Author: admin

Handle ARM Adjustments with Care

Written by admin on October 6, 2020. Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Lending & Loan Review.

By William J. Showalter, CRCM, CRP, Senior Consultant

Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM) have not been much of an issue for many banks and thrifts in recent years since fixed rates have been so low. But they are still an important tool for serving those customers who cannot meet the secondary market qualifications applied to most fixed-rate loans. And, many institutions have a portfolio of existing ARM loans that they service. One potential complication for some lenders is the impending discontinuance of the LIBOR index. This requires lenders to find another comparable index for their ARMs.

ARMs were in the spotlight over 10 years ago because of problems in the subprime market. Many subprime products have variable interest rates, which shift the interest rate risk from lender to borrower. Besides the issues raised then over putting borrowers into inappropriate products, there also are concerns over errors in ARM rate changes.

Do an internet search for “ARM errors” or similar terms and you will come up with numerous firms offering loan audit and information services to borrowers. These firms tell borrowers that their companies can correct ARM errors, bring loans into compliance, and get the borrower a mortgage refund.

Background on adjustable-rate mortgages

The initial furor over these mistakes arose over a report on adjustable-rate mortgage adjustment errors prepared by a former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation employee in 1989. His assertions sent a tremor through the mortgage industry. The report concluded that miscalculations in periodic adjustments to rates on ARM instruments resulted in significant overcharges. He found ARM adjustment errors in about 50 percent of the loans he sampled. From these results, he estimated the potential overcharges to be up to $15 billion for ARMs nationwide at the time. This figure has been estimated as high as $50-60 billion in recent years.

The controversy was further stoked by a study from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released in September 1991 which found between 20 and 25 percent of the ARM loans at the time contained interest rate errors. Such errors occurred when the related mortgage servicer selected the incorrect index date, used an incorrect margin, or ignored interest rate change caps.

The damaging studies kept coming. In July 1994, Consumer Loan Advocates, a non-profit mortgage auditing firm announced that as many as 18 percent of ARMs had errors costing the borrower more than $5,000 in interest overcharges. And, another government study in December 1995 concluded that 50 to 60 percent of all ARMs contained an error regarding the variable interest rate charged to the homeowner. The study estimated the total amount of interest overcharged to borrowers was in excess of $8 billion. Inadequate computer programs, incorrect completion of documents, and calculation errors were cited as the major causes of interest rate overcharges.

Even though no other government studies have been conducted into ARM interest overcharges to date, the potential issue continues to simmer below the surface and lenders need to be vigilant so that it does not erupt into a veritable super volcano of enforcement actions and lawsuits.

Types of errors

The kinds of errors lenders are said to make in implementing ARM rate and payment adjustments run the gamut from calculation mistakes to carelessness, including:

Mistakes in original loan set up/data input
Miscalculation of payment amount
Improper allocation of payments between interest and principal (amortization)
Use of the wrong index
Selection of incorrect index value
Application of incorrect interest rate caps
Failure to adjust in some years
Use of incorrect margins
Improper rounding methods (e.g., rounding up instead of rounding to the nearest 1/8th of 1 percent)
Math mistakes causing an incorrect rate
Use of incorrect loan balance

Banking regulators point out that these errors may be considered breaches of contract. These errors could then expose the financial institution to legal action.

Extent of errors

Since ARMs involve changing index values periodically and oftentimes complex computer calculations, they seem to attract human and software errors. Mortgage audit firms point out that leading publications such as The Wall Street Journal, MONEY, Forbes, and Newsweek have warned borrowers about miscalculations occurring in up to 50 percent of ARMs.

The firms get borrowers’ attention by pointing to figures of lender overcharges and borrower refunds like these:
Average borrower refund of over $1,500
21 percent of refunds ranging from $3,500 to $10,000
13 percent of errors exceeding $10,000

Reasons for errors

The calculation of ARM rate changes is a complex process and errors can occur in a variety of ways. Add to this the fact that many lenders offer, and servicers support, a variety of ARM products with different rate adjustment intervals, indices, margins, and other terms. Another potential complicating factor is the widespread practice of transferring loan servicing. This presents another opportunity for human mistakes and software mismatches to cause errors.

Some of the mortgage audit firms assert that adjustable-rate mortgage rate and payment adjustment errors have been linked to:

Lack of training, supervision, and experience of loan servicing personnel
Simple human error
Computer data entry or software errors
Clerical or calculation errors
Fraud
Sale or transfer of the loan to a different company
Rider, handwritten changes, or other irregularities in the note
Very complex calculations, use of an unusual index, or interest rate
Dissolution or merger of the original loan institution

How to avoid these problems

The federal banking supervisors began encouraging financial institutions back in 1991 to perform reviews of their adjustable-rate loan systems. This was to ensure that interest rate information is correctly ascertained and administered, and that rates are adjusted properly.

Banks and thrifts should have effective internal controls and procedures in place to ensure that all adjustments are made according to the terms of the underlying contracts and that complete, timely, and accurate adjustment notices are provided to borrowers. Also, a system for the ongoing testing of adjustments should be in place to ensure that adjustments continue to be made correctly.

A critical component of any successful loan servicing program, including correctly implementing rate and payment adjustments, is a thorough training regime for lending personnel involved in the process. Those involved must be given the appropriate tools – including knowledge – to succeed in their jobs.

Any review of adjustable-rate mortgage adjustments should include documentation indicating the basis for interest rate adjustments made to a lender’s adjustable-rate mortgage loans, showing whether changes have been made consistent with the underlying contracts.

If a lender finds that it has made errors in the adjustments for interest rates which have resulted in interest overcharges on ARMs, the supervisory agencies expect that you will have in place a system to correct the overcharges and properly credit the borrower’s account for any interest overcharges. In general, undercharges cannot be collected from borrowers.

Learn more about this topic and how Young & Associates, Inc. can assist your institution. Contact Bill Showalter at wshowalter@younginc.com or 330.422.3473 today.

Off-Site Reviews, Virtual/Teleconference Training, and Management Consulting Support

Written by admin on October 5, 2020. Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Information Technology, Lending & Loan Review, Management & Planning.

Young & Associates, Inc. remains committed to keeping our employees, clients, and partners safe and healthy during the COVID-19 pandemic. During this difficult and unprecedented time, we have continued to successfully leverage technology to fulfill our commitments to our clients and partners through secure remote access for reviews, virtual/teleconference training, and other management consulting support.

Young & Associates’ commitment to virtual/teleconference training and remote access reviews date back well over five years. We see this ability as a win-win for everyone – the review and training get completed in a timely manner and the bank avoids paying any travel expenses. Concerned about security, please be assured that we use the latest secure technology.

We remain committed to helping our clients with all areas of their operations through off-site reviews and providing the most current regulatory updates through our virtual/teleconferencing training.

Contact one of our consultants today for more information about our off-site reviews or virtual/teleconferencing training:

Bill Elliott, Director of Compliance Education:
bille@younginc.com or 330.422.3450

Karen Clower, Director of Compliance:
kclower@younginc.com or 330.422.3444

Martina Dowidchuk, Director of Management Services:
mdowidchuk@younginc.com or 330.422.3449

Bob Viering, Director of Lending:
bviering@younginc.com or 330.422.3476

Kyle Curtis, Director of Lending Services:
kcurtis@younginc.com or 330.422.3445

Aaron Lewis, Director of Lending Education:
alewis@younginc.com or 330.422.3466

Dave Reno, Director – Lending and Business Development:
dreno@younginc.com or 330.422.3455

Ollie Sutherin, Manager of Secondary Market QC Services:
osutherin@younginc.com or 330.422.3453

Jeanette McKeever, Director of Internal Audit:
jmckeever@younginc.com or 330.422.3468

Mike Detrow: Director of Information Technology Audit/Information Technology:
mdetrow@younginc.com or 330.422.3447

Young & Associates, Inc.’s consultants provide a level of expertise gathered over 42 years. In our consulting engagements, we closely monitor the regulatory environment and best practices in the industry, develop customized solutions for our clients’ needs, and prepare detailed and timely audit reports to ease implementation moving forward. Our consultants have backgrounds and experience in virtually all areas of the financial services industry.. Many of our consultants and trainers have come to the company directly from positions in financial institutions or regulatory agencies where they worked to resolve many of the issues that our clients face daily.

We look forward to working with you as you work to obtain your goals in 2021 and beyond.

Strategic planning for 2021

Written by admin on October 5, 2020. Posted in Management & Planning.

By Bob Viering, Senior Consultant and Director of Lending

Young & Associates, Inc. is a leader in assisting financial institutions to move successfully through the strategic planning process. We remain flexible to your bank’s specific needs, and work with you to create a vision with a focus on both your short- and long-term future.

Pre-planning – Where are we today?

At Young & Associates, Inc., we individualize our strategic planning approach for your bank. Prior to your planning session, we feel it is important to get to know your bank. We do this by sitting down with your management team, discussing the biggest issues facing your organization, and reviewing your results and progress from your prior strategic plan. Next we send out a confidential questionnaire to both directors and senior officers to determine if there are specific issues of importance that need to be addressed. Based on your assessment of your bank’s direction and the results of the questionnaire, we will work with you to craft an agenda that is specific to your bank. The pre-planning session and analysis is geared to answering the question: where are we now?

Planning session – Where do we want to be?

On the day of your planning session, we spend time discussing what is going on in the banking world and the analysis of the pre-planning work so everyone is on the same page about where we are today. This may include updating your SWOT analysis. We focus on a critical piece of the planning session, which is to answer: where do we want to be?

Young & Associates will facilitate the discussion and use our years of real-world experience to help you craft a plan that reflects your vision. The goal is to have a vision of where you want your organization to be next year, in five years, or ten years down the road, and determine what it will take to get there. Strategy is about making choices about who you want to serve, how you plan to serve them, and often just as important, who you are not going to serve.

Plan execution – How will we get there?

The goal at the end of the day is to have an agreed direction for your bank and the strategies/goals you will use to get there. Finally, we discuss the most important item of all planning: execution. Even the best plan won’t succeed without a clear execution strategy, assigned responsibilities for each goal, a completion timeline, and periodic progress updates.

Written strategic plan

After the planning session, we will take the information about your goals and strategies and, with the assistance of your CFO, craft a financial plan that reflects your future direction. Our financial modeling tools allow us to show the impact of various “what-if” business scenarios, whether it is an alternative/stressed budget, impact of alternative strategies on the bottom line, capital, shareholder value, liquidity etc. v

Why Young & Associates, Inc.?

Our consultants working on strategic planning are former CEOs and senior executives who were responsible for planning in their own banks so we know the realities of running your bank every day, along with the need to balance your time with executing your plan.

Testing Your Balance Sheet’s Capacity to Weather the Pandemic and Embrace New Opportunities

Written by admin on October 5, 2020. Posted in Management & Planning.

By Martina Dowidchuk, Senior Consultant and Director of Management Services

As we adjust to the new reality and navigate through the immediate operational challenges, long-term planning comes back into focus. What is the bank’s balance sheet capacity to weather the economic downturn, absorb the potential losses, and leverage the existing resources to support households and businesses affected by the pandemic?

Community banks, with their relationship-based business models, are uniquely positioned to support their markets by using their in-depth knowledge of the local economies and the borrowers’ unique situations to provide timely and individualized assistance for impacted customers. This is an opportunity to facilitate a return to economic stability and be the source of information and communication, but also to enhance customer relationships and trust over the long term.

Unlike during the 2008 financial crisis, most banks have stronger risk infrastructure, larger capital buffers, and higher liquidity reserves. How long the existing safeguards will last depends on the length and severity of the downturn. As we continue to work surrounded by an array of unknowns, there are planning steps that can be taken now to get in front of problems and position the bank to leverage its strengths to support the local communities and shareholders.

Capital Plan Review – How much capital can be deployed into new credits? How much stress can we absorb?

Considering the abrupt economic changes, the bank’s risk-specific minimum capital level requirements should be revised to reflect the likely changes in the levels and direction of credit risk, interest rate risk, liquidity risk, and others. The recently issued regulatory statement relaxing capital requirements includes modifications related to the amount of retained income available for distribution, allowing banking organizations to dip into their capital buffers and to continue lending without facing abrupt regulatory restrictions. Institution-specific capital adequacy calculations can also provide a basis for the decision whether or not to opt in to using the community bank leverage ratio, which has been temporarily reduced from 9 percent to an 8 percent minimum threshold.

Stress testing the capital against credit losses, adverse interest rate environment, and other earnings challenges can help identify potential vulnerabilities and allow management to proactively prepare and protect the bank from losing its well-capitalized status should the simulated stress scenarios unfold. The sooner the problems are identified, the more flexibility you have in developing a solution. Every bank should have an up-to-date capital contingency plan to be implemented if the capital levels approach the minimums needed for a well-capitalized bank designation.

The review of the minimum capital requirements and the stress tests can provide valuable insights regarding not only the bank’s ability to survive a recession, but also to estimate the amount of “excess” capital that can be used to support additional lending. Many banks can justify lower capital requirements once they customize the capital adequacy calculations to their specific risk profiles. If additional asset growth can be supported from the capital perspective, the plan should be further evaluated from the liquidity standpoint.

Liquidity Plan Review – Are the existing liquidity reserves sufficient to support additional loan growth and the potential funding pressures?

Liquidity plan review needs to go hand in hand with capital planning. While most community banks have strong liquidity positions, the scale and speed of the coronavirus shock have raised concerns that credit drawdowns, sudden declines in revenues, and a higher potential for credit issues will strain bank balance sheets. Funding pressures may be building because of uncertainty about the amount of damage that the coronavirus might cause. Banks may be experiencing deposit drains from customers experiencing financial hardship or seeing withdrawals driven by fear. On the other hand, the volatility of the stock market and the uncertainty may drive the “flight to safety” and increases in bank deposits.

Changes in the business strategies and the results of the capital stress tests should be incorporated in the liquidity plan and the projected cash flows should be stress tested. Banks need to plan for ways to meet their funding needs under stressed conditions. The simulations should cover both short-term and prolonged stress events using a combination of stress constraints that are severe enough to highlight potential vulnerabilities of the bank from the liquidity perspective. The analysis should show the impact on both the on-balance sheet liquidity and the contingent liquidity, while taking into consideration changes in the available collateral, collateral requirements, limitations on access to unsecured funds or brokered deposits, policy limits on the use of wholesale funding, and other relevant stress factors.

Credit Risk Assessments – What is the loan loss potential?

Credit risk has the highest weight among the risk factors affecting capital and it is the biggest unknown in today’s environment. The assessments will need to shift to be more forward looking rather than solely relying on past performance. The stress tests will be most useful when customized to reflect the characteristics particular to the institution and its market area. Banks need to understand which segments of their portfolio will be the most affected and perform targeted assessments of the potential fallout, along with the review of other segments that may have had weaker risk profiles before the pandemic, higher concentrations of credit, or those segments that are significant to the overall business strategy.

The estimates might be a moving target in the foreseeable future; however, once the framework is set up, the analyses can be regularly repeated to determine the current impact. The results of these credit risk assessments will provide a valuable input for fine-tuning the capital plan and assessing adequacy of liquidity reserves, as well as for formulating strategies for working with the affected borrowers and extending new credit.

Measuring Impact of Plans

As we face abrupt changes in the strategic focus, taking the time to diagnose strengths and weaknesses, to understand the range of possible outcomes of the new business strategies, and to line up contingency plans ready to be invoked as the picture get clearer is a worthwhile exercise. Young & Associates, Inc. remains committed to assist you in every step of the plan review process. Our modeling and stress testing tools will allow you to generate valuable support information for your decision making, ensure regulatory compliance, and be proactive in addressing potential problems and positioning for new opportunities. For more information, contact Martina Dowidchuk at mdowidchuk@younginc.com or 330.422.3449.

Loan Modifications: A Proactive Approach for Working with Borrowers Impacted by Coronavirus (COVID-19), Guided by Recently Issued Interagency Statement

Written by admin on April 1, 2020. Posted in Lending & Loan Review.

By Bob Viering, Director of Lending, and Aaron Lewis, Director of Lending Education, Young & Associates, Inc., March 25, 2020

On March 22, 2020, the federal banking regulators issued an interagency statement on loan modifications for customers affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (also referred to as COVID-19). In a number of ways, it resembled historical statements issued in the wake of natural disasters. In keeping with previously issued statements following natural disasters the federal regulators recognize that there can be an impact on borrowers and encourages banks “to work prudently” with those borrowers. However, given the sudden and significant impact of the rapidly spreading coronavirus pandemic that has had a nationwide impact, the breadth of the statement was far more reaching than previous statements issued following natural disasters which historically have been isolated to specific geographic regions. In the statement the federal regulators included the following provisions:

1. The federal regulators confirmed with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that “…short-term modifications made on a good faith basis in response to COVID-19 to borrowers who were current prior to any relief are not troubled debt restructurings (TDRs).”

2. “…short term (e.g., six months)…”modifications can include: payment deferrals, fee waivers, extension of payment terms or other delays in payments that are “insignificant.”

3.“Current” is defined as less than 30 days past due. If the credit is current at the time of the modification the borrower is deemed to not be experiencing financial difficulties.

4. Banks can choose to work with individual borrowers or as “part of a program.”

5. Borrowers granted a modification will not be “automatically adversely risk rated” by agencies’ examiners. In fact, it is stated that agency examiners will use judgment in reviewing credits modified and “regardless of whether modifications result in loans that are considered TDRs or are adversely classified, agency examiners will not criticize prudent efforts to modify the terms on existing loans to affected customers.”

6. Loans granted modifications will not be classified as past due if modified, unless they become past due per the terms of the modification.

7.During the temporary short-term arrangements (as provided in the Interagency Statement), loans should not be reported as “non-accrual.”

8. As information is gathered, if an adverse classification, non-accrual, or charge-off is warranted, bank actions should follow existing guidance on the topics.

The best way to interpret the Interagency Statement is to consider it as providing banks breathing room while more information is developed that allows the bank to accurately assess the borrower’s financial strength. It is clear throughout the statement that any modifications must be temporary and short-term to not be classified as TDR. This guidance is in keeping with previous statements regarding TDR and relative impact to the credit. While there is no specific definition of what constitutes short-term or temporary, the mention of six months in the Interagency Statement should be a reasonable maximum to consider.

The statement mentions that working with either individual borrowers or as part of a program is acceptable. The term “individual borrowers” is fairly self-explanatory. A “program” for working with borrowers will require a bank to determine criteria to allow for a more automatic deferral decision. This would need to include checking that the borrower was not past due for reasons other than the impact of COVID-19, that the deferral meets the criteria as outlined in the Interagency Statement, and that the bank believes the borrower has been impacted by the Coronavirus. In the case of a program, the decision on granting deferrals may be made by a lender or manager close to the front lines.

Once the deferral decision has been made, the real work begins. As mentioned above, this statement really provides banks with a near-term way to deal with an unknown impact while providing time to fully assess the actual impact on the borrower. Here are the steps we would recommend that banks take in response to the impact of COVID-19:

1. Make a list of borrowers most likely impacted by COVID-19. Hotels, restaurants, non-essential retailers, ‘Main Street business,’ some manufacturers, distributors, and especially non-owner occupied commercial real estate owners with tenants impacted by COVID-19 are examples of customers that are most vulnerable to the current health crisis.

2. Reach out to those borrowers to see how they are doing, how they have been impacted, and what they see as next steps for their business. Let your borrowers know you are here to work with them as they navigate through the downturn, including taking pro-active steps to ensure the viability of their business. Let them know what you are doing in the community to help. This is the most important time to keep up communications with your customers. They may well be concerned about what might happen to them and a few kind words of support from their bank can go a long way to letting them know they are not alone.

3. Based on your initial analysis and conversations with potentially impacted borrowers, you should derive a shorter list of borrowers for which deeper analysis is warranted. As you develop a forward-looking analysis the following considerations should be made:

4. It is imperative that a pro-active approach is taken by the institution in response to the impact of COVID-19. Sufficient human resources should be dedicated to the bank’s response and outreach to impacted customers. If human resources are limited at the institution, the aforementioned list of borrowers should be prioritized based on factors developed by management, i.e., size of credit, borrower sensitivity to the impact of a downturn, and those businesses considered critical to the well-being of the community (large employers).

In addition to the bottom-up (customer level) analysis discussed above, we would recommend that the bank perform a comprehensive stress test of its loan portfolio to determine the level of impact, if any, on capital which should be addressed by the board and senior management. (This is a great time to update your capital plan as well.)

The next few months are likely to be a difficult period for many banks and their borrowers. As of today, we don’t really know the actual impact on the economy from COVID-19. But, we can be sure it won’t just be a quick blip and a return to normal for all borrowers. Take the time allowed by this unprecedented Interagency Statement and be proactive.

Job Grades . . . For You?

Written by admin on March 6, 2020. Posted in Management & Planning.

By Mike Lehr, Human Resources Consultant

Are job grades for you? “Yes,” is the short answer. The challenge is coming up with ones that fit your bank and don’t break the bank.

First, as a Federal contractor, banks must abide by the Pay Transparency Nondiscrimination Provision. This means employees can discuss their pay with other employees. Moreover, banks must post notifications stating as such. Employees will compare and assess positions accordingly.

Second, what to pay an employee is a tough question. Competitive pressures and meeting managers’ needs make this very subjective and inconsistent when hiring and promoting. Is the pay increase in line with the increase in responsibility? Are managers seeing this the same way? How well do officer titles relate to positions?

Third, what are the career paths in your bank? How do different jobs rank? Is the move upward, lateral, or downward? When is a finance officer on par with a commercial lender? Should an increase in title come with a different job? In all banks, positions come with different statuses. Employees’ and managements’ views don’t always sync on this.

Finally, community banks differ from regional and national ones. They differ from other federal contractors who are typically much larger. At those places, jobs have very specific descriptions. At community banks, a job could contain the responsibilities of three different jobs as those places. Moreover, they change. It’s not unusual for employees to trade job duties.

Yes, job grades can solve these problems and answer these questions. The problem is that the job grading industry is armed with fancy calculations and formulas to create them. Here, think cost. They follow a recipe, the same one no matter the size of the project.

Of course, they “customize” in the end after they burn hours running through the numbers. It’s like applying a six-sigma process to a two-sigma project, using that preverbal sledge hammer to kill a flea, or buying a Ferrari to arrive quicker when the road is rough and breaking fifty safely isn’t possible.

Also, speaking of rough roads, finely tuned calculations and formulas work best on clearly defined jobs. When it comes to community banking, defining jobs is like driving an all-terrain vehicle. It depends on the needs and talent on hand. It’s highly variable compared to the big guys.

So, that brings us to the point about job grades. You can do it. Yes, training helps. You might even have it now. Remember, the process they teach is a recipe, not a concept. Following it blindly will waste time and yield bad results. Do the parts that only make sense and return high value. Improvise, too – it’s all right.

Lastly, these guides apply too if you hire out for part or all of the effort. Pay for value. People modify recipes all the time. That’s why the phrase “to taste” is in them.

Regardless, think all-terrain vehicle. Job grades can solve a variety of compensation, career-pathing, employee engagement, and officer-titling problems. It’s also insurance against pay discrimination.

For more insights and guidance on how to get your employees to make better decisions, you can reach Mike Lehr at mlehr@younginc.com.

Assessing your Compliance Training

Written by admin on March 6, 2020. Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By Bill Elliott, CRCM, Director of Compliance Education

Last fall, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) updated their Regulatory Agenda for the next few months. As has been the reality for a while, there does not seem to be any particular rush to accomplish many final rules. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCP Act) was signed into law in May 2018. In that law, there are a number of required changes that should be fairly easy to implement – if the CFPB would just do so. But in the short term, there appears little likelihood that the changes dictated by the law (or many other changes) will be placed into regulation. But change is still in our future – it is just a question of the timing.

Part of the problem is the regulatory process. Although all banks are not subject to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, it is an excellent example. The “new version” of Regulation C was published as a final rule, effective January 2018. Before the 2018 date, the CFPB changed the regulation. With the passage of the EFRRCP Act, many of the new required fields were eliminated for smaller reporters. Although a fairly simple series of changes were necessary, many months passed before the regulation was updated (October 2019). And when those changes were made final, there were still some outstanding issues in HMDA that needed to be addressed, and remain open at this writing. So even with all the changes, it is not “final” yet. The latest Small Entity Guide for HMDA (which will have to be modified again) is Version 4.

Importance of compliance training

This complicates the life of any bank, regardless of size. When the regulatory process is poor and disjointed, it makes training and implementation more difficult. But the reality is that regardless of how confusing the regulatory process is, banks still have to comply.

Training is a necessary expense, as a failure to train, especially when things are in flux, opens the bank to regulatory scrutiny and/or fines for non-compliance. And keeping your policies and procedures current with the latest changes is always a challenge.

Banks should assess how information is disseminated throughout the bank as these changes occur to assure that training dollars are spent effectively. And the time to assess is now, while things are relatively “calm.” Many banks have delegated training to electronic or web-based systems, and there are many good choices available. But, because of the nature of this type of training, they focus on the facts and requirements, but usually do not include information on what to expect of your employees, or the implementation strategies of your bank. Be wary of buying a training system and then assuming all your training needs are met.

How we can help with your compliance training program

We do not market electronic or web-based systems. But Young & Associates, Inc. offers a wide variety of personalized training opportunities, including:

Live seminars with some of our state association partners
Live in-bank training
Conference calls
Private webinars
Virtual Compliance Consultant program, which includes a monthly telephone call that can be used for compliance support and/or training sessions as well as policy support, and any other personalized training that you may need

In this period of relative quiet, take this time to assess your training methods and your training needs for the future. Eventually the regulators will begin to issue more regulation, and Young & Associates, Inc. stands ready to assist. To discuss how we can help, please contact Karen Clower at 330.422.3444 or kclower@younginc.com.

IRR and Liquidity Risk Review – Model Back-Testing / Validation of Measurements

Written by admin on March 6, 2020. Posted in Lending & Loan Review, Management & Planning, Risk Management.

Effective risk control requires conducting periodic independent reviews of the risk management process and validation of the risk measurement systems. This helps to ensure their integrity, accuracy, and reasonableness. To meet the requirements of the Joint Policy Statement on Interest Rate Risk (IRR), as well as the Interagency Guidance on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management and the subsequent regulatory guidance, Young & Associates, Inc. can assist you in assessing the following:

The adequacy of the bank’s internal control system
Personnel’s compliance with the bank’s internal control system
The appropriateness of the bank’s risk measurement system
The accuracy and completeness of the data inputs
The reasonableness and validity of scenarios used in the risk measurement system
The reasonableness and validity of assumptions
The validity of the risk measurement calculations within the risk measurement system, including back-testing of the actual results versus forecasted results and an analysis of various variance sources

Our detailed interest rate risk review reports and liquidity risk review reports assess each of the above, describe the findings, provide suggestions for any corrective actions, and include recommendations for improving the quality of the bank’s risk management systems, and their compliance with the regulatory guidance. We are happy to customize the review scope to your bank’s specific needs.

For more information, contact Martina Dowidchuk at mdowidchuk@younginc.com or 330-422-3449.

Liquidity Risk Management

Written by admin on March 6, 2020. Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Management & Planning.

By Martina Dowidchuk, Director of Management Services and Senior Consultant

Does your liquidity management meet the standards of increased regulatory scrutiny? Regulators are gradually reviewing what they once deemed acceptable more rigidly, and financial institutions need to be prepared to show that their liquidity risk oversight complies with both supervisory guidance and sound industry practices.

Community banks may not view liquidity risk as an immediate concern given the abundance of liquidity in the banking industry today. However, the history shows that liquidity reserves can change quickly and the changes may occur outside of management’s control. A bank’s liquidity position may be adequate under certain operating environments, yet be insufficient under adverse environments. Adequate liquidity governance is considered as important as the bank’s liquidity position. While the sophistication of the liquidity measurement tools varies with the bank’s complexity and risk profiles, all institutions are expected to have a formal liquidity policy and contingency funding plan that are supported by liquidity cash flow forecast, projected liquidity position analysis, stress testing, and dynamic liquidity metrics customized to match the bank’s balance sheets.

Some of the common liquidity risk management pitfalls found during annual independent reviews include:

Cash Flow Plan:

Lack of projected cash flow analysis
Inconsistencies between liquidity cash flow assumptions and the strategic plan/budget
Lack of documentation supporting liquidity plan assumptions
Overdependence on outdated, static liquidity ratios and lack of forward-looking metrics
Lack of back-testing of the model

Stress Scenarios:

Stress-testing of projected cash flows not performed
Stress tests focusing on a single stress event rather than a combination of stress factors
Stress tests lacking the assessment of a liquidity crisis impact on contingent funding sources
Insufficient severity of stress tests

Contingency Funding Plan Document:

Contingency funding plan failing to address certain key components, such as the identification of early warning indicators, alternative funding sources, crisis management team, and action plan details
Lack of metrics defined to assess the adequacy of primary and contingent funding sources in the baseline and stressed scenarios

Liquidity Policy:

Inadequate risk limits or lack of acceptable levels of funding concentrations defined in the liquidity policy
Liquidity policy failing to address responsibilities for maintenance of the cash flow model, model documentation, periodic assumption review, and model validation

Management Oversight:

ALCO discussions related to liquidity management not containing sufficient detail and not reflected appropriately in the ALCO meeting minutes
Lack of periodic testing of the stand-by funding lines
Lack of liquidity model assumption review or documentation of such review
Lack of periodic independent reviews of the liquidity risk management process

If you want an independent review of your existing liquidity program and a model validation, or need assistance developing a contingency funding plan, liquidity cash flow plan, and liquidity stress testing, please contact me at 330.422.3449 or mdowidchuk@younginc.com. Young & Associates, Inc. offers an array of liquidity products and services that can help you to ensure compliance with the latest regulatory expectations.

CRE Portfolio Stress Testing

Written by admin on March 6, 2020. Posted in Lending & Loan Review, Management & Planning.

CRE Stress Testing is widely viewed by bankers and bank regulators as a valuable risk management tool that will assist management and the board of directors with its efforts to effectively identify, measure, monitor, and control risk. The information provided by this exercise should be considered in the bank’s strategic and capital planning efforts, concentration risk monitoring and limit setting, and in decisions about the bank’s loan product design and underwriting standards.

Young & Associates, Inc. offers CRE Portfolio Stress Testing that provides an insightful and efficient stress testing solution that doesn’t just simply arrive at an estimate of potential credit losses under stressed scenarios, but provides a multiple page report with a discussion and summary of the bank’s level and direction of credit risk, to be used for strategic and capital planning exercises and credit risk management activities.

Our CRE Stress Testing service is performed remotely with your data, allowing for management to remain free to work on the many other initiatives that require attention, while we make use of our existing systems and expertise.

For more information, contact Kyle Curtis, Director of Lending Services, at kcurtis@younginc.com or 330.422.3445.

Ag Lending Considerations in 2020

Written by admin on February 28, 2020. Posted in Lending & Loan Review.

By Robert Viering, Director of Lending

On January 28, 2020, the FDIC published Financial Institution Letter (FIL-5-2020) Advisory: Prudent Management of Agricultural Lending During Economic Cycles. It’s a good summary of many items to consider in the management of your ag portfolio and I recommend you taking a few minutes to read it.

In our loan review practice we have many clients that have a reasonable exposure to agriculture, including agribusiness. We’ve seen a decline in the cash flow generated by these borrowers as the ag sector declined from the historic highs of a few years ago. Over the last two years, we have seen this sector stabilize as most producers have been able to make adjustments to their operation and, while not back to the same levels of profitability, reach a level of acceptable cash flow.

For many it has been a case of reducing expenses not only for crop inputs, but also cutting family living. For some that were over-leveraged, we have seen the sale of land (or sale-leaseback) that has brought debt service in line with today’s cash flow or a slowing of capital expenditures. We’ve seen many instances where debt was refinanced to a longer term to bring payments in line with cash flow. However, even with the vast majority of borrowers making adjustments, we have seen more classified ag credits and increased non-performing loans. This has typically been due to high leverage or not being able to make the tough decisions needed to operate successfully today. Management skills are near the top of the list for success in agriculture today.

Based on what we have seen in our reviews of our ag clients and our own experience managing ag portfolios, the following is our list of “best practices” for 2020:

Have all the information needed to make an informed credit decision at renewal, including:

A complete financial statement with detailed schedules. Take the time to review this with your borrower and ask if they have any other bills, such as payables to input providers or loans from family or friends.
- For more complex borrowers that may have various partnerships or corporate entities that make up the farming operation, make sure you have financial information for each of the entities, not just the one you may be financing. You need a global financial statement, as well as a global cash flow.
- Ask about actual ownership of assets. Some assets may be owned by a trust; if so, consider making the trust a co-borrower or guarantor.
- Have your borrower complete the financial statement as of 12/31 each year. You’ll need this to make accurate accrual adjustments when used with the tax return.

- - A credit report on all individuals that sign personally. Use this report to check for levels of personal debt and compare this report to past years to see if personal debt is increasing or decreasing.
  - A new UCC search. Use this to see if there are other secured lenders.
  - Estimated Costs. If you are getting a cash flow from the borrower to support an operating line, compare the estimated costs to historical costs. We see a lot of borrowers that underestimate their actual costs.
    - Government payments have been a big part of some farms’ cash flow. It is important to understand the impact of those payments on an operation. Consider what happens if the Market Facilitation Program is not extended in 2020.
    - Obtain a basic stress test on the borrower’s cash flow. If small changes in revenue or expenses will bring cash flow below break-even, do understand the level of crop insurance, any hedging program, and have a “Plan B” discussed with those in the operation regarding how they will get through if things are tough. It’s a lot easier to have that conversation about selling some land now than when payments are due in the fall if things don’t go as planned.
  - Cash Flow for New Debt Structure. If you’re going to restructure debt, make sure the operation can cash flow the new debt structure. If it can, great; you probably have a pass loan (or will be soon). If not, then you probably have a classified loan.
  - Trends. Trends matter. What direction are leverage, liquidity, and cash flow going?
  - Working Capital. Working capital is your real secondary source of repayment. If working capital is strong, that will cover an off year and not require a restructure or asset sale.
  - Future Plans. Ask about the plans for 2020, including any capital expenditures (for your good borrowers, don’t forget to pre-approve them for these loans); their marketing plans; and any changes in expenses from the prior year.

Know your portfolio:

- Track risk rating changes for the portfolio. What is the direction of your average risk rating?
- Stress test your portfolio. Develop moderate and high stress scenarios. Stress revenue, expenses, and collateral values. Understand the impact of moderate and high stress on your capital. (Young & Associates, Inc. can work with you to provide a stress test of your ag or CRE portfolio.)

Be proactive:

Don’t put off those farm visits. You’ll learn far more about your borrowers’ operation, their concerns, and what they most enjoy by spending a few hours with them at the farm than you ever will just talking in your office, making phone calls, and sending emails or text messages. Document those visits and take pictures for the file. Some banks list all farms they need to visit, estimate when the visit will take place, and track their progress each month.
Ask your borrower what information they monitor to manage the farm. You’d be surprised how many operators have a lot more information than they share with you. It’s almost never that they are holding information back as much as it is we haven’t asked.
Develop an exit plan if needed. If you have a struggling operation and there doesn’t appear to be a good way to turn it around, you need to have that tough conversation with the borrower about how you will get repaid sooner rather than later. Having a well-planned, cooperative exit plan is almost always in everyone’s best interest.

Know that best practices are not for every borrower:

Having more information than less is always best, but sometimes we have those very strong, long-time borrowers that provide minimal information. If every indication says the operation is strong, then sometimes you can get by with more limited information. But, in those cases, spell out in your loan presentation what you are not getting and why that does not pose a risk to the bank.

Need Assistance?

Please feel free to reach out to us if we can help you with your loan review, stress testing, or other aspects of your lending operation that you’d like to improve. Our lending team features well-experienced bankers that provide you with realistic solutions. For more information, you can contact me at bviering@younginc.com or 330.422.3476.

Banks as Federal Contractors, A Brief History

Written by admin on November 27, 2019. Posted in Compliance & Regulations, Management & Planning.

By: Mike Lehr, HR Consultant

Unless legal counsel says otherwise, if FDIC covers a bank’s deposits, it’s best to assume it’s a federal contractor. That not only means the bank likely needs an affirmative action plan if it issues fifty or more different W2s in a year, but the federal government holds the bank to higher employment standards.

Still, as human resources professionals know, bank CEOs, presidents, and other senior executives often want to know, “What law says so?” After all, when we think of a “federal contractor,” we often think huge employers with thousands of employees.

For banks with only a few hundred (if that) employees, this all seems very unnecessary. Yet, the short answer is that a reinterpretation of existing law after the 2008 financial crisis made most banks federal contractors if they obtained federal deposit insurance.

Reviewing the way our government works and the history of banks as federal contractors can clarify this answer. After all, the law is not clear. It hasn’t changed much in over twenty years.

This review begins by reminding others that federal laws change in three main ways:

1. Congress passes or revises laws.

2. Executive branch reinterprets existing laws.

3. Courts rule on and clarify regulations causing disagreements among parties.

While Congress neither passed nor revised any law specifically stating banks are federal contractors, the Department of Labor (DOL) reinterpreted the law. Until the 2008 financial crisis, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), an agency of the DOL, mainly interpreted the law to say FDIC made banks contractors. The DOL, its boss so to speak, never accepted this however.

So, until 2008, unless a bank clearly acted as “an issuing and paying agent for U.S. savings bonds and notes” or “a federal fund depository,” in a substantial manner, the DOL likely didn’t consider it a federal contractor.

Until 2008, FDIC payouts to banks were rare, almost non-existent. This crisis though saw many sizeable payouts. As a result, the DOL accepted OFCCP’s interpretation of the law. The crisis forced the DOL to see FDIC coverage as doing business with the federal government. So now, by its “boss” agreeing, the OFCCP has more authority to enforce its regulations such as affirmative action plans on banks.

Again, a reinterpretation of existing law after the 2008 financial crisis increased dramatically the likelihood that a bank is a federal contractor. This brief history has helped human resources professionals answer questions related to “what law says so?”

For more guidance and support on complying as a federal contractor, you can reach Mike Lehr at mlehr@younginc.com. Mike Lehr is not an attorney. As such, the content in this article should not be construed as providing legal advice. For specific decisions on compliance with OFCCP regulations, readers should consult with their legal counsel.