Author: admin

Dealing with Pandemic Disruption

Written by admin on April 1, 2020. Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

By: Bill Elliot, CRCM, Director of Compliance Education, and William J. Showalter, CRCM, CRP, Senior Consultant, Young & Associates, Inc., Kent, Ohio

For years banks have had pandemic policies, and have done some level of testing, but never really thought the day would come when it would represent more than another examiner-required policy. Then came COVID-19, and in a matter of days, our world changed.

Managing Bank Policies and Procedures
When we teach in live seminars, we always ask, “How many of you believe that your policies are up to date?” That always gets some hands, but not 100 percent of attendees. Then we ask, “How many of you believe that your procedures are up to date?” Seldom does anyone raise their hand. These two situations are revealing.

Keeping policies current is the easier of the two. But many banks rubber stamp policies that could be much more effective. If it is a Regulation B policy, it usually follows the regulation and indicates that the bank intends to comply. But other policies, notably operations and loan policies, need to do more than restate a regulation – they need to be a document that can be read and used. And, a pandemic policy needs to cover a wide range of subjects and issues.

Given the current situation, it might be time to review these types of policies and add significant language as to how you will address situations such as we have now – lobbies closed or restricted, limited staff, staff working from home, and the same job to be completed. At a minimum, these policies should address:

How jobs are done in an off-site world
How electronic solutions are to be used
Safeguards that must be used to protect customer data
What types of paper documents can be used “at home” by staff working off site
Proper disposal and the safekeeping of any documents that are off site, and
Other protections, such as how the computers being used at home are protected from intrusion

With a little brainstorming, we are sure that you can add to this list.

Procedures are more difficult to maintain. A consultant from our company was recently in a bank and was examining procedures. Most of the procedures could be summed up as “Bill takes care of that.” As long as Bill is there, things probably work well. But if Bill is out sick, on vacation, or no longer there, how does someone accomplish the task?

Procedures are always changing. It is far too easy to tell the three people that need to know about the change and then make a mental note to “update the procedures someday.” That elusive “someday” often never materializes. We believe that each bank should have a formal procedures review at least annually, and for some areas, maybe more often. For many banks, the inadequate procedure manuals that they have will not offer sufficient information for anyone to complete a task correctly.

Many banks have switched to imaging all files. The banks that have made that decision generally are in a little better shape for off-site work, as it is easier to send employees home and still get the work done in a timely manner. If your bank has not made the transition to electronic files, this may be your cue to consider the advantages of this technology.

As the world becomes more electronic, and the cost of maintaining offices and buildings continues to increase, this may also be a time to reconsider the locations from which employees work. This may be especially critical if your brick and mortar buildings are getting close to capacity. Many tasks, with the right equipment and software, can easily be done from home, saving wear and tear on your building, perhaps reducing occupancy costs, and maybe, as a side benefit, resulting in happier and more productive employees.

Regulators and COVID-19 Loan Modifications
On March 22, 2020, all of the prudential banking regulators, along with other agencies, released the
Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus. The full text can be found on many websites, however, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has it at:

https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2020/pr20038a.pdf

The document states, “The agencies understand that this unique and evolving situation could pose temporary business disruptions and challenges that affect banks…businesses, borrowers, and the economy. The agencies encourage financial institutions to work prudently with borrowers who are or may be unable to meet their contractual payment obligations because of the effects of COVID-19. The agencies view loan modification programs as positive actions that can mitigate adverse effects on borrowers due to COVID-19. The agencies will not criticize institutions for working with borrowers and will not direct supervised institutions to automatically categorize all COVID-19 related loan modifications as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs).”

The agencies also offered comments on the issue of TDRs. They state that, “Modifications of loan terms do not automatically result in TDRs…The agencies have confirmed with staff of 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 TDRs. This includes short-term (e.g., six months) modifications such as payment deferrals, fee waivers, extensions of repayment terms, or other delays in payment that are insignificant. Borrowers considered current are those that are less than 30 days past due on their contractual payments at the time a modification program is implemented.”

Many banks have in place or are considering modifications to meet the needs of their customer base. It would appear that the regulators are going to react positively, provided the actions of the bank are reasonable and logical. The pronouncement states, “The agencies’ examiners will exercise judgment in reviewing loan modifications, including TDRs, and will not automatically adversely risk rate credits that are affected by COVID-19, including those considered TDRs. 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.”

The pronouncement also discusses Past Due Reporting, Nonaccrual Status and Charge-offs, and Discount Window Eligibility. You should consult the Interagency Statement for details.

When implementing your program to deal with this crisis, compliance cannot be ignored. Regulations that need to be considered include:

Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) – This applies to both consumer and commercial loans.
Flood insurance regulations – If you extend maturity dates, a new determination may be required. This also applies to both consumer and commercial loans.
Regulation O (Loans to Insiders) – If anyone who is an “insider” is requesting payment or other forms of relief.
Regulation X (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) – You need to consider the impact of non-payment into required escrow accounts.

CRA Credit Possible
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), in part, requires banks to take good care of the credit needs in their communities. Keeping good records of exactly what you did during this crisis could certainly be shared with your CRA examiners at your next CRA examination. While it may not directly impact the examination, remember that the CRA rating is at least partly based on their opinion of your bank.

The FDIC, Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a Joint Statement on March 19 stating that the agencies will favorably consider retail banking services and retail lending activities in a financial institution’s assessment area(s) that are responsive to the needs of low- and moderate-income (LMI) individuals, small businesses, and small farms affected by COVID-19 and that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The agencies emphasize that prudent efforts to modify the terms on new or existing loans for affected LMI customers, small businesses, and small farms will receive CRA consideration and not be subject to examiner criticism.

Impact of Accommodating Distressed Customers
There will be long-term consequences for any decision you make to alter a contract. For instance, if you allow a customer to skip a payment completely and do not change the maturity date, you will have a balloon at maturity. And since interest continues to accrue for that extra month(s), the principal/interest calculation will likely not be quite correct. So even if you do extend a maturity date, you may have a balloon simply because of the principal and interest calculation.

Having that discussion with your customer now seems preferable to fighting about it in a few years. The only real solution to assure that the loan amortizes correctly is to do the analysis to determine what payment amount will be required to avoid a balloon. And even then, things may still go awry at maturity.

Future Developments
As with many things today, this whole issue continues to evolve. The agencies had planned to present a webinar on this interagency statement on March 27, but have postponed it as of this writing. Keep on the lookout for further word from the agencies on when this will be available.

There is also a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document available at https://www.fdic.gov/coronavirus/faq-fi.pdf, to provide some clarification regarding the interagency statement.

Conclusion
We hope that this article helps you to address these issues. We encourage you to consider what your situation will be post-crisis, as it will likely have lasting impacts on your bank. Try to assure that the lasting impacts are positive, as we all learn from the experience how to handle future disruptions (should they occur) with even more professionalism.

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.

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.

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.

Effective risk control requires conducting periodic independent reviews of the risk management process and validation of the risk measurement systems 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?
What was once deemed acceptable is gradually coming under a more rigid review, and financial institutions need to be prepared to show that their liquidity risk oversight complies with both supervisory guidance and sound industry practices.

The liquidity risk may not be among the areas of community banks’ 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 are interested in an independent review of your existing liquidity program and a model validation, or are looking for an assistance with 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 is made up of 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.

HMDA Data for 2018 Released

Written by admin on November 27, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

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

The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) recently announced the availability of data for the year 2018 regarding mortgage lending transactions at 5,683 financial institutions covered by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) throughout the nation.

The newly available HMDA data include disclosure statements for each covered financial institution, aggregate data for each MSA, nationwide summary statistics regarding lending patterns, and the Loan Application Register (LAR) submitted by each institution to its supervisory agency by March 1, 2019, modified for borrower privacy. This release includes loan-level HMDA data covering 2018 lending activity that were submitted on or before August 7, 2019.

The FFIEC prepares and distributes these data products on behalf of its member agencies – the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The HMDA loan-level data available to the public will be updated, on an ongoing basis, to reflect late submissions and resubmissions. Accordingly, loan-level data downloaded from https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/ at a later date will include any such updated data. An August 7, 2019 static dataset used to develop the observations in this statement about the 2018 HMDA data is available at https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/data-publication/. In addition, beginning in late March 2019, Loan/Application Registers (LARs) for each HMDA filer of 2018 data, modified to protect borrower privacy, became available at https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/data-publication/.

Data Overview
The 2018 HMDA data use the census tract delineations, population, and housing characteristic data from the 2011-2015 American Community Surveys. In addition, the data reflect metropolitan statistical area (MSA) definitions released by the Office of Management and Budget in 2017 that became effective for HMDA purposes in 2018.

For 2018, the number of reporting institutions declined by about 2.9 percent from the previous year to 5,683, continuing a downward trend since 2006, when HMDA coverage included just over 8,900 lenders. The decline reflects mergers, acquisitions, and the failure of some institutions.

The 2018 data include information on 12.9 million home loan applications. Among them, 10.3 million were closed-end, 2.3 million were open-end, and, for another 378,000 records, pursuant to partial exemptions in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA), financial institutions did not indicate whether the records were closed-end or open-end.

A total of 7.7 million applications resulted in loan originations. Among them, 6.3 million were closed-end mortgage originations, 1.1 million were open-end line of credit originations, and, pursuant to the EGRRCPA’s partial exemptions, 283,000 were originations for which financial institutions did not indicate whether they were closed-end or open-end. The 2018 data include 2.0 million purchased loans, for a total of 15.1 million records. The data also include information on approximately 177,000 requests for preapprovals for home purchase loans.

The total number of originated loans decreased by about 924,000 between 2017 and 2018, or 12.6 percent. Refinance originations decreased by 23.1 percent from 2.5 million, and home purchase lending increased by 0.3 percent from 4.3 million.

A total of 2,251 reporters made use of the EGRRCPA’s partial exemptions for at least one of the 26 data points eligible for the exemptions. In all, they account for about 425,000 records and 298,000 originations.

Demographic Data
From 2017 to 2018, the share of home purchase loans for first lien, one- to four-family, site-built, owner-occupied properties (one- to four-family, owner-occupied properties) made to low- and moderate-income borrowers (those with income of less than 80 percent of area median income) rose slightly from 26.3 percent to 28.1 percent, and the share of refinance loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for one- to four-family, owner-occupied properties increased from 22.9 percent to 30.0 percent.

In terms of borrower race and ethnicity, the share of home purchase loans for one- to four-family, owner-occupied properties made to Black borrowers rose from 6.4 percent in 2017 to 6.7 percent in 2018, the share made to Hispanic-White borrowers increased slightly from 8.8 percent to 8.9 percent, and those made to Asian borrowers rose from 5.8 percent to 5.9 percent. From 2017 to 2018, the share of refinance loans for one- to four-family, owner-occupied properties made to Black borrowers increased from 5.9 percent to 6.2 percent, the share made to Hispanic-White borrowers remained unchanged at 6.8 percent, and the share made to Asian borrowers fell from 4.0 percent to 3.7 percent.

In 2018, Black and Hispanic-White applicants experienced higher denial rates for one- to four-family, owner-occupied conventional home purchase loans than non-Hispanic-White applicants. The denial rate for Asian applicants is more comparable to the denial rate for non-Hispanic-White applicants. These relationships are similar to those found in earlier years and, due to the limitations of the HMDA data, cannot take into account all legitimate credit risk considerations for loan approval and loan pricing.

Government-backed Lending
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured share of first-lien home purchase loans for one- to four-family, owner-occupied properties declined from 22.0 percent in 2017 to 19.3 percent in 2018. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-guaranteed share of such loans remained at approximately 10 percent in 2018. The overall government-backed share of such purchase loans, including FHA, VA, Rural Housing Service, and Farm Service Agency loans, was 32.0 percent in 2018, down slightly from 35.4 percent in 2017.

The FHA-insured share of refinance mortgages for one- to four-family, owner-occupied properties decreased slightly to 12.8 percent in 2018 from 13.0 percent in 2017, while the VA-guaranteed share of such refinance loans decreased from 11.3 percent in 2017 to 10.2 percent in 2018.

New Data
The 2018 HMDA data contains a variety of information reported for the first time. For example, the data indicated that approximately 424,000 applications were for commercial purpose loans and approximately 57,000 applications were for reverse mortgages.

In addition, among the 12.9 million applications reported, 1.3 million included at least one disaggregate racial or ethnic category. For approximately 6.3 percent of applications, race and ethnicity of the applicant were collected on the basis of visual observation or surname. The percentage was slightly higher for sex at 6.5 percent.

For the newly-reported age data point, the two most commonly reported age groups for applicants were 35-44 and 45-54, with 22.7 and 22.4 percent of total applications, respectively. Just under 3.0 percent of applicants were under 25 and just under 4.0 percent of applicants were over 74.

Credit score information was reported for 73.1 percent of all applications. Equifax Beacon 5.0, Experian Fair Isaac, and FICO Risk Score Classic 04 were the three most commonly reported credit scoring models at 22.8 percent, 18.8 percent, and 18.2 percent of total applications, respectively. For originated loans, the median primary applicant scores for these three models were between 738 and 746. This compares to medians ranging from 682 to 686 for denied applications.

Debt-to-income ratio (DTI) was reported for 75.3 percent of total applications. Approximately 45.1 percent of applications had DTIs between 36.0 percent and 50 percent, with 7.0 percent of applications with less than 20 percent, and 7.1 percent with greater than 60 percent.

Loan Pricing Data
The 2018 HMDA also contains additional pricing information. For example, the median total loan costs for originated closed-end loans was $3,949. For about 42.5 percent of originated closed-end loans, borrowers paid no discount points and received no lender credits. The median interest rate for these originated loans was 4.8 percent. The median interest rate for originated open-end lines of credit excluding reverse mortgages was 5.0 percent.

The HMDA data also identify loans that are covered by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). Under HOEPA, certain types of mortgage loans that have interest rates or total points and fees above specified levels are subject to certain requirements, such as additional disclosures to consumers, and also are subject to various restrictions on loan terms. For 2018, 6,681 loan originations covered by HOEPA were reported: 3,654 home purchase loans for one- to four-family properties; 448 home improvement loans for one- to four-family properties; and 2,579 refinance loans for one- to four-family properties.

Using the Data
The FFIEC states that HMDA data can facilitate the fair lending examination and enforcement process and promote market transparency. When federal banking agency examiners evaluate an institution’s fair lending risk, they analyze HMDA data in conjunction with other information and risk factors, in accordance with the Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures. Risk factors for pricing discrimination include, but are not limited to, the relationship between loan pricing and compensation of loan officers or mortgage brokers, the presence of broad pricing discretion, and consumer complaints.

The HMDA data alone, according to the FFIEC, cannot be used to determine whether a lender is complying with fair lending laws. While they now include many potential determinants of creditworthiness and loan pricing, such as the borrower’s credit history, debt-to-income ratio, and the loan-to-value ratio, the HMDA data may not account for all factors considered in underwriting.

Therefore, when the federal banking agencies conduct fair lending examinations, including ones involving loan pricing, they analyze additional information before reaching a determination regarding institutions’ compliance with fair lending laws.

Obtaining and Disclosing HMDA Data
In the past, HMDA-covered lenders had to make the HMDA disclosure statements available at their home and certain branch offices after receiving the statements. Now, lenders have only to post at their home offices, and other offices in MSAs a written notice that clearly informs those interested that the lender’s HMDA disclosure statement may be obtained on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s website at www.consumerfinance.gov/hmda.

In addition, financial institution disclosure statements, MSA and nationwide aggregate reports for 2018 HMDA data, and tools to search and analyze the HMDA data are available at https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/data-publication/. More information about HMDA data reporting requirements is also available at https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/.

More information about HMDA data reporting requirements is available in the Frequently Asked Questions on the FFIEC website at www.ffiec.gov/hmda/faq.htm. Questions about a HMDA report for a specific lender should be directed to the lender’s supervisory agency.

Agencies Amend Real Estate Appraisal Regulations (September 27, 2019)

Written by admin on November 27, 2019. Posted in Lending & Loan Review.

By: Kyle Curtis, Director of Lending Services

The OCC, Board, and FDIC adopted a final rule to amend the regulations requiring appraisals of real estate for residential real estate transactions. The rule increases the threshold level at or below which appraisals are not required for residential real estate transactions from $250,000 to $400,000.

The rule defines a residential real estate transaction as a real estate-related financial transaction that is secured by a single 1-to-4 family residential property. For residential real estate transactions exempted from the appraisal requirement as a result of the revised threshold, regulated institutions must obtain an evaluation of the real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.

The requirements for an evaluation are set forth in the 2010 Appraisal Guidelines, and are more extensive than what many smaller institutions do for evaluations. Readers may wish to review the requirements in that document and determine whether changes need to be made regarding your evaluation practices.

The rule also amends the agencies’ appraisal regulations to require regulated institutions to subject appraisals for federally related transactions to appropriate review for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

Effective Dates
The provisions of much of this final rule will be effective by the time you read this; however, the evaluation requirement for transactions exempted by the rural residential appraisal exemption and the requirement to review appraisals for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice are effective on January 1, 2020.

Incorporation of the Rural Residential Appraisal Exemption
Congress amended Title XI to add a rural residential appraisal exemption. Under this exemption, a financial institution need not obtain a Title XI appraisal if the property is located in a rural area; the transaction value is less than $400,000; the financial institution retains the loan in portfolio, subject to exceptions; and not later than three days after the Closing Disclosure Form is given to the consumer, the financial institution or its agent has contacted not fewer than three state-certified or state-licensed appraisers, as applicable, and has documented that no such appraiser was available within five business days beyond customary and reasonable fee and timeliness standards for comparable appraisal assignments.

Given the general rule increase to $400,000, essentially these requirements become moot.

Addition of the Appraisal Review Requirement
The Dodd-Frank Act amended Title XI to require that the agencies’ appraisal regulations include a requirement that Title XI appraisals be subject to appropriate review for compliance with USPAP.

Appraisal review is consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and should be employed as part of the credit approval process to ensure that appraisals comply with USPAP, the appraisal regulations, and a financial institution’s internal policies. Appraisal reviews help ensure that an appraisal contains sufficient information and analysis to support the decision to engage in the transaction. We recently had a discussion with a banker who did not review an appraisal. When they “got around to it” they discovered that the appraisal was “not even close,” and ordered a new appraisal. Based on the new appraisal, their LTV was over 130%.

Many financial institutions may already have review processes in place for these purposes. Evaluations need not comply with USPAP. While financial institutions should continue to conduct safety and soundness reviews of evaluations to ensure that an evaluation contains sufficient information and analysis to support the decision to engage in the transaction, the USPAP review requirement in Title XI does not apply to such a review.

The agencies decided to implement the requirement that financial institutions review appraisals for federally related transactions for compliance with USPAP. The agencies encourage regulated institutions to review their existing appraisal review policies and incorporate additional procedures for subjecting appraisals for federally related transactions to appropriate review for compliance with USPAP, as needed.

Conclusion
Readers who wish to read the entire 80-page document as prepared by the regulators can find it at:
https://www.fdic.gov/news/board/2019/2019-08-20-notice-sum-b-fr.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Young & Associates, Inc. can offer assistance with appraisal review, and any other compliance topics. Please feel free to contact me for information regarding these services at kcurtis@younginc.com or (330) 422.3445.

Interest Rate Risk Reporting

Written by admin on November 27, 2019. Posted in Lending & Loan Review, Management & Planning.

By: Bryan Fetty, Senior Consultant

There are a few common findings that we note when conducting Interest Rate Risk Reviews for clients that are easily remedied and require very little work on the part of the financial institution. One supervisory requirement is to provide a sufficiently detailed reporting process to inform senior management and the board of the level of IRR exposure. Financial institutions are providing the reports to the board, but in the world of regulators, if it isn’t documented in the minutes, you didn’t do it.
Financial institutions should ensure that their committee and board minutes are detailed enough to show the level of discussion about their reports that takes place at the meeting. There doesn’t need to be extensive narrative on the issues, but the minutes should reflect:

For more information on how Young &Associates, Inc. can assist your financial institution with the annual IRR review and model back-testing process, please email Bryan Fetty at bfetty@younginc.com or give him a call at 330.422.3452.

Capital Market Commentary

Written by admin on November 27, 2019. Posted in Uncategorized.

By: Stephen Clinton, President, Capital Market Securities

Mid-November Market Update
The U.S. is undergoing its longest economic expansion on record, breaking the record of 120 months of economic growth recorded from March 1991 to March 2001. Starting in June of 2009, this record-setting run saw GDP recording growth, albeit at a slower growth rate than previous expansions. The unemployment rate is at 3.6% and job growth continues with employers adding an average of 167,000 jobs this year. The current expansion also includes the longest stretch of job creation on record. The current U.S. economic growth is being driven by consumer spending as businesses have slowed business investment due to the uncertainties surrounding tariffs and global growth concerns.

In late October, the Fed lowered short-term interest rates for the third time this year. These moves follow last year’s four interest rate increases designed to guard against concerns about inflation and financial bubbles. The move to a more accommodative stance is designed to cushion the economy against a slowdown in business investment and in recognition of the uncertainties surrounding the U.S.-China trade conflict. U.S. inflation remains low and below the 2% Fed target which has reduced the Fed’s concern about rising prices and higher labor costs.

While the U.S. economy continues to chug along, things are not as optimistic for our trading partners. China’s economy is slowing dramatically; Japan’s economy grew at the slowest pace in a year in October; and Germany barely skirted a recession in the third quarter. These countries represent the world’s second, third, and fourth largest economies in the world. The global economic slowdown may make it difficult for the U.S. to continue to record GNP growth.
The home mortgage market has benefited from lower interest rates. The average 30-year home mortgage rate has fallen to near 4% from a recent high of 5.2% last November. Lenders made $700 billion in home loans in the July-to-September quarter, the most in 14 years. Mortgage origination activity is on pace to hit the highest level since 2006, the peak of the last housing boom. Refinancing activity is in part responsible for this renewed lending activity with refinancings jumping 75% from last year.

The U.S. government spent nearly $1 trillion more in fiscal year 2019 than it took in, which resulted in the highest deficit in seven years. The deficit has now increased for the last four years, the longest stretch of U.S. deficit growth since the early 1980’s, a period that included two recessions and an unemployment rate near 11%. The deficit has increased 68% since 2016 during a time when there is historically low unemployment and a growing economy. The loss of tax revenues from tax cuts, along with a bipartisan budget deal that increased government spending, are responsible for the growing deficits. Long-term costs associated with an aging population, including Social Security and Medicare, are expected to continue to put pressures on balancing the budget in the future.

U.S. corporate earnings remain strong. With most of the third quarter earnings announcements in the books, 75% have posted results above analysts’ expectations. While overall profits are lower than last year by approximately 2.7%, analysts are projecting improved earnings next year. One growing concern about nonfinancial companies being discussed is the high level of debt corporations hold. The level of corporate debt is at the highest level ever. Low interest rates have made the choice of debt preferable to equity for corporations. This has caused a leveraging of balance sheets.

Short-term interest rates have fallen 35% this year as of November 15. The 3-month T-Bill ended at 1.57%, principally due to the three Fed interest rate cuts. The 10-year T-Note was at 1.84% at November 15, down 85 basis points from the end of last year. After spending some time with a partially inverted yield curve, the shape of the yield curve has moved to its more traditional upward slope. The spread between the 3-month T-Bill and the 10-year T-Note was a narrow 27 basis points.

The stock market reached new highs as of November 15. The Dow Jones Industrial Index was up 20.05% for the year. The broader Nasdaq Index closed up 28.72%. The Nasdaq Bank index was up 16.73%, but the KBW Bank Index was up 26.44%. The stronger upward movement of the KBW Bank Index reflects the strong price increases recorded by larger banks this year.
The market has experienced a high level of market volatility this year. The ups and downs of the U.S.-China trade talks has caused wide market swings. Brexit has been a concern for the market. Protests in Hong Kong have captured attention. The U.S. impeachment inquiry presents market risk. We expect the market to continue to be volatile due to these concerns as well as other issues that may surface and capture the market’s attention.

Interesting Tid Bits

Tariffs

– The U.S. collected a record $7 billion in import tariffs in September. This was up 50% from last year as new duties kicked in on Chinese imports.

Taxation

– For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate (federal, state, and local taxes) than any other income group. The overall tax rate on the richest 400 households was 23% last year compared to 70% in 1950 and 47% in 1980.

Manufacturing

– Manufacturing makes up approximately 11% of the U.S. GNP, which is down from 16% twenty years ago. Factory workers now make up 8.5% of the overall workforce which is down from 13% two decades ago. There are now more local government employees than factory workers.

Merger and Acquisition Activity
Through November 15 this year, there were 229 bank and thrift announced merger transactions. This compares to 231 deals in the same period last year. The median price to tangible book for transactions involving bank sellers was 158%.

Capital Market Services
Capital Market Securities, Inc. has 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 sclinton@younginc.com.

Author: admin

Connect with a Consultant

Ask a Question