amount

%

Commercial mortgage banking revenues

Gains on loans originated for sale

$              13

$                18

$       (5)

-28 %

$              31

$              30

$         1

3 %

Loan servicing fees and other

18

20

(2)

-11

38

39

(1)

—

Total commercial mortgage banking revenues

$              31

$                38

$       (7)

-19 %

$              69

$              69

$       —

1 %

Loans originated for sale to other investors

$            746

$           1,135

$   (389)

-34 %

$         1,881

$         2,087

$   (206)

-10 %

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

Balances at period end

Loans held for sale

$               259

$               359

$               484

$               278

$               361

Commitments to originate loans for sale

485

529

773

1,074

659

Commitments to sell loans

740

903

1,253

1,292

1,017

Capitalized mortgage loan servicing assets

136

138

132

123

124

Loans serviced for others

31,368

30,934

30,309

28,957

28,416

Loans sub-serviced for others

4,072

4,194

4,231

4,297

4,209

Total loans serviced for others

$          35,440

$          35,128

$          34,540

$          33,254

$          32,625

Supplemental Information - Other Revenues from Operations

Three Months Ended

Six Months Ended

June 30,

March 31,

Change

June 30,

June 30,

Change

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

Amount

%

2026

2025

Amount

%

Letter of credit and other credit-related fees

$             55

$                54

$          1

— %

$           109

$           107

$          2

2 %

Merchant discount and credit card fees

47

41

6

17

88

89

(1)

-2

Bank owned life insurance revenue

20

18

2

5

38

35

3

8

Equipment operating lease income

11

11

—

1

22

25

(3)

-12

BLG income

47

33

14

43

80

—

80

—

Other

33

30

3

11

63

77

(14)

-17

Total other revenues from operations

$           213

$              187

$        26

14 %

$           400

$           333

$        67

20 %

Three Months Ended

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

(Dollars in millions)

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

Letter of credit and other credit-related fees

$                  55

$                  54

$                    57

$                    55

$                  58

Merchant discount and credit card fees

47

41

46

51

50

Bank owned life insurance revenue

20

18

19

21

17

Equipment operating lease income

11

11

11

12

14

BLG income

47

33

—

20

—

Other

33

30

30

71

52

Total other revenues from operations

$                213

$                187

$                  163

$                  230

$                191

Supplemental Information - Interest Rate Swap Agreements

(Dollars in billions)

June 30, 2026

September 30, 2026

December 31, 2026

March 31, 2027

June 30, 2027

September 30, 2027

December 31, 2027

Fair value hedges:

Active

$         6.1

$             6.1

$             6.1

$          6.1

$         6.1

$             5.1

$             5.1

Cash flow hedges:

Active

16.0

13.7

14.5

14.0

12.7

10.7

9.6

Forward-starting

10.2

5.0

4.2

2.0

—

—

—

Fair value hedges -

   weighted-average fixed rate:

Active

3.56 %

3.56 %

3.56 %

3.56 %

3.56 %

3.66 %

3.66 %

Cash flow hedges -

   weighted-average fixed rate:

Active

3.82

3.62

3.62

3.60

3.64

3.63

3.57

Forward-starting

3.52

3.64

3.65

3.91

—

—

—

Reconciliation of Quarterly GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures

Three Months Ended

Six Months Ended

June 30,

June 30,

2026

2025

2026

2025

(Dollars in millions, except per share)

Income statement data

Net income

Net income

$       818

$       716

$    1,482

$    1,300

Amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets (1)

5

8

12

18

Net operating income

$       823

$       724

$    1,494

$    1,318

Earnings per common share

Diluted earnings per common share

$      5.32

$      4.24

$      9.44

$      7.55

Amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets (1)

.03

.04

.08

.11

Diluted net operating earnings per common share

$      5.35

$      4.28

$      9.52

$      7.66

Other expense

Other expense

$    1,349

$    1,336

$    2,787

$    2,751

Amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets

(7)

(9)

(16)

(22)

Noninterest operating expense

$    1,342

$    1,327

$    2,771

$    2,729

Efficiency ratio

Noninterest operating expense (numerator)

$    1,342

$    1,327

$    2,771

$    2,729

Taxable-equivalent net interest income

$    1,804

$    1,722

$    3,567

$    3,429

Other income

740

683

1,429

1,294

Less: Gain (loss) on bank investment securities

2

—

6

—

Denominator

$    2,542

$    2,405

$    4,990

$    4,723

Efficiency ratio

52.8 %

55.2 %

55.5 %

57.8 %

Balance sheet data

Average assets

Average assets

$ 216,532

$ 210,261

$ 215,186

$ 209,296

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(51)

(89)

(55)

(90)

Deferred taxes

17

26

18

26

Average tangible assets

$ 208,033

$ 201,733

$ 206,684

$ 200,767

Average common equity

Average total equity

$  27,939

$  28,666

$  28,291

$  28,831

Preferred stock

(2,434)

(2,394)

(2,505)

(2,394)

Average common equity

25,505

26,272

25,786

26,437

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(51)

(89)

(55)

(90)

Deferred taxes

17

26

18

26

Average tangible common equity

$  17,006

$  17,744

$  17,284

$  17,908

At end of quarter

Total assets

Total assets

$ 219,261

$ 211,584

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(48)

(84)

Deferred taxes

17

25

Total tangible assets

$ 210,765

$ 203,060

Total common equity

Total equity

$  27,946

$  28,525

Preferred stock

(2,434)

(2,394)

Common equity

25,512

26,131

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(48)

(84)

Deferred taxes

17

25

Total tangible common equity

$  17,016

$  17,607

(1)

After any related tax effect.

Reconciliation of Quarterly GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures, Five Quarter Trend

Three Months Ended

June 30,

March 31,

December 31,

September 30,

June 30,

2026

2026

2025

2025

2025

(Dollars in millions, except per share)

Income statement data

Net income

Net income

$             818

$             664

$             759

$             792

$             716

Amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets (1)

5

7

8

6

8

Net operating income

$             823

$             671

$             767

$             798

$             724

Earnings per common share

Diluted earnings per common share

$             5.32

$             4.13

$             4.67

$             4.82

$             4.24

Amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets (1)

.03

.05

.05

.05

.04

Diluted net operating earnings per common share

$             5.35

$             4.18

$             4.72

$             4.87

$             4.28

Other expense

Other expense

$           1,349

$           1,438

$           1,379

$           1,363

$           1,336

Amortization of core deposit and other intangible assets

(7)

(9)

(10)

(10)

(9)

Noninterest operating expense

$           1,342

$           1,429

$           1,369

$           1,353

$           1,327

Efficiency ratio

Noninterest operating expense (numerator)

$           1,342

$           1,429

$           1,369

$           1,353

$           1,327

Taxable-equivalent net interest income

$           1,804

$           1,763

$           1,790

$           1,773

$           1,722

Other income

740

689

696

752

683

Less: Gain (loss) on bank investment securities

2

4

1

1

—

Denominator

$           2,542

$           2,448

$           2,485

$           2,524

$           2,405

Efficiency ratio

52.8 %

58.3 %

55.1 %

53.6 %

55.2 %

Balance sheet data

Average assets

Average assets

$        216,532

$        213,828

$        212,891

$        211,053

$        210,261

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(51)

(59)

(69)

(79)

(89)

Deferred taxes

17

19

22

24

26

Average tangible assets

$        208,033

$        205,323

$        204,379

$        202,533

$        201,733

Average common equity

Average total equity

$         27,939

$         28,648

$         28,970

$         28,583

$         28,666

Preferred stock

(2,434)

(2,576)

(2,691)

(2,394)

(2,394)

Average common equity

25,505

26,072

26,279

26,189

26,272

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(51)

(59)

(69)

(79)

(89)

Deferred taxes

17

19

22

24

26

Average tangible common equity

$         17,006

$         17,567

$         17,767

$         17,669

$         17,744

At end of quarter

Total assets

Total assets

$        219,261

$        214,736

$        213,510

$        211,277

$        211,584

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(48)

(55)

(64)

(74)

(84)

Deferred taxes

17

18

20

23

25

Total tangible assets

$        210,765

$        206,234

$        205,001

$        202,761

$        203,060

Total common equity

Total equity

$         27,946

$         27,972

$         29,177

$         28,728

$         28,525

Preferred stock

(2,434)

(2,434)

(2,834)

(2,394)

(2,394)

Common equity

25,512

25,538

26,343

26,334

26,131

Goodwill

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

(8,465)

Core deposit and other intangible assets

(48)

(55)

(64)

(74)

(84)

Deferred taxes

17

18

20

23

25

Total tangible common equity

$         17,016

$         17,036

$         17,834

$         17,818

$         17,607

(1)

After any related tax effect.

SOURCE M&T Bank Corporation