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. This requires lenders to find another comparable index for their ARMs.

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

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

Background on adjustable-rate mortgages

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

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

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

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

Types of errors

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

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

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

Extent of errors

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

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

Reasons for errors

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

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

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

How to avoid these problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ag Lending Considerations in 2020

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

By Robert Viering, Director of Lending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Know your portfolio:

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

Be proactive:

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

Know that best practices are not for every borrower:

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

Need Assistance?

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

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!

Succession Planning – The Key to Remaining Independent

Written by admin on August 22, 2019. Posted in Management & Planning.

By: Bob Viering, Senior Consultant and Manager of Lending Services

For many community banks today, remaining independent is the number one strategic priority. There are many reasons boards believe remaining independent is important: the board believes that the shareholders’ investment will be maximized over a longer time horizon; that the bank as an independent local bank can best serve the needs of the community; that the employees as a whole will be far better served (and have jobs) by remaining independent. These are all reasonable and sincere reasons.

So, if staying independent is important, why are an increasing number of banks selling today? One of the biggest reasons that banks sell is that the board is not confident that there is anyone ready to take over management of the bank. Developing a successor internally is a multi-year process to groom a talented individual to learn enough about the day-to-day responsibilities and skills needed to manage a bank successfully. Hiring a new CEO externally sounds easy, but to find that right person that not only has the skills and background to succeed and also can fit in the community and, most importantly, the bank’s culture can be a very challenging process, especially if you are in a rural community. If something happens that the CEO role is suddenly open, or the CEO decides to retire in a year or less, all too often there is not enough time to find that right person, and the easier decision is to sell while the bank is still running smoothly.

It sounds like having a plan on how the CEO position will be filled is the answer. We’ve seen very simple plans that are a few short paragraphs that basically say, “Joe and Mary can run the bank in the interim. If one of them is not the right person, we’ll just hire someone.” Even for a very small bank, it’s almost never this easy. Even if you believe one of the top managers has the “right stuff” to be the next leader, have you thought about what skills they may need to develop to be ready? Have they had any real experience leading a group or an important project that gives you confidence they can run the place? Can you picture that person standing up in front of your shareholders? Or representing your bank to regulators? Or allowing your other key employees to operate successfully? Can they run the bank when times get tough (and they always do)? If you answered positively to these questions, do you have a plan, with timeframes, to provide the types of training and experience so that they will be ready to take over?

Even if you are confident you have the right person to take over, or you start early enough to recruit your next leader, what about the next level of management? Are they ready to step up when Joe or Mary ascends to the top spot? Do you have a plan to develop that next level of management? As you step through the layers of your organization, it often becomes clear that there are other key employees that would impact your ability to run the bank smoothly if they leave. What do you do if your head of IT leaves? Is there a replacement? Can the functions be outsourced? Every organization has those key people; they may not even be mangers that are critical to the operation. What’s your plan if they are gone one day?

If you may be facing the expected change at the CEO level and you have other key people that are in sight of retirement, selling can seem like a simple, expedient solution. The key to not being backed into a corner when retirements occur, or when a key person leaving is a threat to the successful operation of the organization, is having a well thought out succession plan. A successful plan has the following elements: it identifies those key individuals in the bank needed to run the organization successfully; it identifies the skills and training needs for those individuals that have the ability to be promoted to more responsible positons, even the CEO role; it has a written plan with timelines for preparing the individual for that next step; and it is updated at least annually to verify that the plan is still the best plan for the bank and that the individuals are progressing as expected.

If you truly want to remain independent, then you must take the time, and it will take time, to develop a meaningful succession plan. Well done, it will take months to develop and time to groom and coach that next level of talent, to review and update your plan as required.

At Young & Associates, Inc. we are committed to the idea that we are all best served by having strong, well-run community banks. If you would like help in developing your succession plan or would like a critical eye to review your existing plan, reach out to us: we’ve got community banking’s back. To contact me, give me a call at 330.422.3476 or send an email to bviering@younginc.com.

Private Flood Insurance Update

Written by admin on August 22, 2019. Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

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

As you are no doubt aware, the issue of flood insurance has been unsettled for the last 18 months, and the formal FEMA flood program is only approved until the fall. But, after a long wait, the regulators have published additional regulation for private flood insurance – which does not rely on Congress to do anything, and makes the presence or absence of the FEMA program less problematic for lenders.

Background

The Biggert-Waters Act (2012) amended federal flood insurance legislation to require the agencies to issue a rule directing regulated lending institutions to accept “private flood insurance,” as defined by the act. In response to subsequent legislation and comments received regarding the private flood insurance provisions of the first proposed rule (2013), and the second proposed rule (November 2016), all prudential regulatory agencies finally issued the rule, effective July 1, 2019.

It remains to be seen how effective and efficient this will be, as it is a “work in process.” But some have told me that some of their customers have found lower flood insurance rates privately (meaning these policies may become more popular). Others have told me that they have had customers declined for private flood insurance based on the riskiness of the property location.

Summary of the Rule

The rule requires regulated lending institutions to accept “private flood insurance” defined in accordance with the Biggert-Waters Act. There are essentially three categories of private flood insurance.

Category One – Private Flood Insurance with “Compliance Aid” Language

If the following language appears on the flood policy, the lender may accept the policy without any further review:
“This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

Although it remains to be seen how well this will work, we hope that most insurance companies will include this language, which will make it quite easy for lenders, as no additional effort will be required.

Category Two – Private Flood Insurance without “Compliance Aid” Language

The rule permits regulated lending institutions to exercise discretion to accept flood insurance policies issued by private insurers that do not meet the statutory and regulatory definition of private flood insurance. The conditions for acceptance include a requirement that the policy must provide sufficient protection of a designated loan, consistent with general safety and soundness principles, and the regulated lending institution must document its conclusion regarding sufficiency of the protection of the loan in writing.

The difficulty for lenders will be to determine whether these policies really meet these (and other) requirements. And although the regulation says “discretionary,” it does not appear that the regulators will just allow lenders to summarily reject these policies.

Category Three – Mutual Aid Societies

The agencies will now allow the acceptance of plans providing flood coverage issued by mutual aid societies. The rule defines “mutual aid society” as an organization:
(1) whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond;
(2) that covers losses caused by damage to members’ property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and
(3) that has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members’ property caused by flooding.

A regulated lending institution may accept a plan issued by a mutual aid society, as defined above, if the regulated lending institution’s primary federal supervisory agency has determined that such plans qualify as flood insurance for purposes of the act.

Requirement to Purchase Flood Insurance

There is nothing in the rule that changes the amounts of insurance required, or anything else. This simply allows more options and hopefully, over time, will make everyone’s life – lenders and borrowers – easier.

If you need any assistance in this area, especially private flood policies without the “compliance aid” language, please give us a call at 330.422.3450 or send an email to bille@younginc.com. We are always happy to help.

Avoid Getting Swept Away in the Flood of Enforcement Actions

Written by admin on August 20, 2019. Posted in Compliance & Regulations.

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

We seem to be in a bit of a lull in flood insurance rule enforcement by the financial institution regulators. There were only 15 enforcement actions with civil money penalties (CMP) totaling $523,961 in 2018. So far this year, we have had only two such enforcement actions, with total CMPs of $10,550. But, we probably should not expect this trend to continue, especially with all the flooding events we have seen recently, including our unfortunate neighbors along the Missouri River. These events tend to get the attention of Congress and the supervisory agencies.

Keep in mind that enforcement of many rules, including those involving flood insurance, seem to run in cycles. After another apparent lull in flood insurance enforcement actions a couple years ago, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) issued an Order for a Civil Money Penalty in late May 2017 against SunTrust Bank for $1,501,000 to enforce requirements of the regulations implementing the National Flood Insurance Act. This is thought to be the largest CMP for flood insurance shortcomings. Coupled with 11 other much smaller enforcement actions by the FRB, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the total civil money penalties assessed for flood insurance rule violations by mid-year 2017 totaled nearly $1.8 million – and by the end of that year, we had seen 29 enforcement actions with a total of nearly $2.8 million in CMPs.

Background
The original National Flood Insurance Act was passed in 1968, and established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1974 (FDPA) was enacted to strengthen the NFIP by involving lending institutions in the insurance process.

The NFIP was developed as a way to reduce federal expenditures related to disasters caused by flooding. The program consists of floodplain management plans that affected communities must implement and a flood insurance program to protect properties in flood hazard areas. The intent of the NFIP is to reduce federal outlays for disaster assistance by making those who choose to develop properties in flood-prone areas bear some cost to protect against the flood risks involved, rather than allowing them to rely solely on federal aid.

Part of the NFIP is a system of requirements and restrictions on federal assistance of all kinds to flood-prone areas. This assistance ranges from direct federal lending to loan guarantees, to insurance for deposit accounts. The latter is the connection for many mortgage lenders with the NFIP.

The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (NFIRA) comprehensively revised the two federal flood statutes – the NFIA and FDPA – and required federal supervisory agencies to revise their flood insurance regulations. The objective of the changes was to increase compliance with flood insurance requirements and participation in the NFIP, and to decrease the financial burden on the federal government, taxpayers, and flood victims.

The NFIRA authorizes the regulators to impose civil money penalties when a pattern or practice of violations under the NFIA is found. The act requires that civil money penalties be imposed of up to $350 for each violation in such cases. The civil money penalty cap was increased significantly by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, enacted July 6, 2012. The former $350 per violation maximum was raised to $2,000 per violation. Lenders should remember that there can be multiple violations for each covered loan.

Consent Orders
The regulators charged that the financial institutions targeted by the 15 enforcement actions last year were engaged in patterns or practices of violations of various provisions of the flood insurance regulations. Most of the orders give us at least some picture of the violations found by regulatory personnel. These violations of flood insurance rules include failures to:

Provide notice about availability of and requirement for flood insurance
Provide timely notice about availability of and requirement for flood insurance
Require flood insurance coverage
Require adequate flood insurance coverage
Maintain flood insurance (allowing it to lapse)
Escrow premiums (when other property costs are escrowed)
Comply with force placement requirements
Provide notice regarding lapse and force-placed coverage
Provide timely notice regarding lapse and force-placed coverage
Obtain force-placed coverage

Avoiding Problems
What can you do to keep your bank or thrift off the ever-growing list of financial institutions being hit with flood insurance enforcement actions? One important way is to establish an effective flood insurance compliance program and make sure that lending staff follows it. Hold them accountable for failures.

At a minimum, your flood insurance compliance program should:

Ensure that there is an effective process in place for determining the flood hazard status for improved real property or mobile homes securing any loans, both consumer and commercial, whether the process be one of in-house readings of up-to-date flood maps or outsourced determinations by a professional firm that guarantees its results.
Ensure that your institution has performed appropriate due diligence in selecting its flood hazard determination vendor and monitors its performance, and that the vendor guarantees its results and uses the current Special Flood Hazard Determination Forms (SFHDF) to document its determinations.
Order or perform flood determinations early in the loan process. This can be done soon after the lender decides to approve the loan.
Ensure that loan files contain complete and current SFHDF and acknowledged customer flood notices, where applicable.
Ensure that collateral properties are insured in the proper amount before loan closing, including appropriate coverage for any senior mortgagees.
Remain current on flood map and hazard determination changes, and stay insured throughout the life of the loan.
Ensure that coverage is maintained for subsequent financings (increase, extension, renewal, refinancing) of the subject properties.
Train all affected staff in their responsibilities under the bank’s flood insurance compliance program, assign appropriate accountability, and enforce staff responsibilities.

This last point is especially important. Training is the foundation for implementing and maintaining a strong flood program. Ensure that all appropriate staff is trained in the requirements of the flood insurance laws and rules that impact their jobs and provide them with refreshers periodically.

Establishing and maintaining a strong flood insurance compliance program can help your bank or thrift stay afloat during any flood of enforcement actions. For more information on this article and/or how Young & Associates, Inc. can assist you in this area, contact Bill Showalter at 330.678.0524 or wshowalter@younginc.com.

Assessing Management Skills in Agricultural Borrowers

Written by admin on May 18, 2018. Posted in Lending & Loan Review.

By: Robert Viering, Senior Consultant & Lending Department Manager

In our loan review practice we have seen an overall deterioration in farm financial results. However, we have noted that there are borrowers that are still providing reasonable returns and acceptable debt service coverage ratios. Our anecdotal observations have been confirmed by data from farm financial databases from farms in the Midwest. In his blog post in the December 19, 2017 Corn + Soybean Digest, Dr. David Kohl observed, “Regardless of farm size or enterprise, the gap between the top one-third of economic performers and the bottom one-third is widening. Among the most profitable, common practices include strong production, a drive towards efficiency, and an executed marketing and risk management.” My interpretation of his comment can be simplified to: Management skills count.

In our loan review client banks, management skills may be a part of the bank’s risk rating model, but how management skills are determined varies widely. All too often most borrowers are rated as having good management skills even if their financial results put them in the bottom third of financial performance. Based on my 30+ years as a banker and now as a loan review professional, management skills are what separates the top and bottom producers. The question becomes, how do we assess the management skills of our borrowers? While there are no hard and fast rules, there are several attributes that can often help in making an assessment of management skills.

The following are items to consider when assessing management skills:

Production competency. On the production side, you will want to honestly assess how their level of production compares to others with similar operations. As an example, if they are consistently producing more bushels of corn per acre than similar farms in your market, then their skills should be rated higher than an operation with more variable results or certainly better than those that are consistently below their peers. You will want to consider if their equipment line/livestock production facilities are appropriate for the scale and sophistication of their operation.
Financial competency. Questions for you to consider to determine financial competency include: Are you provided accurate, thorough, and timely financial information? Are the cash-flow projections reasonable and based on sound assumptions (you will need to back test borrower’s cash flows to actual results to assess this attribute)? Does the producer understand the financial implications of their decisions?
Risk management. Risk management is about protecting what you have and limiting your downside. Among the items to assess include whether they are carrying adequate crop insurance. This can include whether they can cover the difference between what insurance pays and what they expected to produce. Other questions that are important to consider include: Does the borrower have a marketing plan? Do they make good use of hedging strategies? A good marketing plan can help pick up some additional income while limiting the downside of market volatility.
Intangible skills. There are a few other items that should be considered that are difficult to quantify but are important to consider. Among the items to ask are: Are they willing to make tough decisions? This is often about expenses and includes the ability to reduce family living, reduce labor costs (even if it means a family member may have to leave the operation), or any other decisions that may not be popular or easy but may be required to succeed. Do they have a long-term vision of where they want to go? Even if they are not considering doing anything different, that is still a strategy that has its risks. Are they realistic in their understanding of their operation’s strengths and weaknesses? Are they open to taking advice from outside experts to improve their operation? Do they have any trusted advisors that they use? If applicable, do they have a plan to transition to the next generation? If so, do they have an understanding of the next generation’s strengths/weaknesses and the risks in their transition plan?

Agriculture is like all other types of business: good management is critical to long-term success and especially to getting through more challenging times like today. As a bank, having a good understanding of the borrower’s management skills is an important aspect of knowing the level of risk in a borrower. We encourage banks to make a thorough assessment of a farm operator’s management skills, especially today as management skills can often be the difference between long-term success and just surviving, or even the difference between just surviving and having to quit farming.

For more information on this article, contact Bob Viering at bviering@younginc.com or 1.800.525.9775.

Capital Market Commentary – 2018 Forecast and 2017 in Review

Written by admin on February 28, 2018. Posted in Management & Planning.

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

The stock market continued its climb to new heights in 2017. The stock market was propelled by the election of President Trump, which brought the expectation of lower taxes, less regulation, and an administration favorable to businesses. The Dow ended 2017 at 24,719.22, an increase of 25.08% for the year. The S&P 500 also improved nicely, ending up 19.42%. The market, despite a correction in early February, has increased further from 2017’s year-end values.

The Fed continued its plan to move short-term interest rates higher in 2017. The Fed moved short-term rates up 25 b.p. in March, June, and December. The three-month T-Bill ended December at 1.39%, an increase of 88 b.p. from year-end 2016. Longer-term interest rates were little changed from year-end 2016, resulting in a flatter yield curve.

Job creation continued in 2017, and the unemployment rate in December was 4.1%. The unemployment rate is at a level not seen in 17 years. The low unemployment rate would typically lead to rising wages, but wage growth was only around 2% in 2017.

As we enter 2018, there are a number of items worth monitoring:

Economic Growth. U.S. economic growth for 2017 came in at 2.5%, comparable to prior years. The slow but steady expansion that began in mid-2009 ranks as the third longest economic expansion in U.S. history. Should the recovery continue into the second half of 2019, it would become the longest recovery on record, surpassing the 1990’s economic boom.
Housing. Home prices continued to rise in 2017. The S&P/Case-Shiller National Home Price Index rose 6.2% in the 12 months ending in November. The rising price for homes has exceeded inflation and wage growth for several years. The limited housing inventory has aided the rise in prices along with historically low mortgage rates. U.S. single-family homebuilding surged to more than 10-year highs in November. Existing home sales were up 5.6% in December, while new home sales increased 17.5%.
Industrial Production. U.S. manufacturing activity remains strong. The Institute for Supply Management said its purchasing managers index rose to 59.7 in December, the second highest level since early 2011. A reading over 50 indicates expansion in the sector; below 50 suggests contraction. Boeing recently announced deliveries of 763 aircraft in 2017, a record for the company. Auto sales were down 1.8% in 2017, but with sales of 17.2 million vehicles, it marked the first time the industry has surpassed 17 million for three consecutive years.
Consumers. Consumer confidence is positive. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index average level for 2017 was the highest since 2000. A sign of the strong consumer sentiment is reflected in consumer debt. In the fourth quarter, consumer debt, excluding mortgages and other home loans, rose 5.5% from a year earlier. That is the highest amount since the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began tracking the data in 1999. Moreover, consumers’ non-housing debts accounted for just over 29% of their overall debt load, also the highest amount on record.
Inflation. The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation in January was 2.1%, moving above the Fed’s target of 2% for the first time in a while. The anticipated 3% growth of the economy along with the tight labor market and rising interest rates is expected to finally push inflation upward.
Political Risks. There are a number of geo-political risks that could significantly change the outlook for 2018. Among these are the ongoing Brexit process, North Korea nuclear saber rattling, and President Trump’s plans to renegotiate NAFTA. Furthermore, the dysfunction in Washington creates uncertainty.

Predictions for 2018

Lending Activity. We anticipate an increase in lending activity. We think the lower tax rate for businesses will encourage businesses to expand their operations.
Interest Rates. The Fed has indicated that three rate increases are probable in 2018. We think that we will get those increases.
Home Prices. We expect the growth rate in home prices to be lower than in the past several years. We think higher interest rates will come into play and make housing less affordable. We also think that the less favorable tax status of the deductibility of mortgage interest will have an impact on some home buyers.
Inflation. We do see inflation moving up in 2018. As mentioned above, we expect wage increases to heighten. The low unemployment rate and the shortage of skilled labor in many markets will put pressure on employers to increase wages to attract and retain workers. We also think the growing economy will impact commodity prices.
Jobs. We envision unemployment to remain low as businesses expand.
Regulation. We expect bankers to be disappointed about the lack of regulatory relief in 2018. It will be difficult for regulatory relief to filter down the bank regulatory bureaucracy.

Merger and Acquisition Activity
Merger activity in 2017 was slightly higher than the activity in 2016. In 2017, there were 267 announced mergers of banks and thrifts compared to 244 deals in 2016. In terms of deal size, the total assets of sellers totaled $147 billion in 2017, compared to $188 billion in 2016 and $459 billion in 2015. Pricing on 2017 bank sales improved significantly from 2016’s pricing, recording a median price to book multiple of 162% and a price to earnings multiple of 20.9 times. We believe that 2018 will see increased merger activity spurred, in part, by bank buyers’ enhanced profitability from reduced corporate taxes

Capital Market Services
Young & Associates, Inc. has a successful track record of working with our bank clients in the development and implementation of capital strategies. Through our affiliate, Capital Market Securities, Inc., we have assisted clients in a variety of capital market transactions. For more information on our capital market services, please contact Stephen Clinton at sclinton@younginc.com or 1.800.376.8662.

Tag: lending

Background on adjustable-rate mortgages

Types of errors

Extent of errors

Reasons for errors

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

How to avoid these problems

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:

Know your portfolio:

Be proactive:

Know that best practices are not for every borrower:

Need Assistance?

Connect with a Consultant

Ask a Question