Wednesday, December 14, 2011

OCC Issues New Guidance on Credit Concentrations and Stress Testing

Yesterday the OCC issued a new version of their “Concentrations of Credit” booklet. The booklet directs examiners to include a page in each Report of Examination that lists concentrations posing a challenge to management or presenting unusual or significant risk to banks, collectively. Following are some highlights from the sections of the booklet along with my commentary but I encourage institutions supervised by the OCC to read the entire booklet (which for regulatory material is fairly short at 29 pages!).

From the Introduction:
“Credit risk management does not conclude with the supervision of individual transactions. It also encompasses the management of concentrations, or pools of exposures, whose collective performance has the potential to affect a bank negatively even if each individual transaction within a pool is soundly underwritten. When exposures in a pool are sensitive to the same economic, financial, or business development, that sensitivity, if triggered, may cause the sum of the transactions to perform as if it were a single, large exposure.”
I think this is a key opening statement. As an examiner and even now in my present role as a consultant I have always heard statements from bankers such as “we know our credits,” “we underwrite conservatively,” and “we know our market,” among others. This opening statement makes it clear that concentration management of pools is always necessary because there are risks that can affect a bank’s viability even when individual credits are structured and underwritten in a prudent manner.

From the Definition:
“Other credit concentrations, such as loans secured by first liens on residential real estate, have historically posed few problems. However, during the recession of 2007-2009, the banking industry experienced significant losses in these exposures when the national housing market suffered broad declines in home values. This experience indicates that although a concentration has not proven problematic in the past does not mean that it is precluded from becoming a problem in the future."
Hopefully we have all learned this lesson from this banking crisis. Historically home mortgages had excellent repayment histories. A review of the FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile reveals that the Net Charge-Off rate for closed end 1-4 family residential mortgages was as low as 0.04% during the first quarter of 2005 and was at similar levels from 2002 through the first half of 2007. This rate rose to as high as 1.81% as of the fourth quarter of 2009 and is currently at 0.97%. But there are still elevated levels of loan amounts in the 30-89 past due category indicating that there may be more to come. The lesson is here is that when analyzing the bank’s loan loss reserve analysis and a particular loan category does not have any historical loan loss don’t be fooled into believing that future experience will mirror the past.

From Pools of Transactions With Similar Characteristics:

The booklet lists the historical pools of transactions that may perform similarly but also goes on to state that industry practitioners and supervisors have further refined the original framework to include other sources of concentrations which augments and focuses the framework based on the results of stress testing. This can be very revealing of otherwise unidentified concentrations. The booklet lists several but I’d like to discuss commercial real estate which includes construction and development:

“CRE merits explicit mention because of its historical volatility and its role in a disproportionate number of bank failures. Banks may view CRE as a product, which would include all transactions secured by CRE. Alternatively, banks may also take an “industry” view, which would include only those transactions where the primary source of repayment is sale or refinancing of CRE or collection of lease/rental payments. A CRE pool may be further segmented by:
     * property type;
     * geography;
     * tenant concentrations (listed by name of tenant or by industry);
     * risk rating;
     * credit structure (e.g. fixed versus variable interest rate);
     *and debt service coverage."

As a consultant, the above list is a starting point for my analysis with clients. We also go on to include LTV, the Business Type of the borrower, relationship(s) as well as others. Also the list above is considered to be high level segments that can be refined into much greater detail. For example, property type historically has been limited to groups such as Retail, Office, and Industrial but the analysis doesn’t have to stop there. With the proper MIS or analysis tool, the property type of Retail can be broken down into more granular segments, such as Gas Station – individually owned and operated, Gas Station – individual owner of several stations, Hotel – Long Term/Extended Stay, Hotel – Motel, Hotel – Resort, Hotel – Unbranded, and so on. Risk factors for the higher level groups vary widely and grouping them together does not always provide the level of detail that institutions can benefit from.

From Identifying Concentrations:
“For very broadly defined pools such as CRE, the concentration limits would necessarily be higher than for more narrowly defined sub-segments such as acquisition, development, and construction loans. When banks set higher concentration limits for broadly defined pools-especially where those limits are more than 100 percent of capital-the OCC expects appropriate sub-limits for material groups of segmented exposures."
As we know many community banks especially are heavily concentrated in the broader category of CRE. However, the commentary above requires this group to be broken down into more refined segments, such as:

*Lots – held for long term speculation and lots for immediate development by type, residential or commercial, and then also by geographic area. If necessary the groups can also be further segmented by developer. A community bank shouldn’t want to hold a significant amount of investment in this category for the individual/company, same purpose, and in the same area.

From Stress Testing: 
“Stress testing is an effective tool for identifying correlated pools of loans. Stress testing can be used to quantify the potential impact from different scenarios on those pools of credits…It is critical to ask the ‘what if’ questions and incorporate the answers into the risk management process. Stress tests can reveal the kinds of events that might present problems…As the bank’s knowledge of stress testing grows, it should strive to make the analysis more robust by simultaneously stressing a number of related variables. Banks of all sizes will benefit by supplementing stress testing of significant individual loans with portfolio and firm-wide stress testing. The overall goal is to quantify loss potential and the impact on earnings and capital adequacy."

The footnote to this section states: Bank management may want to consider modeling software as it becomes more refined and readily available.

The 2006 Interagency CRE Guidance has been public information for quite some time now. The Stress Testing section in the new booklet not only reaffirms the recommendation for bankers to perform this exercise at regular intervals on a portfolio level basis using multiple variables simultaneously but makes it a requirement because examiners are instructed to “obtain and review the bank’s capital planning and stress testing policies, procedures, and results” when assessing the adequacy of a bank’s credit concentration management (Refer to Examination Procedures page 19).

Although this exercise can sound like a difficult task as a novice, it really is not. I think the availability of tools in this industry has progressed to a point that it is fair for regulators to expect this analysis even from the smallest community bank. Bankers no longer have to rely on the simple excel spreadsheet, which works for a single variable stress test on an individual loan, but falls short when trying to stress test multiple variables on a portfolio-wide basis.

From working with our customers continuously I have found that examiners are very pleased with the results when the banker can demonstrate that:
  1. this analysis can be performed at least quarterly because what value does this really have if the process takes six months to do and the report is using balances that are already stale-dated;
  2. the results are being quantified as to the impact on the institution’s capital and earnings under at least two stress scenarios;
  3. the credits displaying risk (or failing the stress test) are isolated with immediate action being taken by management to shore up the credit as best as possible; such as ordering a new appraisal; requesting updated financial statements; and performing a site analysis;
  4. groups of credits displaying the most risk are being evaluated in terms of:
    • the overall concentration levels as permitted by bank policy with the goal of reassessing whether or not this risk is acceptable to the institution or if the level should be reduced with action plans to be taken to diversify; and
    • assessing whether or not the loan loss reserve is adequately funding this group. Many times, especially in a young institution, the group of loans that display the most risk as determined by the stress testing results is a group that has not even exhibited any loss history to date. In this case is a qualitative factor adjustment being provided in the ALLL?
From the Conclusion:
“The size of a concentration, however, does not necessarily determine the risk. Different pools of the same size may represent very different levels of risk. Although 25 percent of capital remains the threshold for capturing concentrations for regulatory purposes, the OCC expects that institutions will build their concentration management process based on the risk that a pool of loans represents.”
There are also examination procedures contained in this document that should be reviewed. For the full text click here.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

ABA Conference for Community Bankers

I am very honored to have been asked to speak at the ABA Conference for Community Bankers coming up in February 2012 in Palm Desert, CA.  Overall, I believe this conference will be very beneficial and informative to those in the community banking industry.  Hopefully it will also be an opportunity to meet many of you and answer any questions you might have.  Below is a summary of what I will be discussing in my session.  I hope to see you there!

CRE Loan Stress Testing for the Community Banker

Hazardous lending concentrations and the lack of robust risk management practices have led to increasing failures among community banks, which has in turn renewed federal regulators' commitment to focusing on the issue of better CRE concentration analysis and stress testing capabilities.  After this session, you will be better prepared to comply with regulatory expectations because we will cover how to identify and monitor risky segments and concentrations in your own commercial real estate loan portfolio.  This session will also teach you how to properly perform and interpret the results of portfolio level CRE stress testing in a community bank, and you will be given a clear understanding of what to do with those results once you have them

Learning Objectives:

  • Identify and monitor CRE concentrations
  • Perform portfolio level CRE stress testing
  • Interpret the results and assess the impact of the institution's capital, asset quality, and earnings

Monday, October 31, 2011

Thoughts from the RMA Annual Conference

My coworkers and I recently returned from the RMA’s Annual Conference held at the Marriott Wardman in Washington DC.  This conference is always a good one and this year was no exception.  The general sessions included a presentation by Mark Zandi, Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist; and the Keynote Speaker was David Gregory, the Moderator from NBC News’ Meet the Press.  There was also a regulator panel that included representatives from the Federal Reserve, OCC, & FDIC. 
I have had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Zandi speak many times.  He is an incredibly brilliant man for whom I have tremendous respect.  In my opinion, his sense of humor is one of his best personality traits.  Being able to make an audience laugh while delivering news that the economy has a 40% chance of sliding back into another recession takes real skill!
The regulator panel was represented by Jack P. Jennings, II from the Federal Reserve, Darrin Benhart from the OCC, and Chris Spoth from the FDIC. The panel answered numerous questions that were previously submitted by attendees as well as some impromptu questions by the audience. 
Below, I’ve paraphrased their remarks on key topics.
Forward Looking Risk Management
What Benhart (OCC) said on this topic…
Lagging indicators, such as nonaccrual, past due, and criticized/classified loan levels, did not serve us well during this banking crisis.  In the future, there should be more emphasis on capital planning and every institution should have a realistic grasp of its vulnerabilities.  Institutions should define and monitor pertinent “Early Warning Indicators,” such as cap rate spreads, average leverage on large deals, results of stress testing, etc.
Jennings (Federal Reserve) added…
When it comes to forward looking risk management, expectations are different for smaller institutions.  The regulators are currently working on new guidance for stress testing in community banks.
Spoth (FDIC) pointed out…
Acting FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg is currently focused on the approximately 7,000 institutions that have total assets less than $1Billion. 
For information on the FDIC’s initiative you can read Mr. Gruenberg’s speech to the American Banker on September 19, 2011.  http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/chairman/spsep1911.html
Frequent Issues/Challenges
Spoth (FDIC) mentioned these frequent issues…
Credit risk and the overhang in real estate exposure.  Appraisals are not always necessary for workout situations unless there is new money granted to the borrower.  Cash flow is the major consideration.  TDR’s by definition have a credit weakness.  It is always classified as Substandard? One way to answer this question is to ask yourself, “Is there risk to the bank’s capital account?”
Benhart (OCC) brought up…
There are lots of complaints right now.  A major challenge is trends in underwriting due to low loan demand and the competition for loans.
Emerging Risks
Jennings (Federal Reserve) said…
There is legitimate concern over CRE concentrations.  Another concern is whether institutions are performing risk assessments for new products.  Agricultural lending also has some very legitimate price concerns currently.
Spoth (FDIC) said…
Institutions should determine if/how the agricultural market affects them; nonbank investments may potentially be driving up land prices. Interest Rate Risk is a concern and there is new guidance.  New products and third party vendors can also present new risks, and institutions should be concerned with what those risks could be.
Community Banks Feel Overly Criticized
Spoth (FDIC) pointed out…
The market is extremely tough for community banks right now and we have tremendous empathy.  There are over 800 banks on the problem bank list but most won’t fail.  The earnings cycle is very tough.  The FDIC is the predominant regulator for community banks and Acting Chairman Gruenberg has a year long focus 
to answer the questions:
  •          What are the models that work?
  •          What are the challenges?
  •          What are the solutions?
Benhart (OCC) added…
The OCC has an increasing emphasis on community banks due to their thrift responsibilities.
Jennings (Federal Reserve) explained…
Federal Reserve Governors Duke and Raskin have their roots in community banks.  Governor Raskin has formed a subcommittee of the Board which is very active.  They meet every two weeks and sometimes more frequently.  Each Federal Reserve District has also established a Community Depository Institution Advisory Council (CDIAC) pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.  These committees will have input on the economy, lending conditions, and other community bank issues.
For more information on these committees you can refer to the website for each Federal Reserve Bank such as: http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/pressreleases/staffdirectors/110318.cfm
Where Should Efforts Be Focused Now?
Spoth’s (FDIC) advice to insitutions…
Efforts should focus on loan workouts, securing more capital now, the overhang in residential credits, and holding properties.
Jennings (Federal Reserve) said…
Real estate issues and commercial real estate.  There are also concerns on the residential side due to the long slog in the housing market with servicer issues.  The agency supports looking for revenue growth.
Benhart (OCC) agreed…
Bankers are facing a lot of issues right now.  He recommended focusing on the core business processes that usually center on lending, underwriting, and risk tolerance.  Institutions should be asking themselves, “Where are we comfortable with setting risk limits? What are the take-aways from stress testing?”

Thursday, September 22, 2011

How to Stregthen Your CRE Loan Portfolio Using Stress Testing

CAB and Banker's Toolbox are presenting a FREE stress testing webinar!
CAB, the Corporation for American Banking, is a subsidiary of the American Banking Association.

Date & Time:

Thursday, September 29
2:00 - 3:00 p.m. ET

Register Here

Being proactive in managing loan risk has never been more important.  A forward-looking approach that can help you steer the course of your institution in every economic scenario is key.  Crest from Banker's Toolbox, ABA's recently endorsed CRE loan stress testing solution, will enable you to recognize the strengths and weaknesses that are currently going undetected in your portfolio.

Webinar Take-Aways:
Attending this webinar will help set you on a path toward establishing a strong CRE loan portfolio risk management program that includes:

  • CRE Concentration Analysis
  • Portfolio-Wide and Loan-Level Stress Testing
  • What to Do with the Results of Your Stress Test
I will be one of the presenters, along with my colleague, Doug Keipper, National Risk Manager, Commercial Real Estate.  I hope to see you there!

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Crest takes First National Bank of Wyoming to the Next Level

Banker's Toolbox just released their latest case study discussing the impact CRE stress testing with Crest has made on the First National Bank of Wyoming.  Read the success story to hear Rick Melone, SVP and Chief Credit Officer, discuss why he chose Crest and what it has done for his financial institution. 
"l love the ease, I love the content, and I love the information it produced. It made it very easy without having to put in a lot of work."
- Rick Melone, SVP & CCO, First National Bank of Wyoming
To read the entire case study: click here

Thursday, September 8, 2011

To Stip or Not to Stip?

Your bank is being asked by the regulators to stipulate to a formal enforcement action. Should you sign the consent order or refuse?

There have been upwards of a thousand enforcement actions issued during this banking crisis but a trend has emerged more recently. The FDIC Press Releases have contained the names of community banks that refuse to sign the order, prompting the agency to issue a Notice of Charges.

What is a Notice of Charges? Section 8(b)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act states:
“The notice shall contain a statement of the facts constituting the alleged violation or violations or the unsafe or unsound practice or practices, and shall fix a time and place at which a hearing will be held to determine whether an order to cease and desist there from should be issued against the depository institution or the institution-affiliated party.”

While the description contained in the Act doesn’t sound quite so alarming, in reality these public documents are very specific in nature and detail the exact circumstances that were discovered during the bank’s most recent examination which prompted this action.

The opening and first paragraphs will state that the FDIC is of the opinion that “named bank” has engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices and violation of laws or regulations and the pertinent statutory references. The second paragraph will detail the examination and financial information dates as well as the bank’s levels of capital, deposits, assets, ALL, etc. The remaining paragraphs will begin with the FDIC general statement on which area of the bank is being criticized, such as: the bank engaged in lax loan administration and underwriting or the bank operated with an excessive level of classified assets. Following the general statement, the Notice of Charges will list details of the examination findings in order of importance.

What's Included in a Typical Notice of Charges:   

  • the types and totals of loan concentrations and their respective percentages of capital;
  • information related to loans to insiders and their interests, including Regulation O violations, and large borrowing relationships along with the loan(s) total, percentages of capital, and their classifications (i.e. Substandard, Doubtful, Loss);
  • the total of adversely classified assets listed individually along with the percentages of capital; For example:
    • Substandard $10,500,000
    • Doubtful $620,000
    • Loss $4,300,000
    • TOTAL $15,420,000
  • the total of assets listed for Special Mention; and
  • general comments such as, the Bank failed to monitor the development activity of acquisition, development, and construction loans; the Bank extended loans to borrowers without properly evaluating their global cash flow and ability to repay; the Bank extended loans without the proper staff and experience to service these loans; and the Bank’s ALLL was inappropriate because the internal loan grading system was not accurate.
In contrast, a typical Consent Order will simply state that:

“Within 10 days from the effective date of the ORDER, the Bank shall eliminate from its banks, by charge-off or collection, all assets or portions of assets classified ‘Loss’ and 50 percent of those assets or portions of assets classified ‘Doubtful’ in the Report."

As you can see…the Order itself only refers to the classified assets but does not list the exact totals of each category unlike the Notice.



Other sections of the Notice will have comments related to the other CAMELS components and detail why there are unsafe and unsound banking practices, such as:

  • The Bank has operated with inadequate earnings to fund its operations and augment capital. For the year ended 2010, the Bank reported a net loss of $9,000,000 which represents a return on average assets of negative 3.9 percent. The Bank’s net interest margin was adversely affected by the volume of nonperforming assets and declining loan and investment yields. The Bank’s poor earnings are expected to continue due to losses caused by deteriorating asset quality.
  • The Bank’s Board of Directors failed to provide adequate supervision over and direction to management of the Bank; and 
  • The Bank is operating with inadequate liquidity and funds management as evidenced by reliance on volatile funding sources to fund growth. As of December 31, 2010, the Bank $25,000,000 in Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings and $15,000,000 in brokered certificates of deposit.

As you can see, a Notice of Charges has an excruciating amount of detail about the bank and far more than what is actually contained within a typical Consent Order. Why would any bank want this information published?

In conclusion…
The point I’m making is if your bank is faced with this situation it would be well worth your time to read any Notices of Charges that have already been published. The commentary can be very damaging especially if the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommends the bank be subject to the order requiring the bank to then go look for sources of equity capital. It would also be beneficial to read some orders that include the Decision (ALJ) and Order to Cease and Desist. These documents will detail the entire process from the examination through the Notice and finally the findings of the ALJ which lead into the Order to Cease and Desist. After reviewing some of these documents it becomes clear that it will be very difficult for a bank to prevail during this process.

Although the FDI Act does not specify what constitutes an unsafe and unsound practice, these documents state that courts often cite with approval the 9th Circuit’s definition of
“one which is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation, the possible consequences of which, if continued, would be abnormal risk or loss or damage to an institution, its shareholders, or the agencies administering the insurance funds and that it is a practice which has a reasonably direct effect on an association’s financial soundness.” 
-Simpson v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 29 F.3d 1418, 1425 (9th Cir. 1994).
Remember that the threshold for imposing a cease and desist order may be based on finding just a single instance of unsafe or unsound conduct. For regulators to find that an Order is necessary in a problem bank there are usually multiple instances of these practices.

In addition, the examiners’ opinions matter! There are several court cases that have recognized that bank examiners’ unique experience leads to the conclusion that their determinations are entitled to great deference and cannot be overturned unless shown to be arbitrary and capricious or outside a “zone of reasonableness.”

Hopefully your bank can make an informed decision if this situation arises. Senior management and the board of directors should have all the pertinent facts and discuss among themselves the best course of action for the bank. Be careful of persuasive arguments from external individuals who encourage you to fight while they are charging the bank by the hour. Their interests and the bank’s best interest may not be the same!

Monday, August 29, 2011

Achieving Maximum Long-Run Growth


The Federal Reserve’s 2011 Economic Policy Symposium was held last week in Jackson Hole Wyoming. The theme for the conference was Achieving Maximum Long-Run Growth and the conference featured speakers from Harvard, MIT, the University of Chicago and many more.

While there, Kansas City Federal Reserve President Thomas Hoenig gave an interview with Michael McKee from Bloomberg against the beautiful backdrop of the Wyoming landscape. He speaks frankly when discussing many topics including the evolution of the Wyoming conference from an agricultural focus into a full economic symposium; the Fed’s language on low interest rates from the last meeting; the limit on how much the central bank can do to help the economy and the focus on fiscal policy; and the outlook for monetary policy.

Please take a few minutes to watch the video and learn from an incredibly brilliant and experienced leader.

Friday, August 19, 2011

OCC Raises the Bar for Community Bank Stress Testing

Gil Barker, the Deputy Comptroller for the OCC’s Southern district, testified for the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit on Tuesday. Mr. Barker oversees the supervision of more than 550 national community bank and 109 federal savings associations.

Mr. Barker opened his testimony by emphasizing the crucial role that community banks play in providing consumers and small businesses across the nation with essential financial services and credit that are critical to economic growth and job creation. To be able to perform these important functions, he said that a key element of the OCC is to assist bankers with recognizing and addressing problems in the earliest possible stage when remedial action will be most effective, before a bank become ineffective.

A hot topic in the industry lately has been if regulators should practice “forbearance” with community banks and allow troubled institutions to ignore credit problems in hopes that they will improve in the future. Mr. Barker states that “this is not permissible under generally accepted accounting principles. Nor would it be advisable. As the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s demonstrated, regulatory forbearance, by delaying the recognition of problems, can ultimately make those problems and their cost of resolution far worse.” He cites the Congressional Budget Office staff memorandum from 1991, “The Cost of Forbearance During the Thrift Crisis”, which estimated that regulatory forbearance increased the cost of resolving the thrift crisis by $66 Billion.

When conducting a routine examination of an institution, OCC field staff review a bank’s loan portfolio. The primary objectives of this review according to Mr. Barker are threefold:

  • First, examiners assess whether the bank has adequate systems to identify, measure, monitor, and control the amount of credit risk in its loan portfolio. A key component is the system the bank has in place to monitor and rate the relative risk of loans
  • Second, examiners assess whether the bank’s financial statements accurately reflect the condition of its loan portfolios and adhere to standard accounting principles with regard to loan loss reserves, the accrual of interest income, and the reporting of troubled debt restructurings
  • Third, examiners assess whether the bank has adequate capital cushions to support its lending activities and credit risk exposure.

Mr. Barker emphasized that the accuracy of a bank’s regulatory reports are extremely important. He referenced Section 121 of FDICIA, passed in 1991, which requires that the accounting principles used for regulatory reporting should be no less stringent than GAAP. The accounting concepts that bankers and examiners must consider are:

  1. The concept of interest income accrual - Call Report instructions require a loan to be placed on nonaccrual when a principal/interest payment in full is not expected or principal/interest has been in default for a period of 90 days or more, unless the asset is both well secured and in the process of collection.
  2. Deciding if a modified loan should be reported as a “troubled debt restructuring” (TDR) - A TDR requires that the bank, for economic or legal reasons related to the borrower’s financial difficulties, grant a concession to the borrower that would not have otherwise be considered.
  3. The proper assessment of loan loss reserves for an impairment - The bank is expected to maintain an appropriate ALLL. This should cover estimated credit losses on individually evaluated loans that have been qualified as impaired. It should also include estimated credit losses inherent in the remainder of the loan and lease portfolio.
The most interesting part of the testimony is when Mr. Barker acknowledges that proper classification, accrual, and TDR treatment are fact specific. He then gives his response to a series of banker concerns. I’ll highlight two that I think are notable and include my comments, but I encourage everyone to read through them all.

Concern: Examiners are barring loans to certain borrowers or industries that are experiencing difficulties. Examiners are also criticizing loans simply for being located in a state with a high mortgage foreclosure rate.

Mr. Barker: The OCC expects banks to have robust credit underwriting and risk management processes which monitor and control overall exposure to a particular borrower and industry segment. We also expect bankers to assess how borrowers, and their industries, may perform in stressed economic environments to ensure they will continue to have the capacity to perform under the terms of their loan obligations.

My Comment: Mr. Barker is letting it be clearly known that stress testing is expected of all banks, including community bank, that engage in CRE lending, regardless of the threshold levels presented in the 2006 Guidance. His comments seem to indicate that portfolio level stress testing is a requirement, because that is the only way to assess whole segments within a portfolio. An individual loan level spreadsheet analysis will not accomplish this task.

Concern: Examiners are penalizing loan modifications by aggressively placing loans on nonaccrual status following a modification, even though the borrower has demonstrated a pattern of making contractual principal and interest payments under the loan’s modified terms.

Mr. Barker: Determinations about a loan’s accrual status are based on interest income recognition criteria in GAAP. For a loan that has been modified, if the borrower has demonstrated performance under the previous terms and shows the capacity to continue to perform under the restructured terms, the loan will likely remain on accrual. If the borrower was materially delinquent on payments prior to the restructure, but shows potential capacity to meet the restructured terms, the loan would likely remain on nonaccrual until the borrower has demonstrated a reasonable period of performance.

My Comment:  This particular response from Mr. Barker is the one that I found to be particularly interesting. As noted above, there are two provisions to consider when determining accrual status: payment history and full payment of principal and interest. It is very possible in this scenario that there is more to the story than meets the eye. The banker’s comment focused solely on the repayment history of the loan. However, although the loan was current, it is possible that the examiner’s assessment found that the loan was not restructured with prudent and reasonable repayment terms that would ensure full repayment of both principal and interest. This assessment would have to be supported by a current, well-documented credit assessment of the borrower’s financial condition and prospects for repayment under the revised terms.

From my personal experience working with bankers and regulators, I know that CRE loans, especially ones that have been modified, can be very complicated. It seems that the accrual issue is the most confusing and the most hotly debated issue right now between bankers, auditors, and examiners. Once a loan is placed on nonaccrual and is reported on the Call Report, external ratings agencies pick up this information and it becomes widely publicized, which is a serious concern for the bank.

Mr. Barker summed up his testimony by stating that credit plays a vital role in restoring economic growth and jobs to our communities and that bank’s should not be unduly constrained. However, the industry must learn from past mistakes and avoid forbearance strategies that defer recognition of loss.

To read the full text click on http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-108.html

Monday, August 15, 2011

The Dissenting Vote

Last week held a major surprise. The Federal Open Market Committee’s announcement to maintain a low federal funds rate, at least through mid-2013, was quite a surprise. But what was even more surprising was that the vote was 7-3 and it really didn’t matter.

In the past three dissenting votes was a violation of Meyer’s Laws, which meant bad news for the Fed Chairman. Not this time. It seems that the dissenting votes didn’t mean very much. However, I think the whole process is better now that dissenters feel free to express their opinions publicly and are not afraid to have their dissent vote recorded. As a former bank examiner, I encouraged a bank’s board of directors to do the same. A board member is charged with the “duty of care” and as such has the responsibility to evaluate and decide upon important policies and decisions within a bank. Just as important is the responsibility to not go along with all of management’s wishes if they are not of the same belief and become a “rubber stamp”.


Although the vote in the Fed action was 7-3, there was likely more opposition from the non-voting members, such as Thomas Hoening, President of the Kansas City Federal Reserve. He has opposed the Fed’s historically low interest rates and the Fed’s controversial policy of stimulating the economy through Treasury purchases, known as quantitative easing. Mr. Hoening will retire on October 1 because Fed presidents are subject to mandatory retirement once they reach 65 years of age. The selection of a new president is an important event that not only affects the states of the Tenth Federal Reserve District (Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of New Mexico and Missouri) but the FOMC as well.

The Fed’s actions, including the FOMC, are extremely important to the country’s well being and I often wonder if the general public knows how it is structured or how the leaders are selected.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress in 1913 in response to a series of financial panics and a particularly severe crisis in 1907. The Federal Reserve System is composed of:

  • A seven-member Board of Governors (or the Federal Reserve Board)who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for staggered 14-year terms
  • The twleve-member Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which consists of the seven-member Board and five of the regional Federal Reserve Bank Presidents. The president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member of the FOMC while the rest of the bank presidents rotate at two- and three-year intervals;
  • Numerous privately owned US member banks and various advisory councils
  • Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation (map below). Each Bank is responsible for member banks located in its district. The size of each district was set based upon the population distribution of the United States when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Each regional Bank has a president, who is the chief executive officer of their Bank, and was nominated by their Bank’s board of directors.  Each regional Bank’s board consists of nine members who are broken down into three classes:
              -Chosen by the regional Bank’s shareholders and are intended to represent member bank’s interests. Member banks are divided into three categories: large; medium; and small. Each category elects one of the three;
              -Nominated by the region’s member banks but are supposed to represent the interests of the public;
              -Nominated by the Board of Governors but are also intended to represent the interests of the public.
The Dodd-Frank legislation prohibits the three bankers who are elected to seats on the board of each regional Federal Reserve Bank from having any input into the selection process of the new President.

The selection process for Thomas Hoening’s replacement has been in full swing all year and will hopefully result in an individual who is as brilliant, charismatic, and independent as Mr. Hoenig, but I doubt that’s humanly possible.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

ABA Endorses Crest from Banker's Toolbox

As a part of the Banker's Toolbox team, it is with great pride that I share this piece of breaking news with you.

ABA, through its Corporation for American Banking subsidiary, has endorsed Crest, a leading commercial real estate loan stress-testing and portfolio-management solution from Austin, Texas-based Banker’s Toolbox. View full press release on the ABA website.

The Crest solution, which can project hypothetical scenarios, gives community bankers the ability to control CRE concentration risk by identifying and segmenting loans with common risk characteristics. Bankers then can define and perform multivariable stress tests using factors unique to their institution and marketplace.

The result is comprehensive reports that will help the bank decide if the CRE concentration presents undue risk to the institution and should be reduced, or if the institution’s lending expertise can effectively manage the concentration.

Click here to read more about the program.