Uncategorized

By: Tom Hannagan This post is a feature from my colleague and guest blogger, John Robertson, Senior Process Architect in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian. Years ago, I attended a seminar at which the presenter made a statement that struck me as odd, but has proven to be quite prophetic.  He simply stated, “margins will continue to narrow … forever!” He was spot on. At that time, a variety of loan products (such as mortgage loans) were becoming commoditized and this emerging market acted as an intermediary for needed cash to provide banks the wherewithal to continue to lend in their respective locales. The presenter continued by making a call for a systematic and effective pricing methodology then and “forever”. Pricing loans in a competitive market does not necessarily translate into smaller yields. Nor should banks be willing to accept smaller yields for less than quality loans. There are several viable options to consider when loan pricing in a market where the margins continue to shrink. Cutting operating expenses Generally, a financial institution’s first reaction to narrowing margins is to cut operating expenses. Periodically the chaff does need culling, but most banks run efficient shops by depending heavily on technology to create those efficiencies and for risk management. They continually measure themselves with efficiency ratios which, in part, help to drive their strategic operating decisions. So, when the edict comes from above to cut operating expenses, there aren’t too many options. So, why is a bank’s first reaction usually an all-out call to cut operating expenses? Generally, it’s because these operating expenses are more easily identifiable and banks still lack effective tools to measure the value of their customers and relationships. Couple that with the perception that there is no control over a competitive market with narrowing margins. As a result, banks price accordingly -- just to get the deal. Consequently, their efficiency ratios may look good, but what about the potential impact on yield, service and internal morale? Community banks, in particular, pride themselves on customer service and, in fact, site it as one of their strengths against larger banks. Do you give up that advantage? Relationship management To price effectively in a market where margins have narrowed, the bank has to also consider the relationship’s value. The value of deposits should be measured and included to allow for more competitive pricing. The influence of deposits on the relationship allows the bank to be more aggressive in its loan pricing or can enhance the relationship yield itself. Loan pricing in a competitive market does not have to translate into smaller yields and/or credit quality. The key to staying ahead of competition is measuring the value of the relationship and applying any or all of the outlined effective risk-based pricing methodologies to position the bank to win the deal and still meet the targeted return objectives. While the phrase “margins will continue to narrow … forever” may seem to hold true, banks can counter by using the “power of pricing” to offset the impact to earnings …forever!

After reviewing more details around the "The President's Identity Theft Task Force Report" (September 2008), and some of the activities surrounding it, I find myself again pondering how all of this may be impacting our clients.  Does heightened consumer awareness around both identity theft Red Flags rules and government initiatives (like the task force report) put more pressure on various industries to have buttoned up identity theft prevention programs that are not only effective, but also "marketed" to consumers?  Are consumers now expecting to see more blatant identity theft prevention measures in place each time they transact with a service provider…any service provider?Lots of questions here, so let me know if you are feeling residual pressures from your consumer base as a result of any of the latest initiatives or reports.  I can say that we do have some clients that believe effective identity theft measures matter to their customers and use their protection measures as marketing messages.  For example, the use of knowledge-based authentication questions during an application or transaction approval process is not only effective in preventing fraud, but also leaves customers with a sense of security and an understanding that their financial institutions are working to combat identify theft..

By: Tom Hannagan Part 2 There is one rather interesting clause that appears to represent an open-ended business porfolio risk management decision for the future. It is one small paragraph, named Amendment, in the middle of Article V - Miscellaneous, just ahead of governing law (which is federal law, backed up by the laws of the State of New York). Amendment begins normally enough, requiring the usual signed agreement of each party, but then states: “provided that the Investor may unilaterally amend any provision of this Agreement to the extent required to comply with any changes after the Signing Date in applicable federal statutes.” Wow. My understanding of this is that if Congress in the future, enacts anything that Treasury finds (or Congress requires Treasury to find) applicable to any aspect of the previously signed TARP Agreement, the bank is bound to adhere. Forget about the non-voting aspect of the preferred shares issued to the Treasury. Once the TARP Agreement is executed by the bank, management is not only bound by what’s in the document to begin with, it is in addition, subject to future federal law as long as the TARP shares are held by the government. So, this new major owner does have a voice. The Purchase Agreement covers what the new owner wants now and may decide it wants in the future. This a form of strategic business risk that comes with accepting the capital infusion, along with the various financial implications of the funding.

There seems to be some ground-laying for follow-on Red Flag compliance guidelines to emerge either pre- or post- May 1, 2009.  Whether they arrive in the form of clarifying statements by the Red Flags Rule drafting agencies, or separate guidelines beyond the current Rule, the ambiguity associated with the current set of parameters leads me to believe that:The door is open for many entities, not clearly called out in the Red Flags Rule as 'covered' to be more formally placed under that umbrella, andA new series of mandates may be on the horizon as the focus on identity theft prevention and, of critical note, consumer protection continues to sharpen.I look at "The President's Identity Theft Task Force Report" (September 2008) as a potential catalyst for the publication of more formal directives around consumer identity theft prevention programs.  While the report currently sits in the form of recommendations, it is likely that some of these recommendations may evolve into more definitive enactments.  Additionally, it's clear that even commercial entities that are potentially not covered by the Red Flag Rule today are called out as still in need of stringent and diligent identity theft prevention measures.  More to follow next time on this report.

Part 2 Reason one Unfortunately, there is a management issue regarding their transparency with the investment community and/or client base.  Regrettably for the managers and leaders choosing this approach, if this problem persists too long, the organization may choose to rectify with a change in the management and leadership Reason two The solution is both simple and complex.  In simplistic terms, the financial institution must evolve its portfolio risk management reduction techniques and take a more proactive stance.  Both internal and external data exists that can provide significant insight to the portfolio, its trends and potential future loss. Such data sources include: Internal behavioral characteristics (negative changes outside of just delinquencies) High line usage Non sufficient funds frequency & severity (for those borrowers who also have a deposit account with the institution) Deposit account closuresExternal data Regular rescore of the borrowers (both small business and consumer) Derogatory payment trends with other creditors (the borrower may be current with you but for how long?) Judgments or liens Such data can be used to create models for portfolio performance calculating: Delinquency trends by score (as the portfolio trends up or down in the score ranges we can adjust the expected loss rates, delinquency rates, etc.) Within score ranges and based upon other behavioral characteristics, what is the likelihood for charge-off or recovery. The biggest takeaway is that these portfolio management techniques are not new and untested.  Your data provider (such as Experian), has used these techniques and has the data to support the effectiveness.  While we are in trouble, we may find ourselves wanting to keep the “dirty secrets” to ourselves.  Too often such an approach leads to one’s demise.  Seek information, seek help, get control and truly start to move in a positive direction.

“Unprecedented times”, “financial crisis”, “credit crisis” and many other terms continue to be buzzwords that we hear every day.  We are almost becoming desensitized to the terms, yet we feel the impact on a daily basis.  Everyone is waiting for some positive news in the financial services industry and more bad news keeps coming. Each quarter we continue to read about financial institutions claiming that the worst is over. They have recognized the risk in their portfolios through risk assessment, set aside adequate reserves or loan loss allowances and are now ready to turn the corner.  Yet we continue to read about these same institutions coming back with more bad news, more credit losses and a restatement of the assurance that the problems have been recognized. As a result, this financial risk management has brought to light all of the high-risk accounts and the trend will begin to change. Why does this story keep repeating itself? Reason one  Management assesses to what extent the market (both stock market and the client base) will tolerate the level or degree of bad news, recognize losses to that extent and will then work hard to try to correct any known issues before we actually have to report the next quarter.  Unfortunately, this approach simply delays the inevitable and brings into question the risk management practices of the particular institution.  Like the boy who cried wolf, the more times you make a statement and it proves to be false, the less likely you will be believed the next time. Reason two The financial institutions are actually surprised each quarter with a new batch of credit losses.  The institution, its credit management team and workout areas are diligently trying to address the current problem. But, just when they start to see the light at the end of the tunnel, a new batch of credit problems arise.  For the most part, the credit issues still persist in the high-volume, low-dollar credits such as residential mortgages, home equity loans, automobiles, credit cards and small business loans.  Due to the sheer volume of clients/loans, it becomes more difficult to assess what issues may be brewing in the portfolio.  For the large volume, small dollar portfolios, the notion of a pending credit issue comes when the delinquency starts to rise to a delinquency of 60 or 90 days. The real issue is identifying those accounts that are likely to go 60 or 90 days past due and then assess the likelihood that they will go into charge-off. Regardless of the reason, we have a “credibility” problem in addition to a “credit” problem.

Stephanie Butler, manager of Process Architects, in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian continues from her last post by adding how to get back to the risk management basics. With all that said, what is next?  You’ve learned the lessons and are ready to begin 2009 fresh.  How do you make sure that history does not repeat itself?  Simply get back to the basics by: • Refocusing your lenders The lenders are your first line of defense.  Make sure they understand the importance of accurate, complete information.  Through their incentives, hold them accountable for credit quality.  Retrain them, if necessary, on credit policy, financial analysis, business development, etc. • Creating or enhancing your loan review staff A strong, internal loan review staff is crucial.  They are your second line of defense.  By sampling the entire portfolio on a regular basis, loan review can see trends that an individual loan officer cannot.  Loan review can aid in the portfolio management concentrations,  policy adherence and portfolio growth.  By reporting to either the holding company or credit administration, loan policy review can give an unbiased opinion on the quality of lending and the portfolio. • Bring back the credit department and formally-trained credit analysts For larger commercial loan underwriting requests, it is important to bring back the use of credit analysts and the credit department for in-depth financial analysis, loan write-ups and the discussion of strengths and weaknesses.  Don’t forget to train the credit analysts!  If you don’t feel you have the skill set within your institution for training, there are many good courses that your credit analysts can take.  Remember, this is your bench for future lenders. • Bring accountability back Everyone in your organization is accountable for a specific job or task.  You must hold your entire team, including senior management, accountable for their tasks, roles and the process of risk management. Remember, a lot of lessons were learned in 2008.  The key is not to waste this knowledge going forward.  Don’t keep doing what you have been doing!  Embrace the potential to improve your lending practices, financial risk management, training opportunities and customer satisfaction.  2009 is a new year!

By: Tom Hannagan Part 1 In my last three posts, we have covered the key parts of how risk-based loan pricing works. We have discussed how the key foundational elements involved in risk-adjusted loan pricing can and should relate to the bank’s accounting results and strategic policies. We went from the pricing analysis of an individual loan on a risk-adjusted basis to solving for a bank-wide target or guideline return. We also mentioned how this analysis can be expanded to the client relationship level, both producing a relationship management view of any existing loans and the impact of pricing a renewal or new credit to impact the client-level return. Finally, I mentioned that although this capability can exist (and does in more banks than ever before), it isn’t an easy undertaking in an industry that is historically keyed to volume goals rather than transaction profit (let alone risk-adjusted profit). So, why go through the effort? Moving to a risk-adjusted view of lending and relationship management requires serious thought, effort and resolve. It involves change and teaching lenders a new trick. It even suggests that the lending executive (perhaps the next president of the bank) hasn’t been doing the best job possible to protect and advance the bank’s margins. Any new undertaking involves management risk. And, accurate or not, bank executives are not generally viewed as terrific change agents. Is this concept of risk-based pricing worth all the time and trouble? We think so – for two general reasons. Corporate governance Almost any business, if not any undertaking of any kind, involves risk to some degree. Finance in general, and commercial banking, specifically, involves several kinds of risk. The most obvious risk is repayment or credit risk. Banks have been lending money successfully for a long time. The funny thing is that often, when we’ve studied the actual loan rates of a bank’s portfolio versus the bank’s own risk ratings (or risk grades), we see almost no difference in loan pricing. The banks have credit policies that discuss the different ratings in some detail. And, the banks usually have some sort of provisioning process or ALLL (Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses) logic that uses these differences in risk rating. Loan review guidelines often use the differences in risk rating to gauge the review frequency and depth. So, the banks know what’s going on. They know that a higher risk borrower/loan is less likely to be repaid in full than a lower credit risk borrower/loan. But, the lending operation goes on as if they were all about the same. There seems to be a disconnect (kind of like when my arms and brain disconnect when I swing a golf club). I know if I slow down I’ll hit a better shot, but I still swing way too fast. It seems to me that since the bank has all of these terrific policies in place dealing with credit risk, that good governance would require that credit risk be reflected more fully when loans are marketed, negotiated and agreed to – rather than just when they go awry. I would make the same general argument for management consistency associated with other risk types. If the loan duration is longer, good governance would reflect (pay for) a realistic marginal funding cost of the same duration. This would help to align the loan pricing effort with the guidelines or policies associated with ALCO or Asset and Liability Policy Committee and Interest Rate Risk (IRR) management. If a loan involves higher or lower risk of unexpected loss based on loan/collateral type and risk rating, then the risk capital associated with the loan should vary accordingly. The risk-based allocation of capital will then require different pricing in order for the loan to hit a targeted return. This protection of return, on a risk-adjusted basis, is the final step in good governance – in this case, to protect the shareholders specific contribution (of their equity) to funding the loan in question. Finally, if I were a director, regulator or an auditor (again), and I reviewed all of these fine policies related to risk management, and did not see them reflected in deal pricing, I would have to ask “why?”.  It would seem that either executive management doesn’t really believe in their own policies, or they are willing to set them aside when negotiating deals for the added business. Maybe loan management doesn’t want to be bothered by the policies while they’re out there in the “real world” fighting for added loan volume. Either way, there seems to be a governance disconnect. Which I know on the golf course, leads to lost balls and unnecessary poor scores. My second major reason will follow in my next blog.

By: Tom Hannagan Part 1 Risk-based pricing starts as a product-level reflection of a bank’s financial and risk characteristics. In my last few posts we have covered the key parts of how risk-based loan pricing works. In doing so, we have discussed how the key foundation elements involved in risk-adjusted loan pricing can (and should) relate to the bank’s accounting results and strategic policies: Loan balance, rate and fee data relates to the bank’s actual general ledger amounts; The administrative costs are also derived from actual non-interest expenses; The cost of funds is aligned with the policies used in the ALCO operation and in the IRR management processes; The statistical cost of credit risk used in pricing (providing sensitivity to the loan’s risk rating) is derived partially from the bank’s credit and provisioning policies; The taxes are the bank’s actual average experience; and For banks using ROE/RAROC, the equity allocation is related to the bank’s overall (unexpected) risk posture and its capital sufficiency policies. Once a bank understands risk-adjusted pricing and can calculate the risk-adjusted return (ROA or ROE/RAROC) for a given loan, what more can we do to help the lender close the deal? And, what can we do to help lenders assist the bank with meeting profit goals? The answer to both questions is: “quite a lot”. First, bank management and lending executives can set various risk-based goals or guidelines that are based on the same data and foundation logic that was used to create the risk-based profit calculations. This analytical form of targeting helps take the profit (and therefore pricing) process out of the realm of “blue sky” numbers or simply wishful thinking on the part of management. The risk-based targeting guidelines benefit from the same analytical processes that went into the logic behind creating the profit calculations. The targets should be as well-founded as the analysis that went into the profit calculations. Then the fun begins. First at the loan level: Once we have the ability to calculate risk-adjusted loan profit and we have similarly founded targets or guidelines, we can easily use the profit calculations in reverse to solve for a required loan rate and/or origination fee that will meet the target profit. The lender can change a structural aspect of the loan under consideration and quickly see the impact on risk-adjusted profit. More importantly, they can see how these changes relate to the guidelines or target. In fact, the lender could look at any number of changes to the loan amount, tenor, amortization rate, moving the risk rating up or down, and changing the rate from fixed to floating impact to see what relative impact the change has on risk-adjusted profit. Because knowledge is one key to successful negotiation, the lender is in a substantially stronger position to conduct the sales and negotiation phases of landing the deal. There is a substantially higher likelihood the resulting loan will be a better risk-adjusted return for the bank than would take place by ignoring such pricing practices. Add up all of the loan and lines done in the course of a year and you see a significant impact on the bank’s overall performance. In my next post, I’ll expand this concept to the relationship management level.

So here it is!  The moment you all have been waiting for--the top ten hot topics of 2009 (in no particular order of importance). 1. Portfolio Risk Management – You should really focus on this topic in 2009.  With many institutions already streamlining the origination process, portfolio management is the logical next step.  While the foundation is based in credit quality, portfolio management is not just for the credit side. 2. Review of Data (aka “Getting Behind the Numbers”) – We are not talking about scorecard validation; that’s another subject.  This is more general.  Traditional commercial lending rarely maintains a sophisticated database on its clients.  Even when it does, traditional commercial lending rarely analyzes the data. 3. Lowering Costs of Origination – Always a shoe-in for a goal in any year!  But how does an institution make meaningful and marked improvements in reducing its costs of origination? 4. Scorecard Validation – Getting more specific with the review of data.  Discuss the basic components of the validation process and what your institution can do to best prepare itself for analyzing the results of a validation.  Whether it be an interim validation or a full-sized one, put together the right steps to ensure your institution derives the maximum benefit from its scorecard. 5. Turnaround Times (Response to Client) –Rebuild it.  Make the origination process better, stronger and faster.  No; we aren’t talking about bionics here -- nor how you can manipulate the metrics to report a faster turnaround time.  We are talking about what you can do from a loan applicant perspective to improve turnaround time. 6. Training – Where are all the training programs?  Send in all the training programs!  Worry, because they are not here.  (Replace training programs with clowns and we might have an oldies song.)  Can’t find the right people with the right talent in the marketplace? 7. Application Volume/Marketing/Relationship Management – You can design and execute the most efficient origination and portfolio management processes.   But, without addressing client and application volume, what good are they? 8. Pricing/Yield on Portfolio – “We compete on service, not price.” We’ve heard this over and over again.  In reality, the sales side always resorts to price as the final differentiator.  Utilizing standardization and consistency can streamline your process and drive improved yields on your portfolio. 9. Management Metrics – How do I know that I am going in the right direction?  Strategize, implement, execute, measure and repeat.  Learn how to set your targets to provide meaningful bottom line results. 10. Operational Risk Management – Different from credit risk, operational risk and its management, operational risk management deals with what an institution should do to make sure it is not open to operational risk in the portfolio. Items totally in the control of the institution, if not executed properly, can cause significant loss.   Well, that’s it.  We encourage your feedback on this list.  Let us know which of these ten topics is a priority for your institution and what specific areas in each topic you would like to see addressed.

By: Tom Hannagan Part 2   Return on Equity (ROE) ROE is the risk-adjusted profit divided by the equity amount associated with the loan in question.   ROE =      Risk-adjusted profit Equity amount of the loan   There are two large advantages to using ROE. One, you can use it to compare profit performance across asset-based and non-asset-based products. This can’t be done with ROA – if there’s no “A”, you can’t create the ratio. This seems to be a crucial consideration if you are serious about cross-selling non-asset-based products (such as deposits and a long list of non-credit financial services) and if you are serious about being a truly client relationship oriented organization.   Second, by using ROE you have the possibility of risk-adjusting the amount of equity used in the denominator of the calculation.  Adjusting the equity amount based on risk, in a credible manner, creates risk-adjusted ROE, or what is referred to as risk adjusted return on capital (RAROC). The equity amount applied to the loan represents all of the remaining risk or unexpected loss (UL).instance that we did not account for in the steps that got us to the risk-adjusted profit result. RAROC, or risk-adjusted ROE, is a fully risk-adjusted representation of relative value. This level of risk-based performance measurement also has the advantage of relating pricing and relationship management activities to the bank’scapital management process.   So far, we have covered several of the key parts of how risk-based pricing can work. In doing so, we have discussed how the various elements involved in pricing relate to the bank’s books and policies. The loan balance, rate and fee data relates to the banks actual general ledger amounts. The administrative costs are also derived from actual non-interest expenses. The cost of funds is aligned with the policies used in ALSO and in IRR management processes. The cost of credit risk is related to the bank’s credit and provisioning policies. The taxes are the bank’s actual average experience. And, for banks using ROE/RAROC, the equity allocation is related to the bank’s overall risk posture and its capital sufficiency policies.   I stated earlier that “Risk-based pricing analysis is a product-level microcosm of risk-based bank performance”. It is that and more. In addition to pricing’s linkage to financial figures and results, risk-based pricing should also be a reflection of the bank’s most critical risk management policies and governance processes.

By: Tom Hannagan Part 1 In my last post about risk-based pricing, we started a discussion of the major elements involved in the risk adjustment of loan pricing. We got down to a risk-adjusted pre-tax profit amount. Not to divert the present discussion too much, but we often use pre-tax performance numbers for entity level comparisons to avoid the vagaries of tax treatments. Some banks are sub-S corporations, while most are C corporations. There are differences in state tax levels and, there may be other tax deferral strategies such as, leasing activity and/or securities adjustments that can affect these after-tax numbers. So, pre-tax data can be very useful.   After-tax profit and profitability ratios For internal comparisons across loans, client, lenders and other lines of business; and to better understand how the risk-adjusted profit from a loan or a relationship relate to overall bank performance, we prefer to get to an after-tax profit and profitability ratio. This is also necessary to compare loans or portfolios involving tax-exempt entities to loans with taxable interest income. To do this, we apply the bank’s average effective income tax rate (including federal and state) to the pre-tax result, with the exception of tax exempt loans. This gives us risk-adjusted net income (or profit) at the loan level.   By arriving at risk-based profit estimates at the product level, we then have the opportunity to accumulate these for multi-product client relationships, or at lender or market segment levels. Clients can then go on to analyze the profit results in comparison to their distribution of risk ratings and break the risk-adjusted returns down by loan/collateral type, client geography or industry. Some banks have graphical displays of these results.   In addition to profit level, and to assist with comparative capability, we continue to one or more profitability ratios. You can divide the profit amount by the average loan balance to get a risk-adjusted return on assets (ROA).   ROA =        Profit amount Average loan balance   This is very helpful for looking at asset product performance and has been used historically by the banking industry for risk-based pricing. Many banks have moved beyond ROA and now focus on return on equity (ROE). For a more comprehensive discussion of ROA and ROE see my post from December 6, 2008.   I will continue in my next post about Return on Equity.

Part 2 To continue the discussion from my last post, we also must realize that the small business borrower typically doesn’t wait until we are ready to perform our regularly scheduled risk management review to begin to show problems.  While a delinquent payment is a definite sign of a problem with the borrower, the occurrence of a delinquent payment is often simply too late for any type of corrective action and will result in a high rate of loss or transfer to special assets. There are additional pitfalls around the individual risk rating of the small business borrower or the small business loans; but, I won’t discuss those here.  Suffice to say, we can agree that the following holds true for portfolio risk management of small business loans: Active portfolio management is a must; Traditional commercial portfolio management techniques are not applicable due to the cost and effectiveness for the typical small business portfolio; and Collection efforts conducted at the time of a delinquency is too late in the process. One last thing, the regulators are starting to place higher demands on financial institutions for the identification and management of risk in the small business portfolio.  It is becoming urgent and necessary to take a different approach to monitor that portfolio. Just as we have learned from the consumer approach for originating the loans, we can also learn from the basic techniques used for consumer loan portfolio risk management. We have to rely upon information that is readily available and does not require the involvement of the borrower to provide such information.  Basically, this means that we need to gather information (such as updated business scores and behavioral data) from our loan accounting platforms to provide us with an indication of potential problems.  We need to do that in an automated fashion.  From such information we can begin to monitor: Changes in the business score of the small business borrower; Frequency and severity of delinquencies; Balances maintained on a line of credit; and Changes in deposit balances or activity including overdraft activity. This list is not exhaustive, but it represents a solid body of information that is both readily available and useful in determining the risk present in our small business portfolio.  With technology enabling a more automated assessment of these factors, we have laid the groundwork to develop an efficient and effective approach to small business portfolio management.  Such an approach provides real- time regular assessment of the portfolio, its overall composition and the necessary components needed to identify the potential problem credits within the portfolio. It is past time to take a new approach toward the proactive portfolio management of our small business loan portfolio retaining the spirit of commercial credit while adapting the techniques of consumer portfolio management to the small business portfolio.

By: Tom Hannagan Here’s a further review of results from the Uniform Bank Performance Reports, courtesy of the FDIC, through the third quarter of this year. (See my Dec. 18 post.) The UBPR is based on quarterly call reports that insured banks are required to submit. I wanted to see how the various profit performance components compare to the costs of credit risks discussed in my previous post. The short of it is that banks have a ways to go to be fully pricing for both expected and unexpected risk. (See my Dec. 5 blog dealing with risk definitions.) The FDIC compiles peer averages for various bank size groupings. Here are some findings for the two largest groups, covering 490 reporting banks. Here are the results: Peer Group 1 consists of 186 institutions with over $3 billion in average total assets for the first nine months. • Net interest income was 5.34 percent of average total assets for the period. This is down, as we might expect based on this year’s decline in the general level of interest rates, from 6.16 percent in 2007. • Net interest expense was also down from 2.98 percent in 2007 to 2.16 percent for the nine months to September 30th. • Net interest margin, the difference between the two metrics, was down slightly from 3.16 percent in 2007 to 3.14 percent so far in 2008, or a loss of 2 basis points. It should be noted that net interest margins have been in steady decline for at least ten years, with a torturous regular drop of 2 to 5 basis points per annum in recent years. This year’s drop is not that bad, although it does add to the difficulty in generating bottom-line profits. To find out a bit more about the drop in margins, especially in light of the steady increase in lending over the same past decade, I looked at loans yields. • Loan yields averaged 6.22 percent for 2008, down (again, expectedly) from 7.32 percent in 2007. This is a drop of 110 basis points or a decline of 15 percent. • Meanwhile, rates paid on interest-earning deposits dropped from 3.41 percent in 2007 to 2.48 percent so far in 2008. This 93 basis point decline represents a 27 percent lower cost of interest-bearing deposits.   It seems as though margins should have improved somewhat -- not declined for these banks.   Digging a bit deeper, I see two possible reasons. • First, total deposit balances declined from 72 percent of average assets to 70 percent, meaning a larger amount had to be borrowed to fund assets. • Second, non-interest bearing demand deposits declined from 4.85 percent of average assets to 4.49 percent.   So, fewer deposit balances relative to total asset size, along with a lower proportion of interest-cost-free deposits, appear to have made the difference. Unfortunately, the ”big news” is that margins were only down a bit. Let’s move on to fee income. Non-interest income, again, as a percent of average total assets, was down to 1.14 percent from 1.23 percent in 2007. For this bank group, fees have also been steadily declining relative to asset size, down from 1.49 percent of assets in 2005. A lot of fee income is deposit based, and largely based on non-interest bearing deposits – and, thus, a source of pressure on fee income. Operating expenses constituted some good news as they declined from 2.63 percent to 2.61 percent of average assets. That’s 2 basis points to the good. Hey, an improvement is an improvement. Historically this metric has generally moved down, but irregularly from year to year. The number stood at 2.54 percent in 2006, for instance. As a result of the slight decline in margins and the larger percentage decline in fee income, the Peer Group 1 efficiency ratio lost ground from 57.71 percent in 2007 to only 58.78 percent in 2008. That means the every dollar in gross revenue [net interest income plus fee income] cost them almost 58 cents in administrative expenses so far this year. This metric averaged 55 cents in 2005/2006. The total impact of margin performance, fee income and operating expenses, if you’ve been tallying along, is a net decline of 0.09 percent on total assets. When we add this to the 2008 increase in provision expense of 57 basis points, we arrive at a total decline in pre-tax operating income of 0.66 percent on total assets. (See my Dec. 18 post.) That is a total decline of 44 percent from the pre-tax performance in 2007 for banks over $3 billion in assets. It would appear that banks are not pricing enough risk into their loan rates yet – for their own bottom line performance. This would be further confirmed if you compared bank loan rates to the historic risk spreads and absolute rates that the market currently has priced into investment grade and other corporate bonds. They are probably at extremes but still they say more credit risk is present than bank lending rates/yields would indicate.   For Peer Group 2, consisting of 304 reporting banks between $1 billion and $3 billion in assets: • Net interest income was 5.87 percent of average total assets for the period. This is also down, as expected, from 6.73 percent in 2007. • Net interest expense was also down from 3.07 percent in 2007 to 2.39 percent for the nine months to September 30th. • Net interest margin, was down from 3.66 percent in 2007 to 3.48 percent so far in 2008, or a loss of 18 basis points. These margins are at somewhat higher levels than found in Peer Group 1, but the drop of .18 percent was much larger than the decline in Peer Group 1.   As with all banks, net interest margins have been in steady chronic decline, but the drops for Peer Group 2 have been coming in larger chunks the last two years, down 18 points this year so far, after dropping 16 points from 2006 to 2007. Behind the drop in margins, loans yields are 6.69 percent for 2008, down from 7.82 percent in 2007. This is a drop of 113 basis points or a decline of 14 percent. Meanwhile rates paid on interest-earning deposits dropped from 3.70 percent in 2007 to 2.85 percent so far in 2008. This 85 basis point decline represents a 23 percent lower cost of interest-bearing deposits. Again, with a steeper decline in interest costs, you’d think margins should have improved somewhat. That didn’t happen. I notice the same two culprits. • Total deposit balances declined from 78 percent of average assets to 76 percent, meaning, again, a larger amount had to be borrowed to fund assets. • Also, non-interest bearing demand deposits continued an already steady decline from 5.58 percent of average assets in 2007 to 5.08 percent.   Fewer deposit balances relative to total asset size…along with a lower proportion of interest-cost-free deposits…and we know the result. Now, about fee income for these banks… Non-interest income, again as a percent of average total assets, was down to 0.92 percent from 0.95 percent in 2007. For this bank group, fees have also been steadily declining relative to asset size, down from 1.04 percent of assets in 2005. A smaller non-interest bearing deposit base, without other new and offsetting sources of fee income, will mean pressure on this metric. Operating expenses constituted some good news here as well. They declined from 2.79 percent to 2.75 percent of average assets. That’s 4 basis points to the good. Historically this metric has been flatter for this size bank, moving up or down a bit from year to year. As a result of the not-so-slight decline in margins and the continued decline in fee income, the Peer Group 2 efficiency ratio lost ground from 59.52 percent in 2007 to only 61.86 percent in 2008. That means the every dollar in gross revenue cost these banks almost 62 cents in administrative expenses so far this year. This metric averaged 56 cents in 2005/2006. The total impact of margin performance, fee income and operating expenses is a net decline of 0.17 percent on total assets. When we add this to the 2008 increase in provision expense of 36 basis points, we arrive at a total decline in pre-tax operating income of 0.53 percent on total assets. (See my Dec. 18 post.) That is a total decline of 34 percent from the pre-tax performance in 2007. As I concluded above, more credit risk is present than bank lending rates/yields would indicate. Although all 490 banks are declining in efficiency, the larger banks have a scale edge in this regard. The somewhat smaller banks seem to have an edge in pricing loans, but not regarding deposits. Although up dramatically in 2007 and even more this year for both groups, the Peer Group 2 banks seem to be suffering fewer credit losses relative to their asset size than their larger brethren. Both groups have resulting huge profit declines, but the largest banks are under the most pressure through this period. It’s interesting to note that, with higher loan yields and fewer apparent losses, Peer Group 2 banks are somewhat better at risk-adjusted loan pricing than the largest bank group. Results are results. The fourth quarter numbers aren’t expected to show a lot of improvement as the general economy continues to slow and credit issues continue. I’ll comment on entire year’s results in posts early next year.     Next year, too, look for my comments on risk management solutions especially relevant to enterprise risk management.

By: Tom Hannagan I reviewed the Uniform Bank Performance Reports (UBPR: (http://www2.fdic.gov/ubpr/ReportTypes.asp ) for selected clients through the third quarter of this year. The UBPR is a compilation of the FDIC, based on the call reports submitted by insured banks. The FDIC reports peer averages for various bank size groupings.   Here are a few findings for the two largest groups, covering 490 banks. Peer Group 1 consists of 186 institutions over $3 billion in average total assets for the first nine months. Net loans accounted for 67.59 percent of average total assets, up from 65.79 percent in 2007. Loans, as a percent of assets, have increased steadily since at least 2005. The loan-to-deposit ratio for the largest banks was also up to 97 percent, from 91 percent in 2007 and 88 percent in both 2006 and 2005. So, it appears these banks are lending more, at least through the September quarter, as an allocation of their asset base and relative to their deposit source of funding. In fact, net loans grew at a rate of 11.51 percent for the group through September, which is down from the average growth rate of 15.07 percent for the years 2005 through 2007.  But, it is still growth. For Peer Group 2, consisting of 304 reporting banks between $1billion and $3 billion in assets, net loans accounted for 72.57 percent of average total assets, up from 71.75 percent in 2007. Again, the loans as a percent of assets have increased steadily since at least 2005. The loan-to-deposit ratio for these banks was up to 95 percent, from 92 percent in 2007 and an average of 90 percent for 2006 and 2005. So, these banks are also lending more, at least through the September quarter, as a portion of their asset base and relative to their deposit source of funding. In fact, net loans grew at a rate of 12.57 percent for the group through September, which is up from 11.94 percent growth in 2007 and down from an average growth of 15.04 percent for 2006 and 2005.  Combined, for these 490 largest institutions, loans were still growing through September. More loans probably mean more credit risk. Credit costs were up. The Peer Group 1 banks reported net loan losses of 0.67 percent of total loans, up from 0.28 percent in 2007, which was up from an average of 18 basis points on the portfolio in 2006/2005.  The Group 2 banks reported net loan losses of 0.54 percent, also up substantially from 24 basis points in 2007, and an average of 15 basis points in 2006/2005. Both groups also ramped up their reserve for future expected losses substantially. The September 30th allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) as a percent of total loans stood at 1.52 percent for the largest banks, up from 1.20 percent in 2007 and an average of 1.11 percent in 2006/2005. Peer Group 2 banks saw their allocation for losses up to 1.40 percent from 1.22 percent in 2007 and 1.16 percent in 2006. So, lending is up even in the face of increased write-offs, increased expected losses and the burden of higher expenses for these increased loss reserves. Obviously, we would expect this to negatively impact earnings. It did, greatly. Peer Group 1 banks saw a decline in return on assets to 0.42 percent, from 0.96 percent in 2007 and an average of 1.26 percent in 2006/2005. That is a decline in return on assets (ROA) of 56 percent from 2007 and a decline of 68 percent from the 2006/2005 era. Return on equity declined even more. ROE was at 5.21 percent through September for the large bank group, down from 11.97 percent in 2007. ROE stood at 14.36 percent in 2005. For the $1 billion to $3 billion banks, ROA stood at 0.66 percent for the nine months, down from 1.08 percent in 2007, 1.30 percent in 2006 and 1.33 percent in 2005. The decline in 2008 was 39 percent from 2007. Return on equity (ROE) for the group was also down at 7.71 percent from 12.37 percent in 2007. The drops in profitability were not entirely the result of credit losses, but this was by far the largest impact from 2007 and earlier. The beefed-up ALLL accounts would seem to indicate that, as a group, the banks expect further loan losses in the remainder of 2008 and into 2009.  All of these numbers pre-dated the launch of the TARP program, but it is clear that banks had not contracted lending through the first three quarter of 2008, even in the face of mounting credit issues, cost of credit, challenges regarding loan pricing and profitability, net interest margins,  and the generally declining economic picture. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in the next several quarter [See my December 5th post about ROE versus ROA.] Disclosure: No positions.