Category: 3. Business

More than four years after President Xi Jinping pledged to end China’s financing of overseas coal projects, the annual assessment from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the People of Asia for Climate Solutions (PACS) finds that while some progress has been made, the rise of privately owned off-grid captive coal projects for industrial needs, particularly in Indonesia and Africa, is a growing concern.

While many coal plants have been cancelled, others continue to move forward, especially privately funded, off-grid projects for industrial use, revealing that implementation gaps and loopholes persist.

The assessment analyses five categories — cancelled; pre-permitted; permitted; under construction; operational — and adds a new project category that has emerged this year for idle plants that could return to service at any time without entering a formal permitting process: mothballed. 

As of July 2025, the total capacity of overseas coal projects in the pipeline has dropped to 31.4 gigawatts (GW), down from nearly 50 GW in 2024. Cancellations have also accelerated, after a slowdown in 2024, with 16.4 GW of new capacity cancelled in 2025. Since the 2021 pledge, a total of 59.3 GW of projects have been cancelled, which is equivalent to 6.1 billion tonnes of avoided lifetime carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

Despite these positive trends, operational projects have grown by 4.1 GW in 2025. Most of these projects were under construction in 2024 or about to be commissioned, demonstrating that once a plant enters the construction stage, it is unlikely to be cancelled.

Although the pace of construction has slowed in 2025, 12.1 GW of capacity remains under construction across 14 projects. These consist largely of captive coal projects in Indonesia, India, Laos, Zimbabwe, and Zambia. These are off-grid facilities that serve industrial needs and are owned by private Chinese companies. This loophole casts a growing shadow over the progress made in ending China’s overseas coal investments. See report annex for further details in the field studies.

To-date, China’s overseas captive coal projects have added an estimated 1.5 billion tonnes of lifetime CO₂, which comes to almost half of all emissions currently in operation. The current projects under construction could add a total of around 3.4 billion tonnes of potential lifetime CO₂ emissions upon completion.

Policy recommendations

CREA and PACS propose the following policy recommendations to expedite the implementation of President Xi’s 2021 pledge to phase-out China-backed overseas coal projects, including but not limited to:

• The pledge should explicitly cover captive coal. Approvals and financing should require renewable or hybrid alternatives, best available technology (BAT), environmental standards, and time-bound retirement plans. 
• The prioritisation of financing redirected towards renewable energy investments: solar, wind, hydro, storage, and grid modernisation. In host countries with pre-permit projects, targeted support for project preparation, land and transmission access, and power market reforms can accelerate renewable pipelines and reduce coal dependence. 
• Support for host country transition strategies. China and international partners should expand technical and financial assistance for national transition plans,  cooperating with local authorities to help ensure that the shift away from coal also supports economic resilience and local employment.
• Establishing a dedicated coordinating agency. Since the 2021 pledge, China has yet to designate a body responsible for its enforcement. A dedicated agency with strong coordination and regulatory powers is needed to guide implementation, ensure accountability, and intervene in irresponsible or illegal operations when necessary.

Among 1,503 adolescents randomized, the 7-month follow-up rate was 70.8% (n = 1,064). Data on cannabis use was missing for 48 participants, who provided data only on 7-month nicotine vaping status. Thus, the adolescent analytic sample comprised n = 1,016 participants with follow-up data on both e-cigarette and cannabis use. There was no differential attrition by treatment assignment (p = 0.20), with 66.0% (501 of 759) of Intervention participants retained at 7 months versus 69.2% (515 of 744) of Control. Likewise, there was no differential attrition by baseline cannabis use (p = 0.74), with 68.4% (258 of 377) of Exclusive E-cigarette Users retained at 7 months versus 67.3% (758 of 1126) of Dual Users. At baseline, 74.6% (95% CI = 71.8, 77.3) of adolescents reported past 30-day cannabis use, which decreased to 50.1% (47.0, 53.2) at 7 months, a 24.5% point change (95% CI = 20.8, 28.0; McNemar’s test p < 0.001).

Among 2,588 YAs randomized, the 7-month follow-up rate was 76.0% (n = 1,967). Data on cannabis use was missing for 138 participants, who provided data only on 7-month nicotine vaping status. Thus, the YA analytic sample comprised n = 1,829 participants with follow-up data on both e-cigarette and cannabis use. There was no differential attrition by treatment assignment (p = 0.14), with 69.3% (904 of 1304) of Intervention participants retained at 7 months versus 72.0% (925 of 1284) of Control. Likewise, there was no differential attrition by baseline cannabis use (p = 0.86), with 70.9% (747 of 1053) of Exclusive E-cigarette Users retained at 7 months versus 70.5% (1,082 of 1534) of Dual Users. At baseline, 59.2% (95% CI = 56.9, 61.4) of YAs reported past 30-day cannabis use, which decreased to 55.0% (95% CI = 52.7, 57.3) at 7 months, a 4.2% point change (95% CI = 1.9, 6.4; McNemar’s test p < 0.001).

What were the overall patterns of abstinence from e-cigarettes and cannabis at 7-months?

As shown in Table 1, 31.7% (95% CI = 28.8, 34.6) of adolescents were Dual Abstinent, 18.2% (95% CI = 15.9, 20.7) were Exclusive E-cigarette Users, 15.1% (95% CI = 12.9, 17.4) were Exclusive Cannabis Users, and 35.0% (95% CI = 32.1, 38.1) were Dual Users.

As shown in Table 2, 15.6% (95% CI = 13.9, 17.3) of YAs were Dual Abstinent, 29.4% (95% CI = 27.3, 31.6) were Exclusive E-cigarette Users, 12.8% (95% CI = 11.3, 14.5) were Exclusive Cannabis Users, and 42.2% (95% CI = 39.9, 44.5) were Dual Users.

Was there a treatment effect in promoting dual abstinence at follow-up?

Yes. As shown in Table 1, among adolescents, the rate of Dual Abstinence was 13.5% points higher (95% CI = 7.8, 19.1; p < 0.0001) among those randomized to Intervention (38.5%; 95% CI = 34.4, 42.9) vs. Control (25.0%; 95% CI = 21.5, 29.0). As shown in Table 2, among YAs, the rate of Dual Abstinence was 4.6% points higher (95% CI = 1.3, 7.9; p = 0.007) among those randomized to Intervention (17.9%; 95% CI = 15.5, 20.6) vs. Control (13.3%; 95% CI = 11.2, 15.7).

Did treatment effects in promoting dual abstinence vary by baseline product use?

No. In the adolescent sample, the treatment advantage of Intervention over Control was comparable for Exclusive E-cigarette Users (12.4 points; 95% CI = 0.6, 23.8) and Dual Users (13.9 points; 95% CI = 7.4, 20.3), interaction p = 0.82 (Table 1). Among Exclusive E-cigarette Users, 44.0% of adolescents randomized to Intervention were Dual Abstinent (95% CI = 35.1, 53.1) compared to 31.6% of Control (95% CI = 23.8, 40.2). Among Dual Users, 36.7% of Intervention participants were Dual Abstinent (95% CI = 31.8, 41.8) compared to 22.8% of Control (95% CI = 18.7, 27.3).

Likewise, in the YA sample, the treatment advantage of Intervention over Control was comparable for Exclusive E-cigarette Users (7.4 points; 95% CI = 1.1, 13.7; p = 0.02) and Dual Users (3.7 points; 95% CI = 0.0, 7.1, p = 0.03), interaction p = 0.28 (Table 2). Among Exclusive E-cigarette Users, 29.7% of YAs randomized to Intervention were Dual Abstinent (95% CI = 25.0, 34.8) compared to 22.3% of Control (95% CI = 18.3, 26.8). Among Dual Users, 10.3% of Intervention participants were Dual Abstinent (95% CI = 7.9, 13.2) compared to 6.6% of Control (95% CI = 4.6, 9.0).

Was there an interaction effect between vaping status at 7 months and baseline tobacco product use on cannabis use outcomes?

Among adolescents, the difference in cannabis use at follow-up between continuing vapers and vaping abstainers was significantly weaker among baseline Exclusive E-cigarette Users than among baseline Dual Users (interaction p < 0.001). As shown in Supplemental Table 1, among 258 adolescent baseline Exclusive E-cigarette Users, cannabis use at 7 months was reported by 31.1% (95% CI = 23.4, 39.6) of those who were still nicotine vaping versus 21.1% (95% CI = 14.8, 29.2) of those who were vaping abstinent, a 10% point difference (95% CI = −0.8, 20.3). Among 758 baseline Dual Users, cannabis use at 7 months was reported by 77.3% (95% CI = 72.9, 81.3) of those who were still nicotine vaping versus 36.1% (95% CI = 31.1, 41.3) of those who were vaping abstinent, a 41.3% point difference (95% CI = 34.5, 47.4). In total, 97 out of 258 baseline Exclusive E-cigarette Users were dual abstinent (37.6%) compared to 225 out of 758 baseline Dual Users (29.7%), a significant difference at p = 0.019.

Among YAs, the difference in cannabis use at follow-up between continuing vapers and vaping abstainers was comparable (interaction p = 0.81) for baseline Exclusive E-cigarette Users and baseline Dual Users. As shown in Supplemental Table 2, among 747 YA baseline Exclusive E-cigarette Users, cannabis use at 7 months was reported by 27.2% (95% CI = 23.4, 31.2) of continuing nicotine vapers versus 16.8% (95% CI = 12.2, 22.3) of vaping abstainers, a 10.4% point difference (95% CI = 3.9, 16.2, p < 0.001). Among 1,082 baseline Dual Users, cannabis use at 7 months was reported by 79.5% (95% CI = 76.5, 82.2) of continuing nicotine vapers versus 68.1% (95% CI = 62.3, 73.4) of vaping abstainers, an 11.4% point difference (95% CI = 5.5, 17.6). In total, 193 out of 747 baseline Exclusive E-cigarette Users were dual abstinent (25.8%) compared to 92 out of 1082 baseline Dual Users (8.5%), a significant difference at p < 0.001.

Story Continues

LAS VEGAS, Nov. 2, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — The VIVA Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to advancing the field of vascular medicine through education and research, today announced results from the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials presented at The VEINS 2025 conference, held at Wynn Las Vegas.

Late-Breaking Clinical Trial results were unveiled during sessions on Saturday and Sunday, November 1 and 2, showcasing new data that advance the understanding and treatment of venous disease.

The VEINS (Venous Endovascular INterventional Strategies) is a leading venous education symposium that brings together an international, multispecialty faculty to share the latest research, clinical data, and techniques in venous intervention. The program features expert presentations, interactive discussions, and data-driven sessions that inform best practices and foster collaboration across the venous community.

Results of the GORE^® VIABAHN^® FORTEGRA Venous Stent Clinical Trial for the Treatment of Symptomatic Inferior Vena Cava Obstruction With or Without Combined Iliofemoral Obstruction
Presented by Stephen Black, MD

The presentation entitled “Results of the GORE^® VIABAHN^® FORTEGRA Venous Stent Clinical Trial for the Treatment of Symptomatic Inferior Vena Cava Obstruction With or Without Combined Iliofemoral Obstruction” exhibits promising results from the GORE^® VIAFORT Vascular Stent Trial, evaluating the newly renamed GORE^® VIABAHN^® FORTEGRA Venous Stent for the treatment of deep venous obstruction.

Presented by Co-Primary Investigator Dr. Stephen Black, MD, at the VEINS Conference in Las Vegas on November 2, the trial evaluates the device’s safety and effectiveness in patients with symptomatic deep venous disease. The trial met its primary endpoint, demonstrating strong 12-month performance and reliability, reinforcing Gore’s commitment to advancing innovative solutions for complex venous conditions.

The VIAFORT Trial is the first prospective study to include the inferior vena cava (IVC), iliac, and femoral veins. Conducted across multiple international centers, the single-arm, non-randomized trial enrolled 89 patients with thrombotic disease—acute, subacute, or chronic/post-thrombotic syndrome. Notably, 94.3% of patients had lesions spanning three vessel regions, and 68.5% required stents extending below the inguinal ligament into the common femoral vein.

Despite the severity of disease, the trial achieved a 12-month primary patency rate of 83.4%. Vessel-specific patency rates were 96.5% in the IVC, 88.9% in the left iliofemoral, and 89.8% in the right iliofemoral regions. No stent migrations, fractures, vascular injuries, or clinically significant pulmonary embolisms were reported through 12 months. Additionally, there were no device-related deaths or major bleeding events within 30 days.

These results mark a significant milestone in venous stent innovation and patient care, positioning the GORE^® VIABAHN^® FORTEGRA Venous Stent as a reliable option for treating deep venous obstruction.

Randomized Comparison of Cyanoacrylate Closure and Endothermal Ablation: Spectrum Secondary Outcomes Through 12 Months
Presented by Manj Gohel, MD

This randomized trial was part of the Spectrum program and compared cyano­acrylate closure (CAC) with the VenaSeal system (Medtronic) to endothermal abla­tion (ETA) for saphenous reflux. Conducted at 17 sites across eight countries, the study enrolled participants with CEAP (clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology) C2 to C5 disease beginning in February 2020. Outcomes at 12 months included anatomic vein closure, patient and physician assess­ments of quality of life (QOL), safety, time to return to work, and reintervention rates.

Differences in QOL changes from base­line to follow-up visits were tested using Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Anatomic closure at 12 months was calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimates, and reintervention rates were estimated using the number of reinterventions over the target vein follow-up years. No adjustments for multiple com­parisons were made for the QOL outcome tests comparing ETA and CAC, and statistical significance was not claimed for any P values.

At 7 days, improvement in the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score trended in favor of CAC (−2.2 ± 2.76) over ETA (−1.4 ± 2.51; P = .0037), and scores were compa­rable at 12 months (−3.9 ± 2.70 vs −3.8 ± 2.93; P = .8421). The Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire also trended in favor of CAC at 30 days (−5.4 ± 7.88 vs −2.5 ± 8.19; P = .0072) and was similar at 12 months (−8.0 ± 7.68 vs −6.6 ± 10.37; P = .0641). Vein occlusion rates through 12 months were similar between CAC (86.6%) and ETA (89.3%). No new device- or procedure-relat­ed safety events were recorded between 6 and 12 months. Hypersensitivity to CAC occurred in 5.9% (8/136) of participants, mostly self-limiting. Exit site granuloma occurred in 0.7% (one patient in the CAC group, with full resolution), and phlebitis occurred in 8.8% (CAC) versus 2.9% (ETA) patients. Ablation-related thrombus exten­sion occurred in 0.7% (CAC) and 3.6% (ETA). Serious adverse events were rare, with none related to CAC.

Participants treated with CAC showed similar improvements in QOL to ETA. Most CAC-related safety events happen in the first 6 months after intervention. CAC is a suitable alternative to the standard of care for patients with superficial venous insufficiency.

Clinical Feasibility and Safety Study of the Use of a Novel Device for the Treatment of Chronic Venous Insufficiency of the Lower Limb
Presented by Steve Elias, MD

A nonrandomized, prospective, single-center study (Salus Spitali in Tirana, Albania) enrolled 28 patients with varicose disease of the lower limbs who underwent great saphenous vein (GSV) occlusion using a novel percutaneous device deployed under ultrasound and ablation using polidocanol foam.

The primary endpoint assessed the feasibility and safety of the GSV occlusion procedure with the device, in combina­tion with ultrasound-guided foam sclero­therapy. Safety was determined by moni­toring serious adverse events related to the device within 30 days postprocedure. Feasibility was determined by completion of GSV occlusion at the end of the pro­cedure, documented with intraoperative duplex ultrasound showing absence of any flow inside the vessel.

Secondary endpoints included GSV occlusion rates at 6 and 12 months; pro­cedural complication rates assessed at dis­charge, 1 week, and 1, 6, and 12 months; assessment of pain (visual analog scale) at discharge and at 1 week; change in dis­ease-specific quality of life (QOL) at 6 and 12 months; and change in CEAP (clinical, etiology, anatomy, pathophysiology) class at 6 and 12 months.

Results demonstrated a 100% technical success rate for deployment under ultra­sound guidance, with all treated vessels occluded at the end of the procedure. The procedure was well tolerated, with no device-related adverse events. One patient experienced subfascial calf venous throm­bosis at 1 week, which resolved after 10 days of heparin therapy. Preliminary follow-up data showed durable occlusion rates: GSV/small saphenous vein occlu­sion was achieved in 92.3% of cases at 6 months and 94.1% at 12 months; perfo­rator occlusion was 84% at 6 months and 90% at 12 months. Patients also reported significant improvement in QOL.

Impact of Junctional Reflux on the Effectiveness of Endovenous Ablation in Patients With Great Saphenous Vein Insufficiency (JURY-2 Study) 
Presented by: Yana Etkin, MD

Isolated great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux without saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) involvement produces symptom sever­ity comparable to limbs with combined SFJ plus GSV reflux, and yet many insurers still require documented SFJ reflux before approving ablation. The JURY-2 trial was designed to evaluate whether symptomatic improvement after endovenous ablation is equivalent in patients with isolated GSV reflux versus those with combined SFJ plus GSV reflux.

This prospective, multicenter cohort study enrolled adults with symptomatic CEAP (clinical, etiology, anatomy, patho­physiology) C2 to C3 venous disease and ≥ 0.5 seconds of reflux in at least two con­tiguous, above-knee GSV segments (with or without SFJ reflux). Patients underwent thermal or nonthermal GSV ablation with adjunct phlebectomy or sclerotherapy as needed. Symptom severity was measured by Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) at baseline and 3 months postprocedure. The primary endpoint was change in VCSS, compared between groups using Welch two-sample t-tests and multivariable linear regression, adjusting for baseline VCSS and demographic/clinical covariates. Treatment outcomes were considered equivalent if the VCSS change difference was within ± 1.4 points (minimum detectable change).

Nine United States centers enrolled 252 patients (207 SFJ + GSV, 45 isolated GSV). Most were female (75%) and White (78.6%). Patients with isolated reflux were older (aged 59 vs 53 years; P = .006) and more frequently Hispanic (13.3% vs 6.3%; P < .01). Thermal ablation was used in 73% overall, more often in the combined group (77.8% vs 57.8%; P = .01). GSV closure exceeded 99% without complications. Baseline VCSS was 6.98 ± 2.24 (isolated) compared to 6.00 ± 2.16 (com­bined) (P = .01). At 3 months, VCSS improved to 2.58 ± 2.60 and 1.71 ± 1.87, respectively. Adjusted VCSS change scores were equivalent (–0.54 [90% CI, –1.36 to 0.27]; P = .12).

Endovenous ablation yields equivalent short-term symptom relief in limbs with iso­lated GSV reflux and those with combined SFJ + GSV reflux. These findings challenge reimbursement policies mandating SFJ involvement and support basing treatment eligibility based on clinical need rather than junctional anatomy.

Short-Term Cost Effectiveness of Large-Bore Mechanical Thrombectomy vs Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism From the PEERLESS Randomized Controlled Trial 
Presented by: Samuel Horr, MD

The PEERLESS randomized controlled trial (RCT) provided clinical data through 30-day follow-up comparing large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), but the economic implications of these outcomes remain unquantified. This study leverages findings from the PEERLESS RCT and other published lit­erature to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of LBMT versus CDT within the United States health care system.

A decision tree model simulated the clinical pathways and associated costs for a hypothetical cohort of 300,000 intermediate-risk PE patients over a 30-day period. Clinical event prob­abilities and resource utilization were derived from the PEERLESS RCT, while costs and quality-of-life utilities were sourced from existing literature. The primary outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

The base-case analysis demonstrated that LBMT was economically dominant, being both more effective and less costly than CDT. On a per-patient basis, treat­ment with LBMT was associated with an average cost savings of $4,755 and a gain of 0.009 QALYs. These savings were pri­marily driven by substantial reductions in intensive care unit utilization (–$6,454), the avoidance of thrombolytic drugs (–$4,068), shorter overall hospital stays (–$2,217), and fewer readmissions (–$1,134). These dif­ferences in cost and effectiveness result in an NMB of $5,211 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robust­ness of this conclusion, with LBMT remain­ing the economically dominant strategy in 87.8% of simulations.

This economic analysis makes a strong case that for patients with intermediate-risk PE undergoing intervention, the selection of LBMT over CDT represents high economic value, resulting in both improved patient outcomes and lower total 30-day health care costs.

Comparison of Real-World Outcomes in Pulmonary Embolism Patients Undergoing Large Bore Mechanical Thrombectomy or Receiving Anticoagulation  Alone: Insights From the Premier Healthcare Database
Presented by: Jay Giri, MD, MPH

Although anticoagulation (AC) is the cor­nerstone of pulmonary embolism (PE) treat­ment, large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) may confer additional benefits via rapid thrombus removal. Large-scale ran­domized evidence comparing LBMT treat­ment to AC alone is currently lacking. This observational study aims to address this evi­dence gap by comparing patient characteris­tics and short-term outcomes of PE patients who received either LBMT or AC alone from a large, real-world health care database.

This analysis utilized the Premier Healthcare Database, which captures approximately 25% of all inpatient dis­charges in the United States. We identified patients presenting with PE or with prima­ry diagnosis of PE who underwent LBMT with the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical, now part of Stryker) (n = 5,613) or received AC alone (n = 202,199) between January 2019 and December 2023. Outcomes were statistically adjusted for demographic information, signs of acute PE severity, and standard comorbidities.

Before adjustment, LBMT patients showed signs of greater PE severity while patients receiving AC alone had a higher prevalence of chronic comorbidities. Following adjustment, LBMT was asso­ciated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.47; P < .001) and 30-day all-cause readmission (OR, 0.64; CI, 0.57-0.72; P < .001). Although associ­ated intensive care unit (ICU) admission was more frequent in the LBMT group (OR, 5.87; CI, 5.54-6.22; P < .001), LBMT patients had a briefer associated ICU length of stay (estimate, –0.48 days; CI, –0.59 to –0.37; P < .001) among those with admissions.

This large real-world analysis indi­cates that acute PE patients selected for treatment with LBMT may experience improved short-term outcomes compared with those treated with AC alone. These findings justify the critical importance of actively enrolling randomized trials of acute PE intervention, including PEERLESS II.

Two-Year Clinical Outcomes From the Single-Arm Arteriovenous Graft Cohort of the WAVE Trial 
Presented by: Mahmood Razavi, MD

The WAVE study is a prospective, mul­ticenter, international trial conducted across 43 centers in the United States, South America, and the United Kingdom. This abstract focuses on the nonrandom­ized arm of the trial that included a single cohort of patients with an arteriovenous graft (AVG) who experienced venous outflow obstructions in their periph­eral venous outflow circuit. All patients were treated with the Wrapsody Cell- Impermeable Endoprosthesis (CIE; Merit Medical Systems, Inc.). Treatment efficacy was based on the proportion of patients with target lesion primary patency (TLPP), defined as freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization or target lesion thrombosis. Access circuit primary patency (ACPP) was an additional efficacy measure of interest. The safety profile of the CIE was determined based on the proportion of patients without any local­ized or systemic safety events. Efficacy and safety results were reported throughout the 24-month follow-up period. At key time points, the efficacy and safety profiles of the CIE were compared to performance goals (6-month TLPP benchmark, 60%; 30-day safety benchmark, 89%).

A total of 112 AVG patients were enrolled. The 6-month TLPP was sig­nificantly higher than the efficacy perfor­mance goal (81.4% vs 60%; P < .0001). The proportion of patients in the AVG cohort without a safety event was significantly higher than the safety performance goal (95.4% vs 89%; P = .016). At 12 months, the TLPP was 60.2%, based on Kaplan- Meier estimate. The 6- and 12-month ACPP were 69.2% and 36.2%, respectively.

Given the limited treatment options available to restore access circuit patency, particularly for patients with dysfunction­al AVG, the 24-month findings from the WAVE trial will be of interest to vascular access specialists.

About the VIVA Foundation
The VIVA Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to advancing the field of vascular medicine and intervention through education and research, strives to be the premier educator in the field. Our team of specialists in vascular medicine, interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery is driven by the passion to advance the field and improve patient outcomes. Educational events presented by the VIVA Foundation have a distinct spirit of collegiality attained by synergizing collective talents to promote awareness and innovative therapeutic options for vascular disease worldwide.

To learn more about the VIVA Foundation, visit https://viva-foundation.org/.

SOURCE The VIVA Foundation

Australian Agricultural Projects Ltd (ASX:AAP) insiders who bought shares over the past year were rewarded handsomely last week. The stock rose 10%, resulting in a AU$1.8m rise in the company’s market capitalisation, translating to a gain of 26% on their initial investment. In other words, the original AU$2.00m purchase is now worth AU$2.52m.

While insider transactions are not the most important thing when it comes to long-term investing, logic dictates you should pay some attention to whether insiders are buying or selling shares.

AI is about to change healthcare. These 20 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part – they are all under $10bn in marketcap – there is still time to get in early.

The Non Executive Director Daniel Stefanetti made the biggest insider purchase in the last 12 months. That single transaction was for AU$2.0m worth of shares at a price of AU$0.042 each. Even though the purchase was made at a significantly lower price than the recent price (AU$0.053), we still think insider buying is a positive. Because it occurred at a lower valuation, it doesn’t tell us much about whether insiders might find today’s price attractive.

You can see the insider transactions (by companies and individuals) over the last year depicted in the chart below. If you want to know exactly who sold, for how much, and when, simply click on the graph below!

View our latest analysis for Australian Agricultural Projects

Australian Agricultural Projects is not the only stock that insiders are buying. For those who like to find small cap companies at attractive valuations, this free list of growing companies with recent insider purchasing, could be just the ticket.

I like to look at how many shares insiders own in a company, to help inform my view of how aligned they are with insiders. I reckon it’s a good sign if insiders own a significant number of shares in the company. Australian Agricultural Projects insiders own about AU$10m worth of shares (which is 54% of the company). This kind of significant ownership by insiders does generally increase the chance that the company is run in the interest of all shareholders.

The fact that there have been no Australian Agricultural Projects insider transactions recently certainly doesn’t bother us. On a brighter note, the transactions over the last year are encouraging. Judging from their transactions, and high insider ownership, Australian Agricultural Projects insiders feel good about the company’s future. While it’s good to be aware of what’s going on with the insider’s ownership and transactions, we make sure to also consider what risks are facing a stock before making any investment decision. For example, Australian Agricultural Projects has 4 warning signs (and 1 which can’t be ignored) we think you should know about.

Of course Australian Agricultural Projects may not be the best stock to buy. So you may wish to see this free collection of high quality companies.

For the purposes of this article, insiders are those individuals who report their transactions to the relevant regulatory body. We currently account for open market transactions and private dispositions of direct interests only, but not derivative transactions or indirect interests.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

By Stuart Condie

  SYDNEY--Westpac raised its final dividend despite a 1.0% drop in annual profit on higher operating costs and fierce competition for deposits and loans. 

  Australia's third-largest bank by market capitalization on Monday reported a net profit for the 12 months through September of 6.92 billion Australian dollars, equivalent to about US$4.53 billion. It raised its final dividend to A$0.77 from A$0.76. 

  Revenue rose by 3.7% to A$22.38 billion, but a contraction in net interest margin and a 9.0% rise in operating expenses hit the bottom line. Costs included those supporting a multiyear technology overhaul, and A$273 million related to what the bank called productivity initiatives. 

  Net interest margin--a key indicator of lending profitability--fell to 1.94% from 1.95% a year ago. However, it improved over the course of the fiscal year, to 1.95% in the second half from 1.92% in the first. 

  The average analyst forecast had been for net profit to fall to A$6.86 billion, according to data compiled by Visible Alpha. Consensus was for revenue of A$22.26 billion and a net interest margin of 1.93%. 

  Mortgage lending grew by 5.0% on-year, slower than the sector as a whole. Westpac said it had agreed to sell the A$21.4 billion home-loan portfolio from its Rams subsidiary to a consortium including U.S. private-equity giant KKR & Co. 

  However, business lending grew by 15% on-year as Westpac refocused under Chief Executive Anthony Miller, who formerly led Westpac's business and wealth division before taking the helm in December 2024. 

  Analysts have flagged a broad shift by lenders toward business banking, which is seen as more profitable and less saturated than consumer banking. Westpac's business deposits rose 5.5%. 

  Write to Stuart Condie at stuart.condie@wsj.com 

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires

  November 02, 2025 17:13 ET (22:13 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Rolls-Royce has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the State of Victoria, Australia that outlines a commitment to collaborate on developing Victoria’s defence industry skills, supply chain, and innovation eco-system, to support the AUKUS submarine program.

Developing nuclear skills will be a particular focus, with plans to establish Rolls-Royce-affiliated skills and training academies being explored. This would build on the success of the award-winning Rolls-Royce Nuclear Skills Academy which opened in Derby, UK, in 2022. It has seen up to 200 apprentices enrolled on apprenticeships each year, creating a pipeline of nuclear talent at the start of their careers to support the UK Royal Navy. 

The agreement will also look to support launching specific research and development initiatives, including the establishment of Rolls-Royce University Technology Centres and affiliated research clusters, in collaboration with Victorian universities.

Following similar agreements signed with Western and South Australian Governments in September 2025, this marks a significant step forward in Australia’s preparations for operating its first conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. It also highlights the unique nuclear expertise Rolls-Royce brings to the AUKUS agreement.

Victoria is at the forefront of research and innovation in Australia. The State hosts eight world-leading universities with advanced research and development capabilities. In December 2024, Victoria released its Economic Growth Statement, which backs its defence-oriented supply chain to win work, grow and support AUKUS. This includes increases in investment and trade facilitation, uplifts in small and medium-sized enterprises, workforce development initiatives, and bolstering innovation adoption.

To this aim, the collaboration agreement will also look to facilitate opportunities with Victorian small and medium enterprises, to strengthen the State’s defence supply chain and broader industrial capabilities.

Rolls-Royce has powered the UK Royal Navy’s nuclear submarines for over 65 years and is expanding its Derby site to support both UK and Australian defence programs. Rolls-Royce is the only private company in the world with the nuclear capability to manage reactor design, manufacture and decommissioning within one single entity. 

In March 2023, it was confirmed that Rolls-Royce Submarines would provide all the nuclear reactor plants that will power new attack submarines as part of the tri-lateral agreement between Australia, the UK and US.