Tag: credit risk analysis

Assess, Plan, and Effectively Respond to Today’s Market Challenges

Written by admin on July 18, 2023. Posted in Uncategorized.

By: Jerry Sutherin, President & CEO

In today’s dynamic market, some of the biggest challenges faced by our clients include but are not limited to interest rate risk management, liquidity, capital adequacy, and commercial loan underwriting. These issues are magnified by the ability of our clients to locate, hire, and retain quality human capital to operate effectively and efficiently.

Interest Rate Risk Management

Rising or fluctuating interest rates impact your financial institution’s growth prospects in both the short and long term. Not only do interest rates pose a risk to a financial institution’s balance sheet, but they also impede the ability to effectively produce reliable financial statement forecasts. A financial institution’s Net Interest Margin (NIM) is a key component of each income statement. Being able to adequately forecast interest income as well as internal cost of funds allows an institution to produce a reliable budget. To overcome this, financial institutions must identify, measure, monitor, and control interest rate risks to meet the requirements of the Joint Policy Statement on Interest Rate Risk (IRR) and the IRR regulatory guidance. Effective control of the interest rate risk will require conducting annual independent reviews of the asset liability management (ALM) function and validating your risk measurement systems to ensure their integrity, accuracy, and reasonableness. This will also involve internal controls of loan and deposit pricing. Establishing and maintaining these controls should begin at the board level and flow through management.

Credit Risk Management

Rising interest rates have also had a profound impact on credit quality of commercial lending, one of the primary drivers of revenue for most financial institutions. The change in credit quality results in the tightening of credit standards throughout the industry and by the regulators. Being able to effectively underwrite loans and mitigate risks within a commercial loan portfolio is a function of having seasoned staff to manage these processes. Lack of quality credit talent exposes financial institutions to otherwise preventable credit risks. The dilemma for most financial institutions is finding, hiring, and maintaining experienced personnel. In some instances, this has resulted in inadequate credit presentations being prepared by unqualified individuals or loan officers underwriting their own credits for approval. The increasing burden of inflation and wages adds another layer of complexity to the mix. Many community-focused institutions are not willing or able to pay top rate for talent, which is understandable given the need and focus to remain competitive among the larger regional and national banks that continue to acquire and/or out-compete them.

Liquidity Risk Management

Another impact of a higher interest rate environment and inflation is the disintermediation of funds or liquidity from financial institutions to other financial intermediaries. Sound liquidity management is crucial for controlling your organization’s liquidity risk and managing cash flow to meet expected and unexpected cash flow needs without adversely affecting daily operations. Your financial institution should assess the range of possible outcomes of contemplated business strategies, maintain contingency funding plans, position for new opportunities, and ensure regulatory compliance and the adequacy of your risk management practices.

Capital Planning

Both interest rate risk management and liquidity management have a direct impact on the capital adequacy of all financial institutions. Capital contingency planning will ensure that your financial institution maintains the required level of capital through any realistic stress event. Periodic review of minimum capital requirements and stress tests can provide valuable insights and will maintain your standing with the regulators.

The Importance of Strategic Planning

So far, this article has only discussed the challenges faced by the financial institution industry. These obstacles are not just management issues. They are also issues that boards of directors must navigate as well.

Are there solutions? Absolutely — yes there are. Boards of directors and management must be aligned on all strategic initiatives. These objectives need to be derived and adopted by the board and conveyed to management. The most common approach is through a focused strategic planning session involving the board and management. The outcome of such a retreat will enable the board to identify goals and risks faced by the organization while also deciding on how the goals will be accomplished and the risks mitigated. This could be through the utilization of qualified internal staff or engaging outside experts to assist with each objective. An effective strategic plan will incorporate all these pieces to help guide your organization as you navigate the changing industry landscape.

Partner With Us for Success

For 45 years, Young & Associates, Inc. (www.younginc.com) has partnered with banks and credit unions across the country to provide consulting, outsourcing, and educational services to minimize their risk and maximize their success. Our services cover areas such as interest rate risk analysis, liquidity planning, assessment of capital adequacy strategic planning, regulatory assistance, internal audit, independent loan review, IT audits and penetration testing, and regulatory compliance assessment, outsourcing and training. Our team of consultants boasts an unmatched level of industry experience and is comprised of former banking executives, compliance regulators, and tenured finance professionals who have personally experienced many of the same issues you face at your organization.

For commercial credit needs, Y&A Credit Services is a full-service provider of outsourced underwriting services and credit analysis. An independent entity, Y&A Credit Services offers the same exceptional service, expertise, and integrity you’ve learned to expect from Young & Associates, Inc., and provides commercial credit underwriting and credit approval presentations, annual underwriting reviews, financial statement spreading and analysis, and approval and underwriting package reviews. We’ll work with you to improve the quality, speed, and accuracy of your lending with a solid focus on minimizing your credit risk. Our team members are experts in credit services and the financial industry and include former chief credit officers and senior credit analysts from both community and regional banks and provide full outsourced credit department services to our clients, keeping their costs low so they can remain competitive in their markets. Our seasoned credit professionals boast a combined 100+ years of experience in credit administration which helps mitigate risks while assisting our clients with safe and sound underwriting processes.

We look forward to assisting your bank or credit union in meeting these challenges head on. Find out more about the many services we provide at www.younginc.com (Young & Associates, Inc.) and www.yacreditservices.com (Y&A Credit Services). Or contact us directly by emailing Jerry Sutherin, President & CEO, at jsutherin@younginc.com or calling him directly at 330.422.3474

The Role of Loan Review in the Credit Risk Management System

Written by admin on July 18, 2023. Posted in Uncategorized.

By: David Reno, Director of Loan Review & Lending Services

Loans, especially non-consumer loans, typically represent the greatest level of risk on your balance sheet. Therefore, effective commercial loan portfolio management is crucial to control credit risk. It can serve as an early indicator of emerging credit risk related to lending to individual borrowers, aggregate credit exposure to related borrowers, and the overall credit risk associated with a loan portfolio. It serves as an integral part of an institution’s credit risk management system that is a continuum comprised of the following stages:

Well-formulated lending policies, procedures, and practices that are consistently applied, well-known to all credit and lending staff, and compliant with regulatory guidance
The collection and accurate credit analysis of financial and other underwriting information
Assignment of an accurate risk grade
Proper and qualified approval authorities and risk-based process
Correct and thorough documentation
Pre-closing preparation and loan closing
Post-closing credit administration
Internal annual loan review
External/independent loan review
Timely problem loan identification and management
Proper calculation of the ALLL
Collection and loss mitigation

Effective and efficient loan reviews can help an institution better understand its loan portfolio and identify potential risk exposures to contribute to the formulation of a risk-based lending and loan administration strategy.

Regulatory Background

The OCC, FRB, FDIC, and NCUA issued the Interagency Guidance on Credit Risk Review Systems in FIL-55-2020 dated May 8, 2020, which aligns with Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness. This guidance is relevant to all institutions supervised by the agencies and replaces Attachment 1 of the 2006 Interagency Policy Statement on the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses. The final guidance details the objectives of an effective credit risk review system and discusses such topics as sound management of credit risk, a system of independent, ongoing credit review, and appropriate communication regarding the performance of the institution’s loan portfolio to its management and board of directors.

Credit Risk Rating (or Grading) Framework

The foundation for any effective credit risk review system is accurate and timely risk ratings. These risk ratings are used to assess credit quality and identify or confirm problem loans. The system generally places primary reliance on the lending staff to assign accurate, timely risk ratings and identify emerging loan problems. However, the lending personnel’s assignment of risk ratings is typically subject to review by qualified and independent peers, managers, loan committee(s), internal credit review departments, or external credit review consultants that provide a more objective assessment of credit quality.

Elements of an Effective Credit Risk Review System

The starting point is a written credit risk review policy that is updated and approved at least annually by the institution’s board of directors or board committee to evidence its support of and commitment to maintaining an effective system. Effective policies include a description of the overall risk rating framework and responsibilities for loan review.

An effective credit risk review policy addresses the following elements:

Qualifications of Credit Risk Review Personnel. The level of experience and expertise for credit risk review personnel is expected to be commensurate with the nature of the risk and complexity of the loan portfolio, and they should possess a proper level of education, experience, and credit training, together with knowledge of generally sound lending practices, the institution’s lending guidelines, and relevant laws, regulations, and supervisory guidance.

Independence of Credit Risk Review Personnel. Because of their frequent contact with borrowers, loan officers, risk officers, and line staff are primarily responsible for continuous portfolio analysis and prompt identification and reporting of problem loans to proactively identify potential problems. While larger institutions may establish a separate credit review department, smaller institutions may use an independent committee of outside directors or other qualified institution staff. These individuals should not be involved in originating or approving the specific credits being assessed, and their compensation should not be influenced by the assigned risk ratings. Regardless of the approach taken, it is prudent for the credit risk review function to report directly to the institution’s board of directors or a committee thereof. Senior management should be responsible for administrative functions.

The institution’s board of directors may outsource the role to a third-party vendor; however, the board is ultimately responsible for maintaining a sound credit risk review system.

Scope of Reviews
Comprehensive and effective reviews cover all segments of the loan portfolio that pose significant credit risk or concentrations. The review process should consider industry standards for credit risk review coverage, which should be consistent with the institution’s size, complexity, loan types, risk profile, and risk management practices. This consideration helps to verify whether the review scope is appropriate.

An effective scope of review is risk-based and typically includes:

Loans over a predetermined size along with a sample of smaller loans
Loans with higher risk indicators, such as low credit scores or approved as exceptions to policy
Segments of loan portfolios, including retail, with similar risk characteristics, such as those related to borrower risk (e.g., credit history), transaction risk (e.g., product and/or collateral type), etc.
Segments of the loan portfolio experiencing rapid growth
Past due, nonaccrual, renewed, and restructured loans
Loans previously criticized or adversely classified
Loans to insiders, affiliates, or related parties
Loans constituting concentrations of credit risk and other loans affected by common repayment factors

Review of Findings and Follow-Up

A discussion of credit risk review findings should be held with management, credit, and lending staff and should include noted deficiencies, identified weaknesses, and any existing or planned corrective actions and associated timelines.

Communication and Distribution of Results

The results of a credit risk review are presented in a summary analysis with detailed supporting information that substantiates the concluded risk ratings assigned to the loans reviewed. The summary analysis is then periodically presented to the board of directors or board committee to maintain accountability and drive results. Comprehensive reporting includes trend analysis regarding the overall quality of the loan portfolio, the adequacy of and adherence to internal policies and procedures, the quality of underwriting and risk identification, compliance with laws and regulations, and management’s response to substantive criticisms or recommendations.

Summary Insights

The back-testing that is performed by the loan review process is necessary to ensure that an institution has in place a comprehensive and effective credit risk management system and that an institution acknowledges and practically applies the established framework of its unique but compliant credit culture.

An effective external loan review process is not so much a traditional audit exercise as it is an advisory process that produces meaningful dialogue between the review firm and the institution that seeks to identify and interpret various aspects of credit risk to minimize risk of loss by implementing industry best practices, maintaining regulatory compliance, and supporting the institution’s long-term viability in continuing to serve the needs of its customers and community.

For more information on the role of loan review in the credit risk management system, contact David Reno, Director of Loan Review & Lending Services, at dreno@younginc.com or 330.422.3455.

Key Elements of Effective Credit Underwriting

Written by admin on July 27, 2022. Posted in Lending & Loan Review, Uncategorized.

By: Ollie Sutherin, Principal, Y&A Credit Services

The focus of this article is to provide an overview of what Y&A Credit Services, LLC views as key elements during the underwriting process. While there are many variables needed to effectively underwrite credits, below are the primary focal points of any quality credit presentation that we underwrite or review.

Cash is King
“Cash is king” is a saying that we use often as it translates to, “if you don’t have the cash to repay, you shouldn’t have the loan.” So often we are presented with transactions that aren’t the strongest, don’t show cash flow, and the underlying organization has no business being lent money. Lenders often try to form complex explanations regarding the guarantor’s wherewithal, global cash flow, etc., and they lose sight of the actual company, its financial condition, and its ability to service the debt on a stand-alone basis. Every analysis should begin with the subject company and its ability to service debt. If it is a real estate holding company and the note is secured by a specific property, what is the cash flow of that property? If the most recent tax return statement, compiled, audited, etc., does not evidence the ability to service debt, what is the trend of the company? What are they doing to improve from the previous year and what is the YTD revenue/expenses compared to the prior year?

Eventually, we take into consideration the guarantor’s wherewithal and how it impacts the cash flow; however, the primary focus should always be on the company itself (the primary repayment source). If a transaction is being presented where repayment is heavily reliant on the guarantor, then the following questions must be asked: What is their character like? Have all of the assets and liabilities been verified on their personal financial statement(s)? Are other contingent liabilities factored in as well? So often, mistakes are caught when analysts simply say, “John Doe has $1,000,000 in cash and is clearly able to service the subject note should it be needed” without doing the proper due diligence verifying the source of the cash.

Quality of Information
If the cash flow of the company is the backbone of the transaction, then the quality of information is the legs, providing the necessary base for everything. We are always looking at the reliability of this information as it minimizes the risks of inaccuracy and subsequently the risk of default. For example, if borrowers only give internal statements that are hastily prepared and communicate lease details in one-two sentences in an email, this poses a much greater risk than detailed property information in the actual tax return and actual signed lease agreements provided for review. Furthermore, as it pertains to C&I transactions, internally prepared statements rarely reconcile, which makes performing a UCA Cash Flow analysis much more difficult. Tax returns and audited or compiled statements always reconcile, providing an accurate analysis.

Collateral Values
As it relates to the property or equipment securing an obligation, an appraisal is always going to be the safest way to measure the value. Too often, internal evaluations or estimates are utilized to justify a request during underwriting. To meet regulatory standards, the collateral securing an obligation must support the amount being considered and obtaining the appraisal during the underwriting phase can potentially save a significant amount of work if the value is insufficient to support the debt. For existing credits that are being refinanced, another important aspect of collateral valuations includes site visits by the account officers. Having photos and notes from the site visit will provide added support to the collateral pledged for the transactions.

Stress Testing
Stress testing individual loans during underwriting is becoming increasingly necessary, especially in today’s rising rate environment. This was a regulatory focus back in the late 2010s as there was a rising interest rate environment. Variable rate notes, property values, vacancy rates and ultimately cash flow for debt service were adversely impacted. At the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, rates dropped markedly and remained flat until just recently. To curb inflation, the Federal Reserve began increasing rates and the extent of the impact on variable rate loans has yet to be determined.

Stressing individual loans at origination provides the institution with a tool to better understand the impact of rate increases on cash flow, property values, and vacancy rates in different scenarios. The result is a more informed credit decision during the underwriting phase. Ultimately, these variables help determine the breakeven point of a business’s cash flow and provide great insight to the actual strength of the primary borrower.

Projections / Proformas
These are something that all lenders should request from a borrower/potential borrower to justify the strength of a transaction. However, often these projections will paint an excellent picture of the company and a stellar cash flow that is more than adequate to service the underlying transaction. The intent of requesting and analyzing projections is to compare them to historical results, in many instances where the projected cash flow is higher than historical results. This is typically due to the borrower understating expenses which leads to overstated cash flow and debt service coverage. Given all of this, it is still important to obtain projections and to compare them to actual statements when available. Should they vary significantly, it will open the door to questions and force a deeper look into smaller details such as management of the company.

Y&A Credit Services, LLC
Over the past few years, a defined need has developed in the community financial institution industry. Specifically, it has been difficult for financial institutions to hire and retain quality credit professionals, especially in rural areas, to underwrite loans and perform other necessary tasks necessary for adequate credit administration. This need has led Young & Associates, Inc. to create a wholly-owned subsidiary (Y&A Credit Services, LLC) to meet the needs of these organizations. Y&A Credit Services, LLC has the mission of filling the voids of clients who have limited or even no credit staff to perform these necessary tasks. If your organization has a need for credit services, please feel free to contact us at 330.422.3482. Our services include spread sheet analyses, annual reviews, full credit underwriting and review of prepared presentations along with a full complement of other credit-related services through Young & Associates, Inc.

Young & Associates Introduces Y&A Credit Services, LLC

Written by admin on June 1, 2022. Posted in Announcements, News, Uncategorized.

We are proud to introduce a new line of business through an affiliated organization of Young & Associates, Inc.: Y&A Credit Services, LLC.

Y&A Credit Services is a full-service provider of outsourced underwriting and credit services and offers various commercial underwriting and credit services such as:

Commercial Credit Underwriting and Credit Approval Presentations
Annual Underwriting Reviews
Financial Statement Spreading and Analysis
Approval and Underwriting package reviews

“Y&A Credit Services understands the challenges that financial institutions nationwide face with locating and retaining skilled credit department staff who can efficiently produce trustworthy credit risk management results while supporting an increasing volume of workflow,” said Jerry Sutherin, President & CEO of Young & Associates. “We offer an effective solution to this dilemma by employing our experienced staff, technology, and proven processes to enhance your credit administration process, mitigate credit risk, and ensure continued profitable loan portfolio growth and performance.”

Completely independent from Young & Associates, Inc. and with a name you trust, Y&A Credit Services can help large and small financial institutions increase the quality, accuracy and speed of their lending while mitigating risks in a highly regulated industry. “We are an independent entity, but we offer the same exceptional service, expertise, and integrity you’ve learn to expect from Young & Associates,” says Ollie Sutherin, Principal of Y&A Credit Services.

Visit yacreditservices.com to learn more about the new company and explore the website. And if our services sound like a viable solution to your current challenges, contact Ollie Sutherin by email at osutherin@younginc.com or phone at (330) 422-3453. We would be happy to discuss how we can help your credit department and institution achieve its objectives.

Annual Reviews of Commercial Credits

Written by admin on March 23, 2022. Posted in Uncategorized.

What is the overall condition of your commercial loan portfolio? Do you focus on net charge-offs? Delinquencies? Financial statement exceptions to policy? Number and level of TDRs and non-accruals? The percent of the ALLL to total loans? While all of these broad measures can be helpful, the number and nature of grade changes coming from internal annual reviews are likely to be timelier and more accurate than all of the other measures combined.

Does your credit policy contain specific criteria describing relationships which must receive annual reviews? If so, have you recently evaluated whether that level remains appropriate for your portfolio today? The commercial annual review threshold should be set at a level where the required reviews will cover at least 50% of commercial exposures. Each bank should do a sort of the commercial portfolio and determine what level of exposure will yield the desired coverage ratio. The annual review requirements should differ from the Watch List or Special Asset requirements as the annual reviews should be separate from those assets already identified with some level of weakness.

Now that you have set an annual review requirement, what elements of a credit analysis should be completed? Although the ultimate goal is to determine the accuracy of the risk rating, regulators will be looking for the robustness of the annual review in order to “sign off” or accept the annual review results. In addition to providing executive management and the board with timely and accurate results, a solid and meaningful annual review process can help to build confidence in your systems with the regulators and potentially allow for a more efficient third-party loan review.

Minimum requirements for annual review activities should be built into the loan or credit policies so that management and the board can demonstrate to regulators that they are determined to ensure risk ratings and, therefore, that the ALLL and criticized and classified reporting is accurate.

The annual review procedures should include the following:

Detail of the relationship being reviewed including borrower, guarantors, SBA or other guarantees, and note numbers included.
Update of all borrower/co-borrower financial information used in the original approval or the latest renewal which would include spreads, debt coverage calculations, loan-to-value calculations, borrowing base analysis, etc.
Update of all guarantor financial information including a new complete and signed personal financial statement, most recent tax returns and, for individuals, an updated credit report.
A statement of how the account has been handled since the previous annual review (or approval) including any delinquency of payment, financial information, or supporting information such as insurance, borrowing base reporting, etc.
In most cases, site visits by the loan officer or relationship manager or other representative of the company should have occurred since the previous annual review or approval. For CRE loans, the documentation of the visit should include perceptions by the representative of the condition of the property, occupancy trends, whether or not any deferred maintenance was noted, and if there were any changes in the neighborhood. For all credits, the representative should also use this visit to become updated on any material changes in the customer base, management, operating personnel, market conditions, condition of equipment or other fixed assets, and any other information that would help to understand the customer.
An update of any approval conditions and whether the borrower is maintaining those conditions, including any promises of deposit accounts, financial reporting, property improvements, and compliance with any financial or other covenants.
A confirmation that the existing risk rating is accurate or recommendations to change the risk rating, up or down, and the factors that the change is based on.

The financial institution that is covering 50% of its commercial portfolio with robust and timely annual reviews every year should provide executive management and the board with sufficient information to understand the level and direction of credit risk and whether these are in accordance with the desired risk appetite.

For more information on this article or on how Young & Associates, Inc. can assist your institution in this area, please contact Dave Reno, Director of Lending and Business Development, at 330.422.3455 or dreno@younginc.com.

Mergers & Acquisitions Expected to Rebound in 2021

Written by admin on April 9, 2021. Posted in Uncategorized.

By: Bob Viering, Director of Management
April 2021

The Covid-19 pandemic brought M&A activity for community banks and credit unions to a halt in 2020. All expectations for 2021 are that M&A activity is likely to pick up significantly. Much of this activity is due to organizations that had planned to sell or start acquiring in 2020 to make up for lost time, but it will also be due to the changes in the industry as a result of the pandemic.

Electronic and mobile banking adoption accelerated as financial institutions closed branches or provided limited access during the pandemic. Today, not having a digital banking platform (internet and mobile apps) is no longer an option. Financial institutions need to re-assess branch networks in light of how customers/members bank today. Among the reasons that will drive many organizations to sell are:

Long-term impact of low interest rates, today’s compressed margin, and the future impact of rising rates
Cost/Liability of data security
Regulatory compliance costs
Lack of management succession

Conversely, those organizations that have made the technology infrastructure investments, have staffing in place that can succeed in this volatile time, and are comfortable thinking outside the traditional banking box have great opportunities.

How We can Assist
Young & Associates, Inc. has been assisting banks and credit unions for over 43 years and have assembled a team of qualified professionals that can assist you in your acquisition or help you prepare to sell your organization and maximize your return.

The industry is fortunate in that we have many excellent investment bankers, law firms, and accounting firms that provide great advice on the pricing, structure, and regulatory requirements. But as anyone who has been through an acquisition or merger can tell you, it is the knowledge you gain during due diligence and post-merger integration that, in the end, will determine if the transaction was successful. Our services will supplement the services acquired from your investment banker, law firm, and accounting firm.

While due diligence and post-merger integration can be done by your staff, our breadth of knowledge, gained from decades of working for hundreds of banks and credit unions, brings a broader perspective. We deal with many of these issues regularly and can often be more efficient. We also understand that time is of the essence for due diligence and will make your engagement a priority to be completed in the time needed.

Due Diligence Assistance

Loan Due Diligence: We can provide a timely assessment of the underwriting, management, and quality of the target’s loan portfolio. We have experts from all disciplines of lending, including ALLL analysis and credit process. We will help you understand the culture of the organization you are acquiring.

Interest Rate Risk and Liquidity Management Due Diligence: We can assist you in determining the target institution’s level of interest rate and liquidity risk. This can then help you as you consider the combined organization’s level of risk. This will help you answer the following question: “Does the combined organization fit within your risk ‘comfort zone?'”

Compliance Due Diligence: Many aspects of compliance, such as Fair Lending and BSA/AML, will become the acquirer’s problem if there was an issue prior to acquisition. Having the target’s compliance program reviewed prior to closing can help you understand the degree of compliance risk you will be assuming.

IT Due Diligence:Â This is an often overlooked but critical piece of information to understand how well or what IT-related issues a target bank may have that will need to be addressed post-acquisition.

Strategic Planning:Â We can help you assess how the acquisition will fit into your strategic direction. If your strategic plan involves potential acquisitions, have you put a plan/process in place to prepare for it, or will you put it together on the fly if an acquisition comes along? Analyzing how the target fits with your culture and your strategic direction is one of the most important aspects of a successful acquisition.

Succession Planning: While much of the attention in an acquisition analysis is on the financial aspects of the transaction, the quality and depth of the human resources of the target institution are the drivers of the target’s current success or challenges. We can assist you with reviewing the target’s succession plan or help you craft a new one for the combined organization.

Interagency Bank Merger Application Assistance

We can assist you with the delineation of the relevant geographic markets, evaluation of competitive factors in the proposed transaction, CRA assessment area data and mapping, demographic information, business environment data, information on traffic patterns, and other relevant market information.

We can also help you craft your business plan that is a required part of the application.

Post-Acquisition Integration
Post-acquisition integration is the key to whether your merger/acquisition is successful. You will have just spent many millions of dollars to buy an organization. Buying the organization is not the end result but the beginning of many months and years of hard work to get the return you expect.

There are several ways we can help you achieve the results you expect from the transaction:

Employee and Customer Communications
Strategic, Capital, and Succession Plan Updates,Â based on the combined organization
Re-assessment of your Branch Network.Â Does it make sense to consolidate any branches, especially given the changes that the pandemic has brought along to digital banking adoption?
Periodic Loan Review and Compliance ReviewÂ will allow you to assess the quality of results at both the overall organization and the acquired organization.
Analysis of Workflow and StaffingÂ of the combined organization
Assessment of your Human Resources Management. Retaining key members of the acquired organization’s staff is often the biggest determinant of future success. This is especially true for your frontline commercial/ag/private bankers and key deposit/cash management personnel who are often the day-to-day face of the organization for your largest customers.

These are just some of the ways Young & Associates can work with you to have a long-term successful acquisition, based on your unique needs. Contact us today for more information on how we can assist you with your M&A efforts.

About Young & Associates, Inc.
Young & Associates, Inc. has provided consulting, training, and practical products for community financial institutions for over 43 years. We strive to provide the most up-to-date solutions for our clients’ needs, while remaining true to our founding principles and goals — to ease the management of your organization, reduce the regulatory burden, improve your bottom line, and increase shareholder value.

To learn more about Young & Associates, Inc. and how we can assist your organization, visit our website or contact Dave Reno, Director — Lending and Business Development.

www.younginc.com
Email: dreno@younginc.com
Phone:330.422. 3455

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, Uncategorized.

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 planning 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.

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.

A Current Perspective on Concentrations of Credit

Written by admin on February 28, 2018. Posted in Lending & Loan Review.

By: Tommy Troyer, Executive Vice President

Concentrations of credit are certainly not a new risk for community banks, but for many banks they are an increasing challenge. While effective concentration risk management involves much more than we have room to discuss here, we would like to use this article to highlight a few timely considerations related to concentration risk management.

Growing Concentrations
We all know that, though we can calculate statistical averages for various measures across community banks, there is no “average community bank” in the real world. Each bank has its own unique combination of characteristics. However, concentrations of certain types of credit do seem to be increasing across community banks as average loan-to-asset ratios have been increasing and banks are, for the most part, still trying to stick to in-market lending and to loan types with which they have experience.

Continued regulatory emphasis on prudent concentration risk management practices, especially related to CRE, has been one result of these trends. One of the ways some banks have experienced this attention is to have examiners note a greater interest in measures of total CRE exposure, including owner occupied loans, as opposed to the more traditional measures of non-owner occupied concentrations described in the well-known 2006 interagency guidance on CRE concentrations. (This emphasis has been driven in part by the growing realization that the industry’s loss history on these two types of CRE loans has not been that different over the last decade.)

As a simple example of the growth in credit concentrations for community banks, I collected some data on commercial banks and savings banks in four Midwestern states (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois) with less than $2 billion in total assets. While we work with community banks nationwide and with some banks larger than this threshold, I thought this would be a sample of banks of interest to many of the readers of this newsletter. Of these banks, 700 met these criteria as of 2017Q3. I compared selected concentration levels for these banks to their levels five years earlier, as of 2012Q3.

The number of banks with construction and land development loans totaling 100% or more of total capital doubled, though it certainly remains low at just 2% of the sample.
The number of banks with non-owner occupied loans totaling 300% or more of total capital increased from 29 to 42.
The number of banks with total CRE loans totaling 400% or more of total capital increased from 50 to 66.

None of the figures above total even 10% of the banks in the sample, but I have also chosen to test quite significant concentration levels. Our consulting work indicates that many more banks, which have chosen to set their internal concentration limits at more conservative levels than described above, are experiencing challenges as they near internal limits. This applies for both broad categories of concentrations, such as non-owner occupied CRE, and for more narrowly defined categories, such as hotels.

In some other cases, concentrations that banks have always understood were necessary given the community they serve have become more concerning. For example, many community banks operate in markets where agriculture is a dominant industry. Such banks have always accepted the risk associated with heightened ag concentrations, but continued challenging ag conditions have made such concentrations more of a concern in recent years.

Risk Management Considerations
The fundamentals of effective management of concentration risk are well-known, and can be found in a variety of regulatory sources. I will not rehash all of them here, though I do feel obliged to emphasize that concentration risk must be factored into capital planning and must be appropriately evaluated as a qualitative factor impacting the ALLL. I would also like to highlight a couple of trends in concentration risk management we have noted recently:

Incorporating concentration considerations into strategic planning. Yes, detailed analysis of concentration risk and recommendations for concentration limits will likely be provided to the board by management. However, such limits should reflect the board’s risk appetite and desired strategic direction for the bank. It has been encouraging to me to hear in several recent strategic planning retreats thoughtful, forward-looking discussion about what the bank should look like in the future and what that means for the bank’s approach to credit concentrations.
Incorporating a proactive approach to monitoring and managing relationship levels. We have seen an increasing number of clients take what can be described as a more proactive and sophisticated approach to monitoring and actively managing concentration levels. Instead of testing concentration levels quarterly and simply “turning off the spigot” when a limit has been reached, these banks incorporate a proposed loan’s impact on their concentration profile into their underwriting analysis. They also use their pipeline and runoff projections to forecast their various concentration levels in coming quarters, and then manage prospective and existing borrowers to maximize the quality and profitability of a given portfolio. This can help prevent, for example, a couple of marginally profitable and purely transactional deals that may be easy to “win” from crowding out prospective deals that can lead to profitable long-term banking relationships.
Utilizing portfolio stress testing. Portfolio stress testing has long been a tool for evaluating concentration risk, but more community banks seem to be making efforts to implement forms of portfolio stress testing than ever before.
Utilizing collateral valuation and collateral management. One important way of ensuring that downturns in an industry in which a bank has a concentration do not cause excessive losses is to have in place effective practices for both managing the initial valuation and assessment of the collateral (especially for real estate collateral) and for monitoring collateral on an ongoing basis. The ongoing monitoring of the status and value of collateral can be especially important for banks with ag concentrations. While we see plenty of good work done by banks in both of these areas, we would also note that these seem to be some of the most common areas about which we, and also often examiners, provide recommendations for improvements in practices.

Conclusion
Effectively managing concentrations of credit will remain important for as long as lending remains a primary source of income for banks (in other words, forever). Young & Associates, Inc. has assisted clients by providing portfolio stress testing services (both CRE and ag), loan reviews, and more targeted consulting focused on enhancing collateral valuation processes or credit policies. We also assist clients by facilitating strategic planning sessions that encourage the board and management to think about and plan for the future of the bank. This can result in a bank better defining its lending strategy and ensuring its lending approach is consistent with its overall strategy. To discuss this article or any of our services further, please contact Tommy Troyer at ttroyer@younginc.com or 330.422.3475.

Where is the UCA/FAS 95 Analysis?

Written by admin on August 24, 2017. Posted in Lending & Loan Review.

By: David Dalessandro, Senior Consultant

In the summer of 1987, the savings and loan I was working for at the time sent me to a “cash flow” seminar in Norman, OK. I had graduated from Penn State a few years before and had recently accepted my first of what would prove to be many positions in banking as a credit analyst. At that point, my experience at financial analysis was limited to what I had absorbed from two accounting firms I had worked for and studying for (and passing) the CPA exam. The seminar topic was “The Implications of FASB 95.”

FASB 95, for those of you asking, was issued in November 1987 and was to be utilized in all financial statements finalized in fiscal years ending after July 15, 1988. The requirement replaced the famous APB 19, Statement of Changes in Financial Position, which we all knew and loved as a pretty worthless financial statement at the time, because no one without a CPA attached to their name understood it, and most CPAs had difficulty explaining it.

The seminar turned out to be one of the most beneficial events in my life. As it was explained, the Statement of Cash Flows, as required by FASB 95, was a financial disclosure that would trace every dollar of cash through an accounting period. How awesome, I thought, because only cash pays back loans. So now if I have a tool to trace every dollar of cash, credit analysis would be a cinch.

Well, fast forward 30 years…and the Statement of Cash Flows is still not a household name in Credit Analysis. Most financial institutions, even the largest, still hang onto EBITDA for “cash flow” or multiples of EBITDA for “value.” The EBITDA analysis may approximate real cash flow for real estate rental properties, but for those thousands of enterprises that carry Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, Inventory, Other Assets, and Other Liabilities, pay distributions, report gains and losses on sales of assets, take charge downs on intangibles, write off bad debts, and enter into other “non-cash” transactions, the Statement of Cash Flows is the only real way to “follow the money.”

The question here is, why would any financial institution NOT at least include FASB 95/UCA in cash flow analysis when it was appropriate? EBITDA, or even EBITDA adjusted for one-time items, may give the analyst an estimate of total cash flow, but true operating cash flow can only be obtained from a properly and timely prepared Statement of Cash Flows. The Statement separates the movement of cash into three primary categories: Operations, Investment, and Financing. From a bank or financial institution standpoint, if there is positive cash flow from the Investing segment or from the Financing segment, then the enterprise is selling assets or obtaining more loans or selling stock in order to make its loan payments. Are those sources sustainable? Are those sources where you want your customer to come up with the funding to make your loan payments? Is the quality of cash flow from Investing or Financing equal to that of Operating Cash Flow? Probably not. But if the cash flow from operations is positive, and it has been positive for a number of years and it is sufficiently positive to fund all loan payments, then that should be a sustainable source of cash flow far into the future. If the Operating Cash Flow is positive enough to fund loan payments, pay distributions/dividends, AND fund capital expenditures, then that enterprise is more than likely to enjoy a very strong financial condition with relatively easy debt coverage.

If your underwriting protocols do not include UCA/FAS 95/Statement of Cash Flow analysis, then you risk being surprised when a borrower who had “good” EBITDA coverage shows up past due or comes to you needing more money. Use this tool in conjunction with your standard analysis and it will enable you to rethink loan structures where the expected cash flows do not match up.

If you would like to discuss incorporating UCA/FAS 95/Statement of Cash Flow analysis in your institution, please contact me at 330.422.3487 or ddalessandro@younginc.com.

CECL Nears Finalization (For Real This Time)

Written by admin on May 18, 2016. Posted in Lending & Loan Review.

By: Tommy Troyer, Executive Vice President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tag: credit risk analysis

Connect with a Consultant

Ask a Question