Tag: lending

Handle ARM Adjustments with Care

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Types of Errors

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

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

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

Extent of Errors

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

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

Reasons for Errors

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

In addition, some of the mortgage audit firms assert that ARM rate and payment adjustment errors have been linked to:

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

How to Avoid These Problems

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

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

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

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

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

Young & Associates, Inc. offers a variety of compliance management and review services that are proven effective for institutions of all types and sizes. For more information on this topic or how Young & Associates, Inc. can assist your institution, contact Bill Showalter at wshowalter@younginc.com or 330.422.3473.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Planning for 2021

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

By: Bob Viering, Senior Consultant and Director of Lending

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

Pre-Planning – Where are We Today?

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

Planning Session – Where do We Want to Be?

On the day of your planning session, we spend time discussing what is going on in the banking world and the analysis of the pre-planning work so everyone is on the same page about where we are today. This may include updating your SWOT analysis. We focus on a critical piece of the planning session, which is to answer: where do we want to be? Young & Associates will facilitate the discussion and use our years of real-world experience to help you craft a plan that reflects your vision. The goal is to have a vision of where you want your organization to be next year, in five years, or ten years down the road, and determine what it will take to get there. Strategy is about making choices about who you want to serve, how you plan to serve them, and often just as important, who you are not going to serve.

Plan Execution – How will We Get There?

The goal at the end of the day is to have an agreed direction for your bank and the strategies/goals you will use to get there. Finally, we discuss the most important item of all planning: execution. The best plan in the world won’t get you anywhere without a plan for how you will execute your plan, who is responsible for each goal you set, a timeline for completion, and periodic updates on the progress of your plan.

Written Strategic Plan

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

Why Young & Associates, Inc.?

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

For more information, contact Bob Viering:

Email: bviering@younginc.com

Phone: 330.422.3476.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Corporate Change to Foster Growth

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

By: Jerry Sutherin, President and CEO

I am pleased to announce some changes to the structure of Young & Associates, Inc. that took place in September. The following individuals have received promotions to help our organization continue to grow and guide our organization into 2020 and beyond.

Each of these individuals possesses a vast amount of experience, knowledge, and contacts in the financial services industry, and have, time after time, been called upon to utilize this experience and knowledge for the betterment of our clients and, in turn, for the betterment of Young & Associates, Inc. While much of the day-to-day, primary duties and responsibilities of these recognized individuals will remain unchanged, the new role will involve them to a higher degree in the business strategy and implementation needed to grow our business in 2020 and beyond.

The functional areas of Human Resources (Sharon Jeffries), Marketing (Anne Coyne), and Education Coordination (Sally Scudiere) will continue to be valuable advisors/resources to our corporate strategy and senior management team and will be fully utilized through the ongoing process of business growth in conjunction with maximizing employee potential.

Congratulations to all of these individuals on these important promotions. We look forward to working together to serve our current and potential clients in 2020!

Tag: lending

Connect with a Consultant

Ask a Question