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.

Survey Provides Insight for Serving Small Business Customers

The J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Small Business Banking Satisfaction Study^SM shares insight on serving small business banking customers to create differentiation and grow revenues.

Small business customers represent revenue opportunities for banking institutions, particularly if the bank can obtain the personal banking relationship as well. The survey finds that small business owners’ average value exceeds the consumer average by $31,000 or 66 percent. Further, highly satisfied small business customers create about 20 percent more revenue for the bank relative to less-satisfied customers. The difference in annual revenue dollars, according to the survey, is $675 per customer.

Unlocking this extra revenue per small business customer requires a strong commitment to relationship management. The survey finds that higher levels of satisfaction are associated with:

• Assignment of an account manager to every small business customer
• Completion of a needs assessment
• Account managers who proactively reach out to customers throughout the year
• Account managers who focus on quick resolution to problems
• Account managers who closely manage the credit process

Economic woes weighing on small business

The survey estimates that 48 percent of small business customers are negative about the economic outlook. Downbeat business owners have special needs with respect to banking. In particular, they generally appreciate working with a proactive banker who demonstrates a thorough understanding of their business and its needs. The J.D. Power survey establishes a link between the completion of a needs assessment at the beginning of the relationship and the customer’s belief that his banker “understands” the business. Sadly, only 45 percent of small business customers report that their banker has a complete understanding of the business.

Communicate to create upsell opportunities

Proactive communication is also important. Regular interaction between the account manager and small business customer can minimize misunderstandings about fees and services. It also helps the banker identify opportunities to provide the customer with additional business or personal banking services. The goal is to help the customer manage his business and personal finances more efficiently, while creating revenue opportunities for the bank. To fulfill that goal, the banker must a trusted advisor who maintains regular contact.

Manage new loans for higher satisfaction

Many small business customers are currently concerned about obtaining the funds they need to manage through this economic downturn. The J.D. Power survey reports that account managers who focus on streamlining the loan funding process tend to score higher on small business customer satisfaction metrics. Account managers who can identify a lending need and then move the customer through the application and funding process quickly add value and generate customer loyalty.

The survey also notes that small business account managers do not have to be high-level bank employees to be effective. Lower-level service personnel are able to achieve very high satisfaction scores, particularly when they focus on communication, quick problem resolution, and efficient loan funding.

See the video overview of the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 Small Business Banking Satisfaction Survey here: http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/library/videos.aspx?localID=286679 and read the press release here: http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2009227

Many Bank’s don’t realize that the HIRE Act, signed into law in March, which was sold to promote jobs, also has implications for the banking industry. Namely, the offset provisions impose withholding and reporting requirements to expand offshore tax compliance by non US banks, thereby funding the cost of the act.

Tax penalty for failure to report

Under the new legislation, foreign financial institutions must enter into a reporting arrangement with the IRS to provide account information on U.S.-owned accounts. Institutions that refuse such an arrangement are subject to a 30% tax on any payment of interest, dividends, rents, salaries, gains, profits and other forms of income from U.S. sources. Excluded from this definition of “withholdable payments” are payments owned by publicly traded companies or businesses wholly owned by U.S. residents.   

An institution may obtain a waiver of withholding by certifying to the withholding agent that it has no substantial U.S. account owners. However, withholding agents are liable for the tax and are still required to collect it if they have any reason to believe such certification is false.

Terms of reporting arrangement

The accepted reporting arrangement defined in the act requires foreign financial institutions to provide the IRS with the following information for each U.S.-owned account:

1. Name, address and TIN of each account holder
2. If the account holder is a U.S.-owned foreign entity, the name, address and TIN of each substantial U.S. owner of that entity
3. Account number
4. Account balance
5. Gross receipts and gross withdrawals from the account

With respect to Number 2 above, a substantial U.S. owner is: any U.S. individual who owns 10 percent or more of the stock of a foreign corporation; any U.S. individual who owns more than 10 percent of the profit or capital interests in a foreign partnership; or any U.S. individual who owns more than 10 percent of the beneficial interests of a foreign trust.

The institution does have the option to exclude reporting on individually owned accounts where the account holder has less than $50,000 in aggregate balances at that institution.

Individual reporting requirements

The legislation also requires individuals to comply with the new reporting regime. Individuals who own certain foreign financial assets worth more than $50,000 in aggregate must include the information listed above in their personal tax returns. Foreign financial assets are defined as financial accounts, as well as stocks or securities issued by a non-U.S. person, financial instruments or contracts issued by or counterparty to a non-U.S. person, or any interest in a foreign entity.  The IRS wants to know where US citizens are keeping their money and how much.

Basically, banks will chose to not to bear the risk being liable for the tax and withhold the 30 percent on all wire transfers/payments to offshore bank accounts and businesses that have not made the disclosure agreement with the IRS. If the bank makes the wire transfer and should have withheld the 30 percent but did not – they are liable to pay the 30 percent tax to the IRS.  If the bank makes the wire transfer, and should NOT have withheld the 30 percent, then it is the individual’s responsibility to collect the tax from the IRS, there is no liability on the bank for the mistake.

The HIRE Act’s reporting and withholding requirements apply to payments made after December 31, 2012. 

Creation of Safe, Affordable and Feasible Template for Small-Dollar Loans

Small-dollar loan pilot

The Small-dollar Loan Pilot Project was a study to find if it is profitable for banks to offer small-dollar loans to their customers. Small-dollar loans were created as an option to expensive payday loans, or heavy fee-based overdraft programs.  This study opened up opportunities for small-dollar loans to be more affordable.    

Small-dollar loans have created a way to maintain associations with current costumers and opportunities to attract unbanked new customers.

Goals: The main goal the FDIC had in mind for small-dollar loans was for banks to create long-lasting relationships with their customers using the product of small-dollar loans. Many banks had another goal in mind in addition to the FDIC’s goal. Some banks wanted to become more profitable by producing the product while other banks produced the product to create more goodwill in their community. 

Where and how the study started: The FDIC found 28 volunteer banks with total assets from $28 million to nearly $10 billion to use the new product, offering of small-dollar loans. All were found in 450 offices in 27 states. Now, in the pilot study there have been over 34,400 small-dollar loans that represent a balance of $40.2 million. 

Template for small-dollar loans: Loans are given with an amount of $2,500 or less, with a term of 90 days or more. The Annual Percentage Rate is 36 percent or less depending on the circumstances of the borrower. There are little to no fees and, underwriting follows with proof of identity, address, income, and credit report to decide the loan amount and the ability to pay. The loan decision will usually take less than 24 hours. There are also additional optional features of mandatory savings and financial education.  

Long loan term success: Studies found that having a longer loan term increased the amount of success in small-dollar loans. This allowed the customer to recover from any financial emergency by going through a few pay check cycles before it was time to start paying the loan back.  Liberty Bank in New Orleans, Louisiana offered loan terms to 6 months in order to avoid continuously renewed “treadmill” loans.  The pilot decided that a minimum loan term of 90 days would prove to be feasible.

Often the bank will require the customer to place a minimum of ten percent of the loan in a savings account that becomes available when the loan is paid off.

Delinquencies: In 2009 the delinquency rates by quarter for small dollar loans were 6.2 in the fourth, 5.7 in the third, 5.2 in the second, and 4.3 in the first.

How to be most successful when producing small-dollar loans: The FDIC is reporting that the participating banks have found much success through small-dollar loans. But the most success came from long term support from the bank’s board, and the senior management. It is critically important to have strong support coming from senior management.

The small-dollar loan pilot has proven to be a great addition to bank’s loan portfolio, the FDIC hopes that it will spread to banks outside the pilot.

Profitability may depend on location: The FDIC has found the most successful programs are in banks located in communities with a high population of low- and moderate-income, military, or immigrant households. Banks in rural areas that did not have many other financial service providers also saw feasibility because of the low amount of competition.

Improving performance: Automatic repayments are a way to improve performance for all products not just the small-dollar loans.

On March 18, 2010, President Obama signed HR 2847, unbeknown to most this law has several banking implacations/regulations and new taxes, even though it is not disclosed by its name: the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act.

Much of the press and commentary about the resolution has centered on the tax benefits it affords to businesses that hire new employees between February 3 of this year and January, 1, 2011.

What has gone mostly unnoticed is how these incentives will be paid for by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance provisions known in Title V of the Act as Offset Provisions.

SUBTITLE A

Part I: Increased Disclosure of Beneficial Owners

Financial institutions that make payments, on behalf of their customers, to Foreign financial and nonfinancial institutions must withhold 30% of payments made to those institutions, unless such institutions agree to disclose the identity of such individuals and report on their bank transactions.

The bank risk for not withholding the 30% is with the financial institution that initiated the transfer of funds – in other words, the bank will be responsible to send to the IRS the 30% it should have withheld. The individual sending the money will be responsible to get a refund from the IRS on their tax return. Also denies a tax deduction for interest on non-registered bonds issued abroad.

Part II: Under Reporting With Respect to Foreign Assets

Anyone with more than $50,000 in a depository or custodial account maintained by a foreign financial institution must report it. Underpayments resulting from undisclosed foreign financial assets will incur an enhanced penalty.

Part III: Other Disclosure Provisions

U.S. shareholders of a foreign investment company must file annual returns.

Part IV: Provisions Related to Foreign Trusts

A foreign trust has a U.S. beneficiary if the beneficiary's interest in the trust is contingent on a future event or such beneficiary directly or indirectly transfers property to such trust or uses trust property without paying compensation to the trust. Owners of foreign trusts must report them in their taxes, and they will be penalized if transfers to and distributions from such trusts aren’t reported.

Part V: Substitute Dividends and Dividend Equivalent Payments Received by Foreign Persons Treated as Dividends

A dividend equivalent payment is considered a dividend from a source within the United States for purposes of taxation of income from foreign sources and tax withholding rules applicable to foreign persons.

SUBTITLE B

Delay in Application of Worldwide Allocation of Interest

Delays until 2021 the application of special rules for the worldwide allocation of interest for purposes of computing the limitation on the foreign tax credit.

SUBTITLE C

Budgetary Provisions

Increases the required estimated tax payments for corporations with assets of not less than $1 billion in specified calendar quarters. Provides criteria for compliance with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

When the European Union and International Monetary Fund bailed out Greece last month to the tune of 750 billion of fresh capital, there was no guarantee of how effective these actions would be.

And with the euro trading unpredictably, EU finance ministers are worried that it wasn't enough. The Euro's value has been up and down, at times losing as much as 12%.

As with the talk in America that our government's first bailout wasn't enough to buoy the economy, there are rumblings in Europe that more needs to be done with Greece to ensure that their problems don't spread to other European nations.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel defied German public opinion and supported the bailout. A Reuters article quotes her as saying, "We've done no more than buy time for ourselves to clear up the differences in competitiveness and in budget deficits of individual euro zone countries. If we simply ignore this problem we won't be able to calm down this situation."

Currency-wide problem

Greece, with its $236B (US) of debt, may be in the direst situation. But it certainly isn't the only EU economy that's racking up debt.

• Portugal: $286 billion
• Ireland: $867 billion
• Spain: $1.1 trillion
• Italy: $1.4 trillion

Each country owes money to one another in a web of loans so complicated and precarious that each country is dependent on the others to stay solvent.

The New York Times elegantly illustrates the problem with a tangled web of arrows signifying the various debt obligations of each country.

In the accompanying article, Eric Fine of Van Eck G-175 Strategies says, "This is not a bailout of Greece. This is a bailout of the euro system."

Will they or won't they?

Many people-from traders to government heads to ordinary citizens-aren't sure that Greece's government will be able to implement cost-cutting measures in the wake of stiff opposition from their constituency.

In return for their first 110 billion euro bailout package, Greece was required to levy stiff wage cuts to government workers and implement hefty tax increases. The government hopes to slash its debt from 13.6 percent of GDP to 3 percent by 2013.

On May 31, Greeks took to the streets in a 24-hour protest that shut down cruise ships. Labor unions are warning that more strikes are possible as the summer progresses.

This week, Standard & Poor's posted new figures that show the domestic housing market's rebound is anything but certain, causing bankers to have cautious optimism.

Utilizing 10- and 20-city composites, the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Prices Indices data compared one-month price changes from January to February 2010, and also twelve-month prices from February to February.

January to February

In the 20-city composite, only one location-San Diego-saw a rise in prices from January 2010. The 0.6% rise, though, was slight. All other cities saw decreases that ranged from New York's -0.4% to Portland's -2.4%. The 20-city composite fell -0.9%.

What a Difference a Year Makes

A brighter picture emerges, though, in the sampled metro areas' twelve-month comparisons. San Francisco's 11.6% rise was the largest among the surveyed cities. San Diego came in second with a 7.6% increase. The 20-city composite improved 0.6%.

Las Vegas, which has endured one of the country's largest drops in home value, continues its decline with a -14.6% drop from February to February.

Writing in USAToday.com, Stephanie Armour states that prices in Charlotte, New York, Las Vegas, Portland, Seattle, and Tampa have fallen to new lows.

Home prices peaked nearly four years ago in June and July of 2006. February's average prices dropped close to their numbers from 2003's summer and early fall.

But David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard and Poor's, is cautious. "It is too early to say that the housing market is recovering," he says. "The homebuyer tax credit...is the likely cause for these encouraging numbers and this may also flow through to some of our home price data in the next few months. Amidst all the news, however, we should also pay heed to foreclosure activity, which have reached their highest level in at least the last five years."

Consumer Confidence

But even with these dismal numbers, it appears that consumers think the economy is turning a corner. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index shows an increase from March to April 2010.

April's Index number was 57.9, which is an improvement over March's 52.3. Providing evidence that the rebound may not be fleeting, this is the highest the Index has been since September 2008. The Index pulls its data from a survey of 5,000 American households.

Americans are also feeling good about the job market. 18% of those surveyed thought the future would bring more jobs, which is an improvement from March's 14.1%. Similarly, those who believed the number of jobs would decrease dropped from 21.1% to 20%.

In March, 45.8% of survey respondents said that jobs were "hard to get." This is a decline from February's number of 47.3. Combined with the optimistic responses to April's survey, these data could indicate a rising trend.

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