Skip to main content

Author: admin

Criteria for Determining Loan Defects on the Secondary Market

By: Debra Werschey, Consultant and Manager of Secondary Market Services

In determining whether there is a significant defect on a loan, the quality control reviewer must give due consideration to the severity of the defect. In addition, the defect must relate but not be limited to one of the following:

1. The underwriting of the borrower’s creditworthiness and capacity. This would entail the borrower’s income, credit, liabilities, and assets.
2. The borrower’s eligibility and qualification. Things to consider are the area median income, first time home-buyer status, and status as lawfully present in the United States.
3. The underwriting criteria related to property or project eligibility. Is the property for residential use or condo eligible?
4. The property appraisal or the physical condition of the property. A close examination of the property appraisal is required. Are the comparable sales similar to the subject?
5. The loan and product terms and criteria. Criteria such as LTV ratio, occupancy, credit score, and loan purpose must be reviewed. The terms for ineligible transaction types, products that may require special lender approval as a prerequisite for delivery, limitations on cash out to borrowers that determines the type of refinance, and any negotiated exception or variance must be considered.
6. The requirements applicable at the time of loan purchase. This would include making sure that there are no defaults, all taxes and insurance premiums have been paid or escrows established, and no modification, encumbrance, subordination, or release of mortgage has occurred.
7. The existence, sufficiency, or enforceability of any required insurance or guaranty. The property must have sufficient hazard insurance coverage in place.
8. The form and/or execution of required loan documents that without which made the loan ineligible for sale or limit the enforceability of the required loan terms. The file must contain the Uniform Residential Loan Application,
any power of attorney used, and any nonstandard and special purpose documents such as living trusts.

All of the above factors and more should be taken into consideration when a reviewer is completing a post-closing quality control review to identify defects. Young & Associates, Inc. is a trusted provider of mortgage quality control reviews and can assist your bank in this area. For more information on our quality control services, contact me at 1.800.525.9775 or click here to send an email.

New Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Requirements for Banks

Effective DATES: The final rules are effective July 11, 2016. Banks must comply  with these rules by May 11, 2018 (Applicability Date).

Summary
Banks have not been required to know the identity of the individuals who own or control their legal entity customers (also known as beneficial owners). This is viewed as a weakness of the system that they are trying to correct.

FinCEN believes that there are four core elements of CDD:
1. Customer identification and verification
2. Beneficial ownership identification and verification
3. Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships to develop a customer risk profile
4. On-going monitoring for reporting suspicious transactions and, on a risk-basis, maintaining and updating customer information

Banks must now identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of all legal entity customers (other than those that are excluded) at the time a new account is opened (other than accounts that are exempted). A bank may rely on the beneficial ownership information supplied by the customer, provided that it has no knowledge of facts that would call into question the reliability of the information. The identification and verification procedures for beneficial owners are very similar to those for individual customers under a bank’s customer identification program (CIP), except that for beneficial owners, the institution may rely on copies of identity documents. Banks are required to maintain records of the beneficial ownership information they obtain, and may rely on another bank for the performance of these requirements, in each case to the same extent as under their CIP rule.

The AML program requirement for banks now explicitly includes risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence, to include understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile.

A customer risk profile refers to the information gathered about a customer at account opening used to develop a baseline against which customer activity is assessed for suspicious activity reporting. This may include self-evident information such as the type of customer or type of account, service, or product. The profile may, but need not, include a system of risk ratings or categories of customers.

In addition, CDD also includes conducting ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and to maintain and update customer information. For these purposes, customer information shall include information regarding the beneficial owners of legal entity customers. The regulation requires that banks conduct monitoring
to identify and report suspicious transactions. Because this includes transactions that are not of the sort the customer would be normally expected to engage, the customer risk profile information is used (among other sources) to identify such transactions. This information may be integrated into the bank’s automated monitoring system, and may be used after a potentially suspicious transaction has been identified, as one means of determining whether or not the identified activity is suspicious.

When a bank detects information (including a change in beneficial ownership information) about the customer in the course of its normal monitoring that is relevant to assessing or reevaluating the risk posed by the customer, it must update the customer information, including beneficial ownership information. Such information could include, e.g., a significant and unexplained change in the customer’s activity, such as executing cross-border wire transfers for no apparent reason or a significant change in the volume of activity without explanation. This applies to all legal entity
customers, including those existing on the Applicability Date.

This provision does not impose a categorical requirement that banks must update customer information, including beneficial ownership information, on a continuous or periodic basis. Rather, the updating requirement is event-driven, and occurs as a result of normal monitoring.

Your Response
This is going to entail changes mostly in the deposit area. Your loan area probably already collects most of this information, as they require guarantees. Also note that we stated at the beginning of this article that the mandatory date is not until 2018. It is likely that there will be changes so an immediate response to this rule does not seem reasonable. Please, however, do not lose sight of this timetable to make sure you have it in place in plenty of time before the mandatory dates. If we can help in any way, please let us know. We will also be happy to assist in any other way to help you meet your BSA and compliance needs. This could include hands-on assistance and/or consulting assistance depending upon your needs. For more information, contact us at 1.800.525.9775 or compliance@younginc.com.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Compliance – Important Changes

By: Sharon Jeffries, Human Resources Manager

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requires plan administrators (employers) to give plan participants in writing the most important facts they need to know about their health benefit plans.

One of the most important documents participants are entitled to receive automatically when becoming a participant of an ERISA-covered health benefit plan is a summary of the plan, called the Summary Plan Description or SPD. The plan administrator is legally obligated to provide to participants, free of charge, the SPD. The summary plan description is an important document that tells participants what the plan provides and how it operates. It provides information on when an employee can begin to participate in the plan, how service and benefits are calculated, when and in what form benefits are paid, and how to file a claim for benefits. If a plan is changed, participants must be informed, either through a revised summary plan description, or in a separate document, called a Summary of Material Modifications, which also must be given to participants free of charge.

A Wrap Plan Document is designed to meet plan documentation requirements under ERISA and other federal laws and to incorporate all other welfare plans, insurance contracts, and other relevant documents into a single plan. These materials can be kept together for administrative ease. The Wrap Plan Document provides additional legal protection for the employer and plan fiduciaries and can simplify plan administration.

What Does That Mean?
In the past, much of the regulatory focus was on the retirement side of the ERISA legislation. However, with the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), that has changed. Much of the current government monitoring, oversight, and auditing relates to the health and welfare side of the ERISA regulation.

ERISA now requires employers who are plan administrators of their group health plans to comply with two (2) critical requirements or they will risk potential penalties and possible government audits.

Those requirements are:

  • Maintain and distribute SPDs to plan participants which accurately reflect the contents of the plan and which include specific information as required under federal law.
  • Group health plans must be administered in accordance with a written Plan Document which must be made available to plan participants and beneficiaries upon request.

Are You at Risk?
Yes, and the reason is this: Many banks will mistakenly assume that insurance contracts, certificates of insurance, and benefit summaries fulfill the ERISA requirements for an SPD and Plan Document, but they do not. And, the primary reason is that they do not include the required or recommended provisions that protect the plan and the employer.

What Should You Do?
Recognize that:

  • Failure to provide an SPD or Plan Document within 30 days of receiving a request from a plan participant or beneficiary will result in a penalty of up to $110/day for each violation.
  • ƒƒLack of an SPD could trigger a plan audit by the United States Department of Labor (DOL).
  • The United States DOL has increased its audit staff and national enforcement initiatives to investigate employers’ compliance with Health Care Reform, resulting in companies of all sizes being audited and being required to provide an SPD and Plan Document.

The Solution
Do not try to create these documents in house. Allow experts in the areas of benefits and benefits regulations assist you with this monumental effort. Young & Associates, Inc. has partnered with The Alpha Group Agency, Inc. to offer our clients this unique service. The Alpha Group Agency, Inc. is a highly skilled, reputable organization involved in the management of health insurance services as well as other related subjects.

The Alpha Group Agency, Inc. has been an advisor to Young & Associates, Inc. for almost fifteen (15) years in the management of its group health insurance plans. For additional information on how you can become compliant with these critical ERISA regulations and also lower the risk of a DOL audit, contact Sean Nehlsen, The Alpha Group Agency, at 1.800.886.3315 or snehlsen@thealphaga.com.

Capital Market Commentary – August 2016

By: Stephen Clinton, President, Capital Market Securities, Inc.

Market Update

The economy continued to move forward into the seventh year of post-recession recovery. The first quarter growth in the U.S. economy was 1.1%. The following summarizes certain issues we think are worth watching:

  • Brexit shook the markets in June. Britain’s vote to leave the European Union has caused the market additional concern about world-wide economic growth prospects.
  • This adds to the existing concerns about growth potential in the world’s second largest economy, China.
  • ƒThe Federal Reserve is in a holding pattern as we approach its late September policy meeting. Most believe that the Fed wants to continue to move interest rates upward, but they are being cautious.
  • ƒJune’s job growth report indicated a renewed momentum in the labor market. After a dismal report in May, the job growth in June exceeded most analysts’ expectations. Unemployment was reported at 4.9%. This falls within the Fed’s normal long-run employment target of between 4.5% and 5%.
  • ƒThe tightening job market has put upward pressure on wages as employers are in competition to find workers. The average hourly earnings for private-sector employees was estimated to have increased 2.6% in the last year. This is the highest growth in wages since 2009. Since 2000, median household income (adjusted for inflation) has dropped 7%. Thus rising wages is a positive sign for future consumer spending.
  • The global issues have caused the U.S. dollar to gain value. The dollar has increased in value almost 10% over the last year. This increase makes U.S. exports more expensive.
  • ƒƒBusiness investment has been slowing. Companies have been hesitant to invest in machines, technology, and inventory. The level of business investment in capital goods has declined nearly 12% since 2014.
  • ƒOil prices continue to remain well below historical levels. This has impacted the market in a variety of ways. Consumers and businesses have benefited from lower gasoline prices. However, the oil production firms have been hard hit and banks are being forced to strengthen their loan loss reserves for struggling oil related
    firms.
  • After years of volatility, home prices have grown at an annual rate of approximately 5% since early 2015. Increasing home prices and low mortgage rates have made the housing market one of the strongest sectors in the U.S. economy in recent months.
  • We are now approximately three months from electing a new President. The differences between the two candidates appear to be dramatic. The uncertainty surrounding the election will impact the markets until after the election.

Short-term interest rates remain historically low with the 3-month T-Bill ending June at 0.26%. The 10-Year T-Note ended June at 1.49%, down 78 basis points from year-end 2015. This has led to a significant reduction in the slope of the yield curve.

The stock market performance in 2016 has been mixed. The Dow Jones Industrial Index closed June up 2.90% for the year. The Nasdaq Index closed down 3.29%. The Nasdaq Bank index ended June down 4.18%. Larger U.S. banks fared even worse, ending the first half of 2016 down 11.25%.

Interesting Tid-bits ƒƒ

  • Lost value. Since the start of 2016, 20 of the world’s largest banks have lost a quarter of their combined market value. In total, approximately $465 billion has been lost.
  • ƒƒPrinting money? The Fed owns approximately $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt at the end of June. This represents approximately 20% of the total U.S. Treasury Debt.
  • ƒƒThe wealthy get richer. It was recently reported that the top 20% of American families account for 48.9% of total U.S. income compared to 44.3% in 1990.

Merger and Acquisition Activity
In the first half of the year, there were 114 bank and thrift announced merger transactions. This compares to 139 deals in the first half of 2015. The median price to tangible book for transactions involving bank sellers was 131% which is down from the 141% median recorded in 2015.

Strategic Planning – 8 Lessons from the Facilitator

By: Gary J. Young, President and CEO

For 30 years, I have had the pleasure of working with community banks across the country in developing a strategic plan. Yes, my first strategic planning engagement was in 1986. I recently completed a strategic plan for a great bank in Alaska, the first one in that state. There are two banks in Ohio that I have been facilitating strategic plans for since the mid-1980s. And there is another bank in New Mexico in which I am approaching 20 years. Many others are new clients. I certainly feel that I have helped those banks succeed in the way they define success. I also have learned from
all of my strategic planning clients. Those main items are the subject of this article. Regardless of how you approach strategic planning, I believe these concepts will help make your plan meaningful to the management team and the board of directors.

The following are the 8 lessons learned from the facilitator:

1. There is no value in a strategic plan. I know this is a strange thought coming from a strategic plan facilitator. But, I have learned that value is achieved only when the plan is implemented to the benefit of the bank. It is absolutely critical to build consensus and buy-in. If participants believe the plan is from the facilitator, you have lost. The facilitator is there to achieve consensus on the bank’s plan, then write that management and the board want to implement for success.

2. A strategic plan is not about predicting the future, but making the future. Nobody can predict the future. But, that’s not what strategic planning is about. An effective strategic plan is about making the future not predicting it. That’s why I often ask plan participants, “If you could envision the perfect future for your bank, what would it look like, or be like in five years?” The goal is to then build strategies and tactics to deliver the consensus of that perfect future. Of course, there will be deviations from which a change-in-course will be made. We call that good management.

3. There is no one best plan. I have seen successful banks run in an extremely conservative manner and successful banks run in an extremely aggressive manner. There is never one best way. Whatever the strategy, I can give you an example of a successful bank that took a different position. The key is to have a consensus in strategy that exists between the board of directors and senior management. I don’t mean there needs to always be agreement on issues, but agreement on the basic core values that lead to direction.

4. Every good community bank needs to fill in the blank. However you might define this statement, it is wrong.  Community banks are incredibly unique. While Bank A may have 80% of things in common with Bank B, they are still incredibly different. To the facilitator, keep your EYES WIDE OPEN. Only in that way, will you see the nuances that make the job of facilitating a strategic plan rewarding and down-right fun.

5. Banking is about risk. Without risk there is no bank. This relates to 3 and 4 above. But, it is critical that the facilitator help define the risk appetite of the directors. This will then help define capital adequacy which ultimately is at the heart of every strategic plan. Management and the board of directors need to understand there is no right answer. Your risk appetite is all that matters. But, I will tell you one thing that is absolutely wrong: taking risk that is beyond your appetite and that you don’t fully understand. Please, never do that.

6. Define your target or goal for capital. This is a part of 5 above, but it is critical. Let’s assume that capital adequacy based on risk is 7.5%, but the board wants to maintain 9.5%. This is certainly OK, but understand there is a cost to the excess capital. Excess capital could be viewed as an insurance policy against potential losses. Many banks that had excess capital during the Great Recession were certainly happy they did. Excess capital could also be used as pportunity capital in case it is needed for a branch purchase, bank purchase, etc. But also remember, as the tier-1 leverage ratio increases, the return on equity decreases, all other things being equal. A decrease in return on equity is a drag on shareholder value.

7. Asset quality can kill you. Discussing asset quality is not as exciting as many other issues. But, nothing will derail a bank’s plans quicker and more completely than problems in asset quality. Even though loan growth drives asset growth, which is a key component of bank success, we must remember to aggressively seek and conservatively underwrite, and thoroughly understand the risk associated with the loan growth.

8. A facilitator will never know your bank or your market like you do. I am like most other facilitators. I have had the experience of working with hundreds of community banks and seeing how things work positively and negatively. That is my perspective and it is good to have that voice at the retreat. But, I always remind new clients that while I have an experienced perspective, just because I share an opinion does not make it right for your bank in your market. It might be right for 95% of other banks, but that doesn’t mean that it is right for your bank.

I hope that you will consider these concepts as you complete your next strategic plan. And, if you are considering a facilitator, I hope you consider Young & Associates, Inc. If you would like to discuss this article or strategic planning, please call me at 330.283.4121 or click here to send an email.

Is Credit Risk Rising?

Loan Review Observations and Recommendations for Effective Risk Management

By: Tommy Troyer, Executive Vice President

Over the recent past, there have been a number of public assertions, warnings, or observations that credit risk is rising in the banking industry. These statements have come in many forms, and while we do not intend to present an exhaustive review of such statements here, it is easy to present a brief list showing the various forms and messengers: ƒƒ

  • Public Comments by Regulatory Officials: Thomas Curry, the Comptroller of the Currency, devoted his speech to the RMA Annual Risk Management Conference in November of last year to evidence that credit risk was rising and to the need for the industry to respond with appropriate risk management tools and ALLL decisions. Similarly, at the Ohio Bankers League’s CEO Symposium in May, Julie Blake, Assistant Deputy Comptroller, shared with attendees that credit risk had moved to the top of the OCC’s risk priorities and provided some evidence of increases in risk appetite over recent years.
  • Formal Regulatory Publications: This category includes issuances of regulatory guidance, such as the December 2015 CRE guidance (discussed in a previous 90-Day Note) that was issued not to provide new guidance to banks but simply to highlight what regulators believed to be increasing risk in the CRE space and to remind banks of risk management expectations. This category also includes more informational publications, such as the OCC’s Semiannual Risk Perspective, which has been highlighting some increases in credit risk recently.
  • Private Sector Commentary: Any bankers who may be inclined to brush off such regulatory comments as simply arising from regulatory conservatism should pay special attention to comments about credit risk originating from bankers themselves. The July-August edition of the Risk Management Association’s RMA Journal includes an article written by a banker and quoting numerous other private sector risk executives about their feelings that credit risk has likely increased and that heightened diligence on the part of banks is needed to appropriately manage that risk.

Ultimately, all of these comments are based on observations that underwriting standards have loosened and concentrations of credit may be increasing. Unlike typical asset quality measures that provide lagging indicators of credit risk (such as nonaccrual or charge-off rates), underwriting standards can provide a leading indicator of changes in credit risk.

Loan Review Observations
Given these industry-wide observations, what does the situation look like for community banks? Our contribution to this topic is primarily anecdotal, and is based on observations gleaned from the independent loan reviews we perform for community banks. While it must be acknowledged that the diversity of community bank practices and circumstances means that no generalization will apply to all community banks, our anecdotal observations would seem to support the belief that credit risk has risen in recent years. For our community bank clients, the loosening of credit standards is actually less evident in changes to formal underwriting standards (in part because community banks often do not employ as detailed of a set of underwriting standards as larger banks) and more evident in the decisions banks are making on what might be described as “borderline” credits. In other words, our clients have not slashed their required minimum debt service coverage ratios or FICO scores as much as they have begun saying “yes” a little more often on deals that could go either way. Healthy debate in credit committees is important and should be encouraged. One interesting piece of information for banks to consider is whether more deals have recently been approved in credit committee by a split vote rather than unanimously, which may indicate that banks are saying yes to a few more “on-the-fence” deals than they have historically.

Closely related to the concept of approving the borderline deal, and an issue commonly discussed by regulators, is the increase in loans approved with one or more exceptions to loan policy. Making commercial loans on a non-recourse basis is perhaps the classic community bank commercial credit policy exception, and these types of deals may well be increasing.

Other examples of increasing risk include an increased willingness to finance start-up ventures or significant expansions of current businesses and, in some cases, a reflection of the eased CRE terms referred to in the aforementioned 2015 regulatory guidance, such as longer interest-only payment periods. Especially in more urban markets or markets where larger banks are active, competition is undoubtedly a major factor in some of these developments, as banks unwilling to make any concessions on terms or price today can quite quickly find themselves with a shrinking loan portfolio.

What Should Community Banks Do?
Young & Associates recognizes, as do most community banks, that an increase in risk appetite is not necessarily a bad thing. However, an increase in risk appetite that is not matched by a corresponding increase in risk management is a bad thing. So how should community banks ensure that any loosening credit standards now do not result in major issues later? The following actions are a good start:

  • Monitor and report to the board forward-looking measures of asset quality. If a bank’s appetite for credit risk is increasing, it should be because of a conscious decision of the board. It should not be something the board discovers several years later when asset quality problems begin to manifest. Forward-looking measures are key to monitoring changes in credit risk before it is too late. Such measures include reporting on the rate of policy exceptions (including loans with multiple exceptions); tracking loan performance by vintage, which can provide an early warning when the performance of a recent vintage early in its time on book is notably weaker than that of previous vintages; and even a measure as simple as monitoring the rate of loan growth compared to peers.
  • Enhance risk management practices. At a time when credit risk may be increasing, banks should be sure that risk management practices are also heightened. In such a situation, it may be appropriate to increase the scope of independent loan review so that a greater percentage of credits, and especially new originations, are reviewed.  Steps to quantify risk, such as stress testing higher-risk portfolios or portfolios that represent concentrations, are even more important at times of increased risk. And personnel should not be overlooked: increased volumes of higher-risk loans without a corresponding increase in the credit staff’s capacity may be a recipe for trouble.
  • Ensure that capital planning factors in any increases in risk. As noted, a measured and controlled increase in the credit risk a bank is willing to accept can be a positive for its shareholders and community. For this to be true over the long term, however, the bank’s capital planning process must appropriately account for this increase in risk. Regulatory minimum capital ratios are but a small part of capital planning, and capital planning can only be effective when it is sensitive to changes in a bank’s risk profile. Banks must ensure that their capital planning process accounts for changes in risk across the bank and that they are able to effectively identify such changes.

Conclusion
We have not seen from our clients (nor do we expect to see) the type of extremely risky loans that people write books and movies about in the aftermath of a credit crisis.  However, there is anecdotal evidence to support the widely-held belief that credit risk in the banking sector is higher than it was a few years ago. It is crucial that banks effectively identify and manage any such increases.  Young & Associates, Inc. can assist banks in both identifying and managing credit risk. Contact Tommy Troyer at 1.800.525.9775 or click here to send an email to discuss loan review, stress testing, or capital planning services.

The World of Overdraft

By: Bill Elliott, CRCM, Senior Consultant and Manager of Compliance

For some time now, I have been saying in seminars that the federal government will not rest until there are no overdraft fees. On February 3, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) stated that they wish to improve checking account access. They sent a letter to the 25 largest retail banks encouraging them to make available and widely market lower-risk deposit accounts that help consumers avoid overdrafts. Of course, anyone can avoid overdrafts by managing the account properly, but this was not mentioned in the letter.

As a companion item, the CFPB also issued a bulletin warning banks and credit unions that failure to meet accuracy obligations when they report negative account histories to credit reporting companies could result in Bureau action. For the industry, this seems to be of more interest.

The CFPB reminded all banks to “establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy of the deposit account information provided to the consumer reporting companies.” Make sure that you can show an accurate and fully functioning system to your examiners at their next visit. This means policies, procedures, and practices to accurately report information and also a system to handle consumer disputes about these issues.

This is not a new requirement – just a reminder of existing requirements. Mistakes do happen, but we need to be very careful with all reports to all types of credit reporting agencies. This is obviously something that the CFPB is going to be pushing very hard. They are all about the consumer, and do not spend much time worrying about the financial services industry. But if we do our jobs correctly, there really is no issue here. If the correct information results in a decline of a deposit account, the consumer will have to deal with the result.

The CFPB is providing consumers with resources to help navigate the deposit account system. CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated, “Consumers should not be sidelined out of the basic banking services they need because of the flaws and limitations in a murky system. People deserve to have more options for access to lower-risk deposit accounts that can better fit their needs.” Many bankers would find fault with that statement, as there is a percentage of customers who just cannot manage their checking account. But this seems to be the direction the CFPB is going. Their notice on this issue stated, “the CFPB is weighing what additional consumer protections are necessary for overdraft and related services.”

This following section is a direct quote from the CFPB’s notice about these issues, and is something that we should keep in mind for the future.

Screening Accuracy Improvements
The bulletin issued by the CFPB today warns banks and credit unions that they must have systems in place regarding accuracy when they pass on information, such as negative account histories, to checking account reporting or other credit reporting companies. The consumer reporting companies focused on checking accounts typically generate reports on charge-off amounts, past non-sufficient funds activity, unpaid or outstanding bounced checks, overdrafts, involuntary account closures, and fraud.The CFPB is concerned about inaccuracies and inconsistent information provided by the financial institutions to the reporting companies. In a recent Supervisory Highlights, the CFPB noted that examiners found that one or more financial institutions failed to “establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy of the deposit account information provided to the consumer reporting companies.” Examiners also found that at least one entity violated its federal obligation to handle consumer disputes about these issues.Banks should expect accurate information from checking account reporting companies to make fair assessments of deposit account applicants. If the system is tainted with incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate information, banks and credit unions cannot make informed decisions.”

This is one of the many areas that is concerning the CFPB, which means that it needs to concern us as well. If you need any assistance in this or any other area of compliance, contact us at 1.800.525.9775 or compliance@younginc.com.

Capital Market Commentary – May 2016

By: Stephen Clinton, President, Capital Market Securities, Inc.

Market Update – Slow Liftoff
Following its first rate increase in almost a decade in December, the Fed has decided to proceed cautiously on future rate increases. At the Fed’s meeting in March, the Fed held rates unchanged. The minutes of the March meeting indicated that there were various opinions as to how quickly interest rates should be increased. It appears that two increases is the most likely scenario this year.

In other economic developments:

  • U.S. GDP expanded at a 1.4 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2015. This continues the economic recovery that began seven years ago.
  • The latest inflation rate for the United States is 1.0 percent for the 12 months ending February 2016. This is well below the Fed’s target of 2 percent and gives the Fed latitude to slowly increase interest rates.
  • Job creation has been at the forefront of the economic recovery. The Labor Department reported that more Americans were hired to start a new job in February than in any month since before the recession began in 2007. The unemployment rate edged up to 5 percent in March, but that was largely due to more Americans joining the labor force.
  • Manufacturing activity remains soft. Weak global growth, low oil prices, and financial volatility were cited as reasons for a decline in orders for durable goods. A bright spot, however, was the U.S. auto industry that recorded its best month of sales in over ten years in March.
  • Another indicator of the impact foreign economic growth has had on the U.S. economy was revealed in the decline in U.S. exports. In February, the export activity was 4.2 percent below the level of the prior year. The strong dollar also has impacted exports in that the stronger dollar makes U.S. products more expensive.
  • The non-manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy continues to show strength. According to the Institute for Supply Management, non-manufacturing activity rose to 54.5 in March. (A reading above 50 signals expansion.)
  • U.S. consumers barely increased their spending in February and spent less in January than the government had estimated earlier. Consumer spending edged up 0.1 percent in February. The government also revised downward its estimate of spending growth in January from a solid 0.5 percent gain to a much weaker 0.1 percent, which matched December’s lackluster figure. With consumer spending, which fuels about 70 percent of the economy, off to a weak start in 2016, economic growth in the first quarter is anticipated to be weak. Impacting consumer spending is the slow growth in incomes which moved up just 0.2 percent in February.
  • Home prices continued rising at a steady clip in January, another sign that 2016 will offer more of the same in the housing market: tight inventory leading to rising prices and sales volatility. The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index, covering the entire nation, rose 5.4 percent in the 12 months ending in January.
  • Oil prices have moved up recently. Oil prices remain down more than 20 percent from last year. Most analysts still see the market as over-supplied but some expect that falling U.S. output and rising demand will alleviate some of the glut later this year.

We do expect the economy to strengthen later this year. We anticipate GNP reaching 2 percent for the year as a whole. Job growth remains positive and the dollar’s strength has weakened somewhat perhaps aiding export growth. We think home building and home sales will be a positive to the economy and expect the limited supply to cause home prices to continue their upward trend. We agree with the forecast of two rate increases this year, as we expect the Fed to move cautiously.

Interesting Tid Bits

  • The GSEs continue to be a source of funding for US government spending. In all, Fannie and Freddie received $187.5 billion from the Treasury but have paid $245.8 billion back in the form of dividends.
  • Baby boomers are re-writing the old adage that as you get older you seek to get out of debt. The Federal Reserve reported that the average 65 year old borrower today was reported to have 47 percent more mortgage debt than in 2003. They also have 29 percent more auto debt. Both figures were adjusted for inflation.
  • It is projected that this year Americans will use prepaid cards (including gift cards) to a total of $651 billion, an increase of 57 percent from six years ago.
  • During the first six weeks of 2016, the KBW Bank Index dropped nearly 23 percent to a three-year low. Over the same period, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell slightly more than 10 percent over the same period.

Short-term interest rates remain low, with the 3-month T-Bill ending March at 0.21 percent. The 10-year T-Note ended March at 1.78 percent. The yield curve has flattened with the 10-year T-Note falling 49 basis points since December 31, while the three-month T-Bill increased 5 basis points.

The general stock market struggled out of the gate in 2016. As noted above, the market recorded a significant correction in the first six weeks of the year. The market has recovered with the Dow Jones Industrial Index ending March 31 up 1.49 percent for the quarter. This marks a new high for the Dow. The KBW Bank Index ended the March quarter down 12.11 percent. The poor performance of the banking sector is attributable to a variety of concerns, including problem loans surfacing related to the oil industry, continued margin compression issues as interest rates are not rising as quickly as anticipated, and limited growth prospects due to the slow growth of the U.S. economy.

Merger and Acquisition Activity
For the first quarter of 2016, there were 64 bank and thrift announced merger transactions. This compares to 66 deals in the first quarter of 2015. The median price to tangible book for transactions involving bank sellers was 129 percent which is down slightly from 2015’s median value.

Young & Associates, Inc. has been a resource for banks for over 37 years. Through our affiliate, Capital Market Securities, Inc., we have assisted clients in a variety of capital market transactions. For more information on our capital market services, please contact Stephen Clinton at 1.800.376.8662 or click here to send an email.

Mortgage Quality Control Outsourcing

By: Debra L. Werschey, Consultant and Manager of Secondary Market Services

Banks and other financial institutions face increased focus on quality control of the loan origination and closing process.

Lenders’ quality control programs are more important than ever. Our Quality Control services help ensure your quality control program is effective in meeting Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD, FHLB and other investors’ requirements and in mitigating post-purchase risk.

With Young & Associates, you have a trusted partner for quality control outsourcing.

Why Outsource Quality Control?

Outsourcing quality control to Young & Associates allows lenders to correct loan processes, help mitigate loan file errors, and obtain data to develop quality control solutions.

By outsourcing the quality control (QC) process, it’s easier for banks—particularly community banks—to navigate new regulations and optimize their internal resources (time, staffing, and expertise).

Additionally, when you outsource and shift the QC workload to us, you can achieve high-quality results at a lower cost to your organization.

Increasing Industry Regulation

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other mortgage investors demand higher loan quality standards from lenders who want to sell their loans to them.

As the mortgage industry struggles with the best ways to incorporate QC processes into a qualified mortgage (QM) world, be prepared. Recent financial history has shown that this trend of increasing regulation is likely to continue. Help control your risks by outsourcing quality control related to regulatory requirements.

Benefits of Quality Control Outsourcing

Organizations with a commitment to quality control recognize quality begins before an application is taken and continues throughout the entire mortgage process.

By outsourcing quality control to Young & Associates, you get oversight and assistance with:

  • QC Plan Development
  • QC Reviews – approved, denied, and defaulted loan files
  • FHA Branch Audits
  • FHA/VA Denied Loan Review
  • Pre-Closing Reviews Reverse Audits

Why Choose Young & Associates for Quality Control Outsourcing

We’ve developed our strong reputation through consistently providing quality services, assuring our clients the highest level of professional service available today.

Through our QC outsourcing services, you benefit from our comprehensive and extensive knowledge of the mortgage industry. We work diligently to keep apprised of the regulatory requirements.

Committed to Your Success

Young & Associates has provided education, outsourcing, and a wide variety of consulting services to community financial institutions since 1978. We are committed to your future success and look forward to assisting you.

To learn more about quality control outsourcing for mortgage compliance, call 1.800.525.9775 or contact us online.

CECL Nears Finalization (For Real This Time)

By: Tommy Troyer, Executive Vice President

Those who have been following the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) nearly decade-long effort to revamp the accounting rules impacting the recognition of impairment on financial assets (and thus how community banks determine the level of their ALLL) have heard for years that the project was nearing completion. While the project has indeed been moving forward over all these years, the anticipated date of finalization has been repeatedly pushed back. However, this time really is different: on April 27, FASB voted to direct FASB staff to prepare the final draft of the proposed update for a vote by written ballot. FASB hopes for the standard to be formally approved by June 30, but any delays beyond that point should be minimal as FASB has clearly reached a level of comfort with the current draft language.

The new approach to loss recognition is known as the CECL, or Current Expected Credit Loss, model. It represents a significant change to current practices, with the heart of the change being that the ALLL should cover expected lifetime losses on held-to-maturity loans and most other financial assets, rather than simply covering “probable” losses that are deemed to have been “incurred” as of the balance sheet date. In simplified terms, this means that the foundation of the ALLL estimate for community banks will not be an estimate of losses over the next year but will instead be an estimate of all losses expected over the life of the loans held on the balance sheet as of the date of the ALLL calculation. Additionally, the standard requires a forward-looking aspect, as institutions must consider the impact of “reasonable and supportable forecasts” on their loss estimates.

FASB also decided on April 27 to delay the implementation date of CECL by one year from the implementation dates originally determined in November. This means that CECL will need to be implemented in the first fiscal year following December 15, 2019 (2020 for banks with January-December fiscal years) for banks that are “SEC-filers,” and in the first fiscal year following December 15, 2020 (2021 for January-December fiscal years) for banks that are not “SEC-filers.” Early adoption beginning in the first fiscal year following December 15, 2018 (2019 for January-December fiscal years) is permitted.

The Balancing Act: Prepare, but Don’t Panic
The proper approach for any community bank is to attempt to find a balance between complacency about CECL and panic about CECL. Complacency about CECL (including believing that the extra year FASB provided before implementation means an additional year before a bank needs to start preparing) will lead to issues down the road. The methodology and data used to estimate the allowance under CECL will need to be meaningfully different from what banks use today, and as such, preparation to collect data and develop a methodology should begin now. Banks should understand that nearly all community banks base their current ALLL methodology on data that measures net charge-off rates on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. Such data does not describe lifetime loss rates, however, which is what is needed to comply with CECL’s lifetime expected loss standard. Thus, some basic data collection and evaluation efforts should begin now, in part to allow some time to accumulate the data needed by the implementation date.

At the same time that banks recognize the need to begin preparing, they need to also recognize that CECL does not represent any reason to panic. CECL will require some additional work for an effective transition, but it is not an existential threat to any community bank. We believe that some of the most extreme concerns discussed publicly in recent years about CECL and the complexity of approach it might require were overstated, given comments from FASB, financial regulators, and the wording of the 2012 draft Accounting Standards Update. All of these sources emphasized that the approach used by an institution should be appropriate for that institution’s size and complexity. However, the most recent draft released by FASB does represent a notable improvement in the clarity with which this fact is communicated: community banks will not be expected to use unduly complex or expensive approaches. Further, it seems that in every opportunity financial regulators have to speak about CECL, they emphasize that they intend to tailor their expectations for approaches to the size and complexity of financial institutions. Regulators have also repeatedly noted that they do not believe that a community bank will need to purchase an expensive software solution or vendor model in order to comply with CECL.

The Path Forward
At this point in time, banks have all of the information about CECL that they could need to develop a project plan for the transition. Such a plan should incorporate all relevant areas of the bank (for example, in many community banks the IT area will need to provide support with data gathering and warehousing), and updates on progress should regularly be provided to the board or a committee thereof. Evaluating the adequacy of existing credit risk data and planning to improve its collection and storage should be a high priority. Data should be collected in a way that allows institutions to measure lifetime losses and to understand the most important drivers of risk that impact loss rates.

Young & Associates, Inc. is closely following CECL and what it means for community banks. We have presented and will continue to present educational offerings on CECL through various state banking associations. We are also prepared to provide consulting services to help assist community banks in the preparation process. This can include helping banks understand the types of methodologies that can be acceptable means of estimating lifetime losses under CECL and the types of data that will be needed to support such methodologies.

To discuss CECL further, contact Tommy Troyer at 1.800.525.9775 or click here to send an email.

Dealing with Adverse Impact and Compensation Disparities in Affirmative Action Plans

By: Mike Lehr, Human Resources Consultant

When clients see adverse impacts in their Affirmative Action Plans (AAP), it is not unusual for them to say, “So Mike, does this mean I have to hire more females and minorities?” This is the wrong question. It should be, “How do we look into this more?”

AAPs are similar to insurance policies. They help us identify risk in our recruiting, hiring, compensation, promotion, and termination policies and practices. If the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Civil Rights Commission investigate a complaint, they will very likely want to see our AAPs. As with insurance, good plans afford us more protection than bad ones do.

When adverse impacts arise with clients, I automatically look at two areas first:

1. Employment practices and activities
2. The plan’s statistics

Employment Practices and Activities
I review employment practices and activities in affected areas first for two reasons. First, too often what should happen differs from what actually happens. There might not be anything wrong with the policy or practice. It just isn’t being followed well. Why change it? This often happens with policies regarding the acceptance of applications and completion of self-identification disclosures.

The second reason why I look at employment practices and activities first is that they give me ideas on where better recordkeeping might help produce better statistics. This makes revisiting the statistics easier and more directed.

This happens often when we dive into the specifics of a job. Since community bankers often wear many hats, weighting the job against several census codes rather than just one is better. Also, since many community banks serve rural communities, the census sample for a job might be too small to be representative. A next best code can come into play then.

Plan Statistics
When it comes to the plan’s statistics, too often they are based on what is easy to track and figure. This shows up most in the job groups used to categorize jobs, the availability of candidates for openings (promoting from within versus hiring from outside), and the census codes used to compare banks’ jobs with the outside world.

I’m not a fan of redoing calculations after the results. I am a fan of saying, “In order to understand this and our options better, how can we improve our data collection for next year?” It’s similar to analyzing a credit. If there are questionable items, we ask for more information.

As an example, I often recommend dividing up the Professional job group (2) into Lending Professionals (2.1) and Administrative Professionals (2.2). Lending and credit jobs can be in the first group, and accounting, finance, marketing, trust, and other non-lending related jobs can be in the second.

Since lending is a specialized skill to banking and is often sales-related, it frequently creates adverse impacts and compensation disparities for the Professional job group. This can happen if census data is small but not enough so to justify alternative census codes.

Granted, the adverse impact might not disappear. Knowing it’s focused on lending or administrative professionals does help though. Rather than carefully monitoring practices in the entire Professional Job Group, we might only need to focus on a sub-set of it.

Additionally, for the same reasons, I often recommend splitting up the Administrative Support Group (5.0) into three groups such as Ancillary (or Executive) Administrative Support (5.1), Operational Support (5.2), and Retail Administrative Support (5.3).

Often, 75 percent of the jobs in Retail Administrative Support are tellers. They are introductory jobs often filled from outside. More promotions-from-within occur with the other administrative support groups. This pattern affects availability and compensation calculations.

Compensation
From a statistical perspective, I also focus on compensation because it’s grayer than clients often think it is. Even The Code of Federal Regulations (see § 1620.13 through § 1620.19) admits that what is equal pay for equal work “cannot be precisely defined.”

Furthermore, “‘equal’ does not mean ‘identical.’” It is defined by the job’s requirements in terms of skill, effort, and responsibility, not the qualifications of the person unless they specifically impact those requirements. That means two jobs with different titles could be “equal.” That means having better qualifications does not matter unless those qualifications are important to the job.

That is why it helps to begin compensation analyses with job groups, not jobs with the same title. The latter could easily give a false sense of security. Starting at the global level and working down forces us to really look at what makes jobs unequal. AAPs with workable job groups and census codes can help prioritize the jobs and the job descriptions we need to rework or revisit with legal counsel.

Conclusion
Returning to the original question, AAPs have many ways for us to look into adverse impacts and compensation disparities more. A good plan not only provides us good insurance against adverse actions, it guides and prioritizes us. This saves our time and money.

For more information on Affirmative Action Plans, contact Mike Lehr at 1.800.525.9775 or click here to send an email.

Compliance Reviews and the Impact of Technology

By: Bill Elliott, CRCM, Senior Consultant and Manager of Compliance

When I was working in a bank, we had a conference room available for meetings for up to about 10 people. As with most institutions, there was always a battle regarding who could use the room when, as there was only the one room for meetings. So you had to sign up quickly or you had to camp out in there to make sure you had the room when you needed it. Of course, most of the time there was no hope – safety and soundness examiners, compliance examiners, IT examiners, internal auditors, external auditors, consultants, etc., were already in there, and the bank’s meetings would have to move somewhere else. All of you know the feeling – someone seems to be in your shop almost every day examining something.

Benefits of Off-Site Reviews
The days of having every portion of any examination, audit, or review on-site have come to an end. While some institutions still rely mostly on paper, many have a great deal of the required information in an electronic form. And if it is available electronically, much of what needs to be done can now be completed off-site.

There are clear advantages in an off-site review that go beyond freeing up a conference room. Whoever is coming into your shop will have expenses, sometimes significant expenses, such as food, mileage, lodging, etc. So every day that they do not have to be there saves you money. From the standpoint of the examiner, auditor, or consultant, every day that they are not on the road is a plus. Both parties benefit from off-site work.

Off-Site Compliance Reviews
As the head of our compliance division, I will put this in the context of compliance reviews. I can see no reason for a deposit review to ever be completed 100% on-site. Even if your bank has no technology, which is unlikely, Truth in Savings disclosures could be snail-mailed to wherever they need to go with no risk, as there is no customer information on those documents. Some banks can make many other portions of the review materials available electronically, further reducing the on-site time. We generally still have to come on-site for certain portions of the review, such as Regulation E error resolution reviews and Regulation CC hold notice reviews, as most banks do not store that information electronically, at least not yet. But the policy review portion of Regulation E and Regulation CC reviews can certainly be done off-site.

On the loan side, we at Young & Associates, Inc. are doing more and more loan compliance reviews off-site or partially off-site. As technology continues its relentless advance, we can do the necessary review work easily and efficiently. If all we are doing is loan file review, we can complete many of these reviews without ever appearing at the bank. Exit meetings are done via telephone, and with all of the other communication methods available today, there just is not a need to physically come to the bank.

We now have several clients with monthly or quarterly review schedules who see us on-site one time per year. And they have seen significant cost savings due to the reduced travel. By the way, if the work is being completed off-site, ask for a discount in the fee when you can. You do not have to ask for a discount for retainer engagements from Young & Associates, Inc. Every retainer engagement we send automatically has a discount feature built in that ranges from 5 percent to 15 percent depending on several factors, including the amount of consultant time that will be saved by not having to travel to your location.

We offer other services electronically as well. Our Virtual Compliance Consultant (VCC) program, which offers tremendous compliance support via a monthly compliance conference call for compliance discussions or training, compliance policy assistance, and access to all of our compliance-related products, is all electronic. We also offer board of director training live, using electronic methods. And the list will continue to grow.

Conclusion
As you contemplate this type of change, make sure that you involve your IT department to assure the information stays secure. Neither you nor your examiner/auditor/consultant need to have a breach. But it can be done, and your bottom line will be better off as a result.

To hear more about any of the compliance services mentioned in this article, or for more information on what Young & Associates, Inc.’s compliance department can offer your bank, contact Bill Elliott at 1.800.525.9775 or click here to send an email.

Connect with a Consultant

Contact us to learn more about our consulting services and how we can add value to your financial institution

Ask a Question