What a great time of year - I am so grateful for the Holidays. For me, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years Day are my favorite holidays. It is a wonderful time to show gratitude to others for their kindness and help during the year. It is also a time of great reflection over the past year. As I think about the year I realize that I am truly blessed and I am grateful for those blessings. My hope is that my gratitude reaches everyone who has blessed my life, for you have made a difference, I am thankful for you, and I wish each of you the greatest success in your own life. I have been thinking of the peace this season brings and hope also that each of us are able to carry a little more of that peace with us throughout the next year. May God bless each of us as we strive daily to have more of His peace in our lives. To all - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
De Novo Strategy is a supporter of CREED and its nonprofit work; we invite you to participate in this project that CREED has just launched. It is a project that every entrepreneur should be a part of and enjoy supporting! Maybe a banker would catch the vision on and support this too!
CREED, a non-profit 501 (c)3 corporation, is launching a crowdfunding initiative to jumpstart small business in the U.S. Crowdfunding involves collecting small donations via grassroots marketing campaigns. The donations will be used to fund $5,000 in free start-up capital, awarded to the entrepreneur who sends in the most compelling business plan.
Crowdfunding or crowdsourcing programs have been run successfully by two organizations in Ireland,Outvesting and iQ Prize. The two entities raised an aggregate 15,000 euros, by way of 50-euro pledges, to fund small business start-ups.
CREED's effort will be similar. The non-profit is currently accepting $50 pledges, with a goal of accumulating $5,000. Once this pledge goal is reached, CREED will publish business plan submission guidelines and begin accepting business plan entrants. Everyone who pledges $50 to the effort receives one vote to help determine the best business plan among those entered. The plan with the most votes will be awarded $5,000 in start-up capital, with no strings attached.
Please visit Crowdfunding to learn more about CREED's this great American opportunity.
Follow us at CREED
The U.S. Census Bureau conducted a National survey this year on behalf of the FDIC to ascertain the level of Unbanked and Underbanked households in the United States. The survey was designed to help the FDIC understand who is outside the banking system. The study which is the most comprehensive to date, reveals that just over a fourth (25.6 percent) of the households in the U.S. are unbanked or underbanked and those households are largely low-income and/or minority.
The survey additionally collected more accurate estimates of the Unbanked and Underbanked Households, and reasons why the people remain unbanked or underbanked. The survey estimates, represent the first time this kind of data has been collected in large metropolitan statistical areas (MSA), states, and across the nation.
"Access to an account at a federally insured institution provides households with an important first step toward achieving financial security - the opportunity to conduct basic financial transactions, save for emergency and long-term security needs, and access credit on affordable terms," stated Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC. "By better understanding the households that make up this group - who they are and their reasons for being unbanked or underbanked, we will be better positioned to help them take that first step."
Terms
Unbanked is determined by households who answered "no" to the question "Do you or does anyone in your household currently have a checking or a savings account?"
Underbanked households were determined by those who have a checking or savings account but rely on alternative financial services. Specifically, using money orders, nonbank check-cashing services, payday loans, rent-to-own agreements, or pawn shops at least once or twice a year or tax refund anticipation loans at least once in the past five years.
Key Findings of the Study
-
Of the households surveyed, 7.7 percent were unbanked, which translates nationally to 9 million households - approximately 17 million adults. An additional 17.9 percent - or 21 million households nationally (approximately 43 million adults) - were found to be underbanked.
- The proportion of U.S. households that are unbanked varies considerably across racial and ethnic groups with certain racial and ethnic groups being more likely to be unbanked than the population as a whole. Minorities more likely to be unbanked include blacks (21.7 percent of black households), Hispanics (19.3 percent), and American Indian/Alaskans (15.6 percent). Racial groups less likely to be unbanked are Asians (3.5 percent) and whites (3.3 percent).
- Certain racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be underbanked than the population as a whole. Minorities more likely to be underbanked include blacks (an estimated 31.6 percent), American Indian/Alaskans (28.9 percent), and Hispanics (24.0 percent). Asians and whites are less likely to be underbanked (7.2 percent and 14.9 percent, respectively).
- Households with income under $30,000 account for at least 71 percent of unbanked households. As income increases, the share of households that are unbanked declines considerably. Nationally, nearly 20 percent of lower-income U.S. households - almost 7 million households earning below $30,000 per year - do not currently have a bank account. In contrast, only 4.2 percent of households with annual income between $30,000 and $50,000 and less than 1 percent of households with yearly income of $75,000 or higher are unbanked.
- Households with an annual income between $30,000 and $50,000 are almost as likely as lower-income households to be underbanked.
This survey goes hand in hand with a survey the FDIC conducted earlier in the year of bankers efforts to serve the unbanked and underbanked households in their community, see FDIC's Unbanked Survey. The survey is of such important information to the FDIC that they created a special website to display the findings at online at www.economicinclusion.gov.
It appears that the unbanked and underbanked households are close to the same number of estimates of those without proper medical insurance. Is there a correlation here? Is this something congress should be addressing - making sure that every American has proper banking and financial services?
FDIC member institutions' earnings improved this quarter to a modest $2.8 billion, which is significant over last quarter's net loss of $4.3 billion and third quarter of 2008 of $879 million. Loan loss provision continued to affect the profitability of the industry as banks continued to cover their bad assets. Growth in securities and operating income helped the industry realize the profit, with 43 percent of the institutions reporting higher profits this quarter over the same quarter last year. Just over one in four banks reported losses this quarter of 26.4 percent, which is slightly up from 24.6 percent a year ago.
Net Interest Margin, ALLL
Net interest was higher this quarter, rising to a four-year high of 4.6 billion. The average net interest margin (NIM) was 3.51 percent, slightly higher than last quarter. Most banks, 62.1 percent, reported higher NIM than last quarter; however only 42.2 percent had an NIM increase year over year. Provisions for loan and lease losses increased and total set aside, remained over $60 billion for the fourth straight quarter, rising to $62.5 billion. While the quarterly amount banks set aside was only 11.3 billion, $4.2 billion less than the second quarter, it was 22.2 percent higher than last year. Almost two out of three institutions, 62.6 percent, increased their loan loss provisions.
Net Charge Offs Remain High
Loan losses continued to mount, as banks suffered year over year increases for 11 straight quarters. Insured institutions charged off a net of $50.2 billion this quarter, a $22.6 billion increase or an 80.5 percent increase compared to third quarter of 2008. This is the highest annual charge off rate since banks began reporting this information in 1984. All major categories of loans saw significant increases in charge offs this quarter, but losses were largest amongst commercial and industrial (C&I) borrowers. While noncurrent loans continued to increase, the rate of increase slowed; noncurrent loans and leases increased $34.7 billion or 10.5 percent to $366.6 billion, which is 4.94 percent of all loans and leases. This is the highest level of noncurrent loans and leases in 26 years. The increase of noncurrent loans was the smallest in the past four quarters.
Eroding reserves
The reserve ratio increased as noncurrent loans increased, however the spread continued to widen. While the industry set aside 9.2 billion, 4.4 percent in reserves, which increased the reserve level from 2.77 percent to 2.97 percent. This increase was not enough to slow the slide - it was the smallest quarterly increase in the past four quarters and the growth in reserves lagged the growth of noncurrent loans, which caused the 14th consecutive quarterly decline in this ratio from 63.6 percent to 60.1 percent.
Loan Balances Decline Deposits Are Up
Loan and lease balances saw the largest quarterly decline since the industry started keeping track of these numbers in 1984; they fell by $210.4 billion or 2.8 percent. Total assets fell for the third straight quarter; assets at insured institutions fell by $54.3 billion, which follows a decline of $237.9 billion in the second quarter and a $303.2 billion decline in the first quarter. Deposits increased $79.8 billion or 0.4 percent during the third quarter, allowing banks to fund more loans with deposits rather than other liabilities. At the end of the quarter deposits funded bank assets was 68.7 percent, the highest level since second quarter 1997.
Troubled Banks Increase
The number of reporting insured institutions at the end of the quarter was down to 8,099 from 8,195; there were fifty bank failures and forty-seven bank mergers. This is the largest number of banks to fail since fourth quarter of 1992, when 55 banks failed. The number of banks on the FDIC's problem list increased from 416 to 552 at the end of the second quarter.
During the quarter, the number of new banks chartered was three. This is the lowest level since World War II. This begs the question on what is the best way to get new capital into the banking industry. Should we recapitalize the existing banks including those in trouble? Or, should we start fresh with a new bank that can build a new, clean loan portfolio?
Another Item
CREED - a 501(c)3 nonprofit has started a Crowdfunding project/contest to help a small business - Look at the opportunity to be a part of something truly great! We will follow this closely as we are strong supporters of CREED.
4M5EDCNY9JWB
As bank failures mount into a heap of moldering economic stimulus, and the FDIC's Bank Insurance Fund shrinks to its lowest level in many years, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair tells the public that depositor have nothing to worry about, because, "The FDIC fully guarantees their insured deposits and provides them with seamless access to their money. For the insured depositor, a bank failure is a non-event."
This may be true for many depositors, however it is not true for the bank's "C" level management team, board of directors, and shareholders - they are the losers! In more ways than one! Not only do they lose their bank, but they lose their jobs, careers, and opportunity to associate with a bank in the future. With the FDIC there is no forgiveness, no bankruptcy court to "work out" the problems and reorganize the institution - the only option is failure.
The FDIC has a $100 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury - they can close a lot of banks with that much money. So far, all the banks that have been closed, the expense has been paid for by the FDIC's Member Banks through their deposit insurance premiums they have paid in over the years. We can only hope, the FDIC won't have to tap that line of credit. The law states that the FDIC guarantees deposits with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, which means borrowing from the U.S. taxpayers. We are the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
In most cases when a bank is closed the deposits are available the next business day. This is because the FDIC is usually available to help another institution acquire the deposits and make good on them. Often the FDIC has to give a lot of concessions to the acquiring bank - which costs the insurance fund money. The complexity of these transactions, even for a small bank, takes many hours to iron out - often taking upwards of ninety people from the FDIC two weeks to close a bank.
The amazing thing is that with all the flaws of the system, it seems to work - no FDIC insured depositor one has ever "lost a penny of their deposits" according to Ms. Bair, "and none ever will". Thank goodness for the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
Sheila Bair argued to Congress last week that the government should "impose greater market discipline on systemically important institutions." Her rationale for the argument was that those large firms have been funded by the market as if they were too big to fail, while their management teams depended on faulty risk management practices; these circumstances, combined with ineffective regulation, created a the bulk of our current economic problems. Bair's commentary indicates that we will ultimately have much more regulation throughout the financial industry, simply because what happens to large institutions will trickle down to impact the smaller community banks.
Bair went on to say:
In a properly functioning market economy there will be winners and losers, and some firms will fail. Actions that prevent firms from failing ultimately distort market mechanisms, including the market's incentive to monitor the actions of similarly situated firms. The most important challenge now is to find ways to impose greater market discipline on systemically important financial organizations.
Shareholders, creditors to take losses
It is true that we need to create an effective, bailout-free system to unwind large failing institutions - and to do so without creating a financial tsunami that wipes out the rest of the economy. But the reality is that everyone will feel the impact of a large institution's failure. It is impossible that a CitiBank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America or Chase failure could result in only a slight ripple through the economy. Those closest to the institution will feel the pain the most and people on the far fringe, the least -- but it will be felt by all nonetheless. The government needs to stop trying to make our lives pain-free in all aspects of life. We simply cannot be shielded from ALL risks.
In the current meltdown, for example, shareholders felt the brunt of the financial crisis pain. Investing is an inherently risky enterprise, and to devise regulation that would soften the impacts of investment failure runs contrary to the tenants of our economic system. Because shareholders voluntarily took risks with the companies they invested in and supported, they should absorb the repercussions when those firms fail.
Bair agrees with this argument. She advises:
Under the new resolution regime, Congress should raise the bar higher than existing law and eliminate the possibility of open assistance for individual failing entities. The new resolution powers should result in the shareholders and unsecured creditors taking losses.
Bair also addresses the current priority given to secured creditors. Such creditors have, in the past, made credit decisions based on collateral value without thoughtfully considering creditworthiness as well. This puts the creditor at risk of default and forced liquidation, while encouraging lack of discipline in the market. Addressing this issue can help to minimize costs to receivership and spread out losses related to failures more broadly.
Other key points in Blair's testimony included:
- Resolution of systemically important financial firm failures is currently managed through the bankruptcy process, where there is no protection for public interest.
- Holding company affiliates are often dependent on the ongoing operations of systemically important firms. Regulation is needed to require these affiliates to have greater autonomy. Holding companies should have wind-down plans.
- Open company assistance benefitting shareholders and creditors should be banned by Congress.
- A Financial Company Resolution Fund should be established and pre-funded through assessments against large financial firms.
- The FDIC should have authority to resolve "systemically important and non-systemically important depository institution holding companies, affiliates and majority-owned subsidiaries." This authority would allow the FDIC to maximize the value of the assets, particularly in cases where certain functions lie outside the FDIC's current authority.
- The FDIC supports the creation of a powerful Financial Services Oversight Council to monitor and manage system-wide risks. The Council should be given a minimum rulemaking authority "that must be met and could be exceeded." The Council should oversee a group of regulators, but also have its own power to act if the regulators do not.
The full text of Sheila Bair's testimony can be found at: http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/chairman/spoct2909.html
An insightful article I read in the Marriott Alumni Magazine stated that an organizations need to have three traits in their culture to thrive. First, a little background.
Growing Corn
Each semester Stan Fawcett, holds up a fresh ear of corn in his supply chain strategy class and asks, "Do farmers grow corn in Iowa?" The students with puzzles looks wonder why the professor would ask such a straightforward question. Fawcett's response is "No." Farmers don't grow corn, "the corn grows itself. Farmers clear the trees, remove the rocks, plow the fields and provide irrigation. Then they add pesticides, fertilizer and all those other things that lead to a bounteous harvest. The farmers' job is to create the environment where the corn can flourish."
This may sound simple, but as managers and leaders, our job is to create a work environment where our employees can grow and flourish in their jobs. By doing this can provide the right conditions to achieve maximum potential and productivity from each employee. The research team from the Marriott School Professors, determined that there are three critical ABC's - affirmation, belonging, and competence.
Affirmation
Creating opportunities to let all employees know that they are valued helps to satisfy the need in all of us for approval. Everyone wants to feel appreciated for their work and efforts to help the business succeed. Fawcett says, "Managers need to look for opportunities to express appreciation."
Professor Dave Whitlark says, "Employees also feel affirmed when they feel like problem solvers in their organization." As well as helping them "view criticisms as opportunities to help them succeed. One difficult job leaders have is to correct people when they are wrong." In addition, "create an environment where employees accept correction and even look forward to it because they know you want to help them."
Belonging
The second element of a thriving corporate culture is the sense of belonging; it refers to people's need to feel socially connected to coworkers and to the organization itself. Belonging leads to higher quality service and productivity.
Professor Gary Rhoads says, "You can scream at employees, and you can threaten them so they're productive, but if you want them to give quality service, you have to capture their hearts. When productivity goes up, quality doesn't always follow, but when quality goes up, productivity always follows."
Competence
The third element is competence. Rhoads says it this way, "You either lift people up, or tear them down; I'm always surprised how many people take the teardown approach. And the way supervisors tear down employees is they peck away at their competence."
Building confidence can come from simple things like providing extra training, and letting employees be in control of their work performance. In house training by other employees, utilizing outside consultants, helping employees go back to school or sending them to a conference, this investment in education strengthens their competence.
Another method is to have a newbie shadow a veteran for a short period. This tells the trainer that the company has confidence in their performance and it says, "you're a great role model ... and what does the new person learn? A lot from someone an enthusiastic employee. This arrangement actually accelerates the learning curve."
By building corporate culture that effectively uses the three traits, employees become more productive, quality improves and loyalty is developed.
Fawcett smiles when he says, "When ... a manager understands and captures the vision of the ABC's, makes people feel valued, creates a sense of belonging, empowers them through competence, and then unleashes them to solve the world's problems, it's awesome."
To download a full copy of the magazine article paper click: ABC's
In May of 2009, the FDIC authorized the creation of an Advisory Committee Community Banking with the purpose that this committee would help the FDIC understand the particular issues that small rural and urban community banks face in the ever-changing financial landscape.
The committee is consists of no more than 20 volunteer members from the community banks around the country along with small business, education, non-for-profit organizations and other individuals that use the services of these community banks. It is expected that the committee will have an annual budget of $300,000 and two full time FDIC staff people committed to serving their needs. The committee charter will last for two years unless it is renewed by the FDIC. The committee will also report directly to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the FDIC.
The committee's first meeting was this week and below is the press release from that meeting. At the bottom is a link to the FDIC website where more information may be obtained about the meeting. We hope this positive for the community banking sector as they struggle under the weight of very difficult regulations, limited budgets, and with razor thin margins. They are scheduled to meet twice a year, so the next meeting should be in April.
Press Release from the Advisory Committee on Community Banking
At its first meeting since being established by the FDIC Board in May, the FDIC's Advisory Committee on Community Banking today discussed the impact of the financial crisis on community banks. Other issues addressed were regulatory reform proposals under consideration by Congress and their effect on community banks, the impact of FDIC supervisory proposals on these banks, and community banks' perspectives on funding the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund.
"I was extremely pleased with the robust discussion among our committee members on issues that are so critical to both the FDIC and our nation's community banks," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair. "The committee members voiced a number of interesting ideas that they will pursue."
The Advisory Committee was formed to provide the FDIC with advice and recommendations on a broad range of policy issues with particular impact on small community banks throughout the nation, and the local communities they serve. The committee is comprised of 14 community bankers from across the country, and one representative from academia.
"We are fortunate to have so many highly respected professionals who are willing to volunteer their time and talents to help the FDIC analyze the issues most important to community banks," said Paul Nash, Deputy to the Chairman for External Affairs, and the Designated Federal Official for the Advisory Committee on Community Banking.
The members' opinions on the FDIC's proposed rulemaking to prepay three years of deposit insurance assessments will be included in the public comment file.
For more information on the Advisory Committee on Community Banking please visit http://www.fdic.gov/communitybanking/index.html.
In the beginning of 2009, the media was pushing the idea that this would be the year for the community bank. Many smaller banks had not weighted down their balance sheets with subprime loans, asset-backed securities and complex derivatives. In theory, they had the stability to pick up loan customers that had been turned away by larger institutions. Columbus Business First published an article entitled, "Larger competitors' retrenchment may give smaller banks opening." And Business Week said, "As big banks struggle, community banks are stepping in to offer loans and lines of credit to small business customers."
Getting in to the banking industry during a power shift from big banks to small ones would appear to be an attractive opportunity for bank executives and community leaders who wish to be bank investors. But the predictions of a few publications don't sufficiently address the risk involved in buying a bank. Bank investors need to have some framework for separating the good targets from the bad ones.
Characteristics of at-risk community banks
In a speech made last July, San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen summarized the characteristics of at-risk community banks. She cited:
- High concentrations of construction loans for speculative housing projects
- Concentrations of land acquisition and development loans
- Poor appraisal systems
- Weak risk-monitoring systems
Looking ahead, Yellen also identified "income-producing office, warehouse, and retail commercial property" as an area of potential risk. She cited rising vacancies and poor rent dynamics, which are putting negative pressures on property values. These value declines can be particularly problematic for maturing loans that need to be refinanced. Community banks that maintain large portfolios of commercial property loans should be proactively managing these risks. Bank acquisition groups should verify that target banks are updating property appraisals, recognizing impairments early, and negotiating work-outs with borrowers when appropriate.
Tim Coffey, Research Analyst for FIG Partners, LLC, agrees that commercial real estate is the next area of risk for banks. In an interview, Coffey said,
I think the residential portion of this correction has been dealt with and recognized by bankers and market participants alike. The next shoe to drop is going to be commercial real estate. I don't think there is really any kind of argument about that. How messy it's going to be compared to the residential part remains to be seen.
Coffey's comment was included in a report by The Wall Street Transcript that also quoted commentary from other banking analysts. The consensus among them was that some community banks are still facing potentially disastrous problems ahead.
Separating the good acquisition targets from the bad ones, then, requires careful analysis of the balance sheet, loan portfolio and the bank's current risk management practices. If the bank isn't managing risk proactively, there could be unknown problems brewing within the loan portfolio. Buying a bank with known problem assets is a manageable challenge-but buying a bank with unknown problem assets is something else entirely.
The ongoing wave of bank failures related to the financial crisis continues to impact the health of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). At the end of the second quarter, the DIF balance was down to $10.4 billion. Compared to a year ago, when the DIF amounted to $45.2 billion, this is a decline of some 77 percent.
As at-risk banks continue to deteriorate, the DIF's growing loss provisions have simply outpaced accrued and collected premiums, including a special assessment that was levied on insured institutions at the end of the second quarter. Rather than demand another special assessment, the FDIC is trying a new tactic to deal with the fund's depletion: prepaid premiums.
According to an FDIC press release, the FDIC Board "has adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) that would require insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012." The prepayments should generate roughly $45 billion in cash, a much-needed infusion for the anemic DIF.
Numbers game
Time Magazine is calling the tactic "an accounting trick," (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1926877,00.html?iid=tsmodule ) but FDIC Chair Sheila Bair sees it as a necessary step in the fund's restoration. The move won't impact banks' profitability, since they won't recognize the expenses any sooner under prepayment. It will impact liquidity, but the FDIC's position is that banks have sufficient cash to absorb these prepayments.
The push for prepayments underscores the FDIC's commitment to manage through this crisis without asking the Treasury or taxpayers to foot the bill.
Assessment increase ahead
The aforementioned NPR also included an assessment increase of three basis points across the board, to be made effective on January 1, 2011.