BankNotes ...

In the recently passed legislation, the Dodd Frank Law, the FDIC is given the mandate to change the way it assesses deposit insurance premiums from banks, mostly based on risk. This will greatly impact small businesses, by limiting their access to capital through loans. Perhaps as much or more than the recent health care bill will.

First the Law

The law “defines a risk-based system as one based on an institution’s probability of causing a loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (the Fund or the DIF) due to the composition and concentration of the institutions assets and liabilities, the likely amount of any such loss, and the revenue needs of the DIF. …allowing the FDIC to establish separate risk-based assessment systems for large and small members of the Deposit Insurance Fund.

“Over the long-term, institutions that pose higher long-term risk will pay higher assessments when they assume those risks. …should provide incentives for institutions to avoid excessive risk.” (the information quoted is found in the following paper about the new score card produced by the FDIC located at: http://www.denovostrategy.com/new-fdic-score-card/)  The new assessments will be based on a performance score, which will be comprised of three main elements: 1) CAMELS Score, 30%; 2) Ability to withstand asset-related stress, 50%; and 3) Ability to withstand funding-related stress 20%. It is the asset-related stress that has the regulators concerned and if an institution has too much risk in that category, it will also affect the CAMELS rating, as the regulators will perceive that management is not doing their job – that of taking care of the bank.

The banker’s number one job now it to make sure that the bank never becomes a problem bank, that may cause the regulators to pay on deposits; everything else is now ancillary to that goal.

Small Businesses

All small businesses are risk rated, based on their credit score, (or the owners credit score), which becomes the basis for easy or difficult access to credit at a financial institution. At times bankers make loans to small businesses, because they understand the business, the risk associated with the business and they know the owner, even though the credit may be simply o.k. (not great, but not terribly bad either).

This new way of assessing deposit insurance will now cause the banker to ask the question – how will this loan affect the bank’s portfolio and ultimately it’s DIF assessment? As bankers ask this question more loans will be turned down. This is not to say, that all loans should be written as applied for, but as the bell curve moves towards safety, it will certainly leave a larger percentage of good small business loans unfulfilled and business owners without the much needed capital to continue in business or to grow. And we all know that when small businesses don’t continue, or fail to grow, then lay-offs occur and unemployment lines increase.

As the financial crisis deepened, regulatory requirements for financial institution's loan portfolios, both banks and credit unions, are much more stringent.  The thought is that institutions can no longer book loans and forget about them; they must go back regularly and revisit the value of the asset backing the loan and the credit worthiness of the borrower as well as other items that may change.  Considering the national financial crisis, many people have experienced changes in their personal and business finances.

As financial institutions prepare for or respond to an examination, questions around the loan portfolio are asked: what are the examiners asking for? How deep do they want the bankers to drill to find issues with the loan portfolio? What kind of data do they want from the institution? You may say, "but my institution is clean with very few problem loans, I won't need to do any of this research" - think again. They are also looking for loans that could go bad or the data to defend a clean portfolio.

Below are a few items taken from a regulatory agreement between a financial institution and their regulator, these are by no means comprehensive, nor are they the same for each regulatory agency, but each is similar in their requests:

"The Board shall develop, implement, and thereafter direct the Bank's management to ensure the Bank's adherence to systems which provide for effective monitoring of:  

(a) early problem loan identification to assure the timely identification and rating of loans and leases based on lending officer submissions;

(b) statistical records that will serve as a basis for identifying sources of problem loans and leases by industry, size, collateral, division, group, indirect dealer, and individual lending officer;

(c) adequacy of credit and collateral documentation"

The regulators are asking for probable loss modeling of the loan portfolio, which loans are likely to go bad based on objective statistical data. Along with stratification analysis based on loan officer, industry, size, collateral, division, group, indirect dealer; additionally the institution may need to show the stratification of loan grading, FICO scores, FICO migration, zip code, branch office, loan size, or any other important data point. The institution should know its loan migration, how many "A" grade loans in a portfolio have shifted over time to "B" or "C" or lower grade loans.

They also want the assets backing the loans reanalyzed to make sure there is still enough value behind the loan if a foreclosure or repossession is necessary. Real-time asset valuations combined with stress testing the portfolio will be the key; how does the financial institution get objective real-time values on the assets that back a diverse loan portfolio that includes consumer, residential and commercial real estate for thousands of loans? 

The Agreement goes on to state that the financial institution will...

"The Board shall within sixty (60) days employ or designate a sufficiently experienced and qualified person(s) or firm to ensure the timely and independent identification of problem loans and leases.

"The Board shall within sixty (60) days ensure that the Bank's management is accurately analyzing and categorizing the Bank's problem loans and leases.

"The Board shall establish an effective, independent and on-going loan review system to review, at least semi-annually, the Bank's loan and lease portfolios to assure the timely identification and categorization of problem credits. The system shall provide for a written report to be filed with the Board after each review and shall use a loan and lease grading system consistent with the guidelines set forth in "Rating Credit Risk" and "Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses" booklets of the Comptroller's Handbook. Such reports shall include, at a minimum, conclusions regarding:

(a) the overall quality of the loan and lease portfolios;

(b) the identification, type, rating, and amount of problem loans and leases;

(c) the identification and amount of delinquent loans and leases;

(d) credit and collateral documentation exceptions;

(e) the identification and status of credit related violations of law, rule or regulation;

(f) the identity of the loan officer who originated each loan;

(g) loans and leases to executive officers, directors, principal shareholders (and their related interests) of the Bank; and,

"The Board shall ensure that the Bank has processes, personnel, and control systems to ensure implementation of and adherence to the program developed pursuant to this Article.

In addition to the above requirements, this will require stress testing of the portfolio across several data points including, loan to value compression, FICO score movement, as well as interest rate adjustments. How will each type of loan portfolio respond to multiple, simultaneous stresses?

The board of directors has a lot of work to do in assisting the management team of the institution. The regulators are asking for more involvement with the institution and its problem loans requiring, objective defensible grading and stratification analysis, along with probable loss modeling, stress test simulations, and real-time asset valuation, of 100 percent of the portfolio. Moreover, if you think that your institution is completely clean - you are not on a problem list or don't have very many problem loans - well now you will have to prove it to the regulators.

Real, defensible, comprehensive portfolio analytics will be the solution - it will take a banker/CFO weeks or months to develop such a custom model for your institution in an excel spreadsheet. Or will it require anew strategy?

Yesterday the FDIC announced that the formula for how they assess deposit insurance would be changed for large banks (those with $10 billion of assets or more). Below is the notice with the links to the summary and the full document.  While this rule makes changes for "large banks" eventually this methodology will trickle down and become practice for smaller banks too.

Each bank, no matter the size, will need an objective, defensible methodology for analyzing, grading and stratifying their loan portfolio. They will also need the ability to stress test the portfolio beyond the typical raising or lowering of interest rates. Probable loss modeling will become the norm as bankers and examiners look deeper for risks in the portfolio. It will be important for bankers to have this information updated regularly based on current estimates of value of the assets backing the loans.

It is no longer simply how much the bank has on deposit that determines the banks deposit premium, it is centered on the risk the bank is to the bank insurance fund - how likely will the FDIC have to pay out to cover deposits. The loan portfolio that the bank is creating and servicing is where the risks are, which must be fully analyzed, using an objective, defensible method.

As you read this notice of what the regulators are going to start requiring from banks, you will realize that the questions will get tougher and the answers more complex. We are happy to help provide strategies and solutions to some of the tough questions banks will face.

Assessments
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
On April 13, 2010, the FDIC Board of Directors (Board) adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR or proposal) and request for comment that would revise the assessment system applicable to all large insured depository institutions. The NPR would: (1) eliminate risk categories and the use of long-term debt issuer ratings in calculating risk-based assessments for large institutions; (2) use two scorecards -one for most large institutions and another for large institutions that are structurally and operationally complex or that pose unique challenges and risks in the event of failure (highly complex institutions)-to calculate the assessment rates for all large institutions; (3) allow the FDIC to take additional information into account to make limited adjustments to the scores; and (4) use the scorecard to determine the assessment rate for each institution.

The NPR would also alter assessment rates applicable to all insured depository institutions to ensure that the revenue collected under the new assessment system would approximately equal that collected under the existing assessment system and ensure that the lowest rate applicable to small and large institutions would be the same.

On September 29, 2009, the Board adopted a uniform increase in assessment rates effective January 1, 2011. As a result of the Board's earlier action, assessment rates in effect on January 1, 2011, will uniformly increase by 3 basis points.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

In less time than you take for a lunch break Silverback Portfolio Analytics can show you how to, analyze your loan portfolio with real-time asset valuations, use objective loan grading, provide stratification analysis, probable loss modeling and stress test simulations.

The full summary: http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10014.html

The full text of the proposed rule: http://www.fdic.gov/news/board/april06.pdf