Uncategorized

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

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.

HMDA Data for 2018 Released

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.

Corporate Change to Foster Growth

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.

      1. Bill Elliott – Director of Compliance Education
      2. Karen Clower – Director of Compliance
      3. Bob Viering – Director of Lending
      4. Aaron Lewis – Director of Lending Education
      5. Kyle Curtis – Director of Lending Services
      6. Mike Detrow – Director of Information Technology Audit/Information Technology
      7. Martina Dowidchuk – Director of Management Services
      8. Dave Reno – Director of Lending and Business Development
      9. Jeanette McKeever – Director of Internal Audit

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!

A Look to the Future

By: Jerry Sutherin, President & CEO, Young & Associates, Inc.

On January 31, 2018, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to purchase Young & Associates, Inc. from Mr. Gary Young, the company’s founder and current Chairman. Nearly 40 years ago, Gary created this organization with a vision of providing community banks with consulting services that were typically cost-prohibitive to perform internally. Since its inception in 1978, Young & Associates has evolved from a small start-up organization offering select outsourcing and educational services to one of the premier bank consulting firms with clients nationwide and overseas. We now offer consulting, education, and outsourcing services for nearly every aspect of banking.

From the outset of our acquisition discussions, Gary and I agreed that the greatest asset of the company is its employees. Over the years, not only has Gary developed unique servicing platforms for the industry but more importantly, he has assembled an employee base that is second to none. These employees provide a level of expertise and service to our clients that remains unparalleled in the community banking industry.

To quote Gary, “I founded Young & Associates with the goal of assisting community banks while maintaining a family atmosphere that valued and respected the people that I work with.” Going forward, it is my primary objective to carry on this legacy that Gary has created. I look forward to making this a seamless transition building on the solid foundation that Gary has built over the years. With the work of our employees and support of our clients, there is no doubt that Gary’s legacy will continue for years to come.

Although the ownership of Young & Associates, Inc. has changed, the company’s name, mission, personnel, quality of service, and structure will not change in any way. Gary now serves as Chairman of the Board and will remain actively involved with the business through January 2019, providing the same high-quality service while also assisting me with the transition. In addition to ensuring a smooth internal transition, Gary and I remain focused on making sure that the relationship with our clients remains strong. Existing and new clients are encouraged to contact me, Gary, or any of our consultants to discuss this transition and how we might be able to earn your business.