Hello Red Flaggers!  I’m still getting some questions from our clients these days around the FTC enforcement extension.  My concern is that there seems to be a perception that May 1, 2009 is the enforcement date for all of the guidelines in the Red Flags Rule.  In reading through the recently released FTC Enforcement Policy (Identity Theft Red Flags Rule, 16 CFR, 681.2), it clearly states the following: This delay in enforcement is limited to the Identity Theft Red Flags Rule (16 CFR 681.2), and does not extend to the rule regarding address discrepancies applicable to users of consumer reports (16 CFR 681.1), or to the rule regarding changes of address applicable to card issuers (16 CFR 681.3). So, while you may be breathing a sigh of relief as far as the implementation of your overall Identity Theft Prevention Program is concerned, be advised that the May 1, 2009 extension does not cover the need to detect and/or respond to address discrepancies on consumer reports or during address changes on card accounts. As previously mentioned in an earlier blog of mine (see Nov. 13 blog), responding to address discrepancies on consumer reports may be the biggest challenge for many of our clients, as (depending on market served) the percentage of consumer reports with an address discrepancy can number over 20 percent.  This can create an operational burden from the perspective of cost, customer experience, and the ability to quickly book legitimate and profitable customers.  Have a look at my previous blog on a risk based approach to address discrepancies for a refresher on this subject.  Good luck!!

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.

We continue to receive inquiries from our clients, and the market in general, around whether they are required to comply with the Red Flag Rule or not. That final decision can be found with the legal and compliance teams within your organization. I am finding, however, that there generally seems to be too literal and narrow an interpretation of the terms ‘creditor’ or ‘financial institution’ as described in the guidelines.  I often hear an organization state that they don’t believe they’re covered because they are not one of those types of entities. Ultimately, as I said, that’s up to your internal team(s) to establish. I would recommend, however, that you ensure that opinion and ultimate determination is well researched. It may sound simple, but reach out to your examining agencies or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and discuss any ambiguities you feel exist related to covered accounts.  There is some great clarifying language out there beyond the initial Red Flag Rule. For example, the FTC provided a very useful article (www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/articles/art11.shtm) that described how even health care providers can be covered under the Red Flag Rule.  At first glance, they may not seem to fall under the umbrella of a ‘creditor or financial institution.’ As stated in the article, the extension of credit “means an arrangement by which you defer payment of debts or accept deferred payments for the purchase of property or services. In other words, payment is made after the product was sold or the service was rendered. Even if you’re a non-profit or government agency, you still may be a creditor if you accept deferred payments for goods or services.” Maybe it’s just me, but that description is arguably much broader-reaching than one might initially think. Long story short: do your research, and don’t assume you or your accounts are not covered under the guidelines. Better to find out now instead of after your first examination….for obvious reasons.

We have talked about: the creation of the vision for our loan portfolios (current state versus future state) – e.g. the strategy for moving our current portfolio to the future vision. Now comes the time for execution of that strategy. In changing portfolio composition and improving credit quality, the discipline of credit must be strong (this includes in the arenas of commercial loan origination, loan portfolio monitoring, and credit risk modeling of course). Consistency, especially, in the application of policy is key. Early on in the change/execution process there will be strong pressure to revert back to the old ways and stay in a familiar comfort zone.  Credit criteria/underwriting guidelines will have indeed changed in the strategy execution. In the coming blogs we will be discussing: • assessment of the current state in your loan portfolio; • development of the specific strategy to effect change in the portfolio from a credit quality perspective and composition; • business development efforts to affect change in the portfolio composition; and • policy changes to support the strategy/vision. More to come.

By: Tom Hannagan For the last 16 months or so, the financial services industry has been indicted, tried, found guilty, sentenced and duly executed for ignoring accepted enterprise risk management practices.  Banks, albeit along with goofy risk ratings agencies, lax regulators, and greedy leveraged investors, have been blamed for abandoning normal and proper credit risk behavior and lending to many who did not meet basic debt servicing capability. After things went terribly wrong in capital and liquidity markets, followed by a now-official recession in the “real” economy, banks have tightened lending standards.  (See my blog posted November 13th for more about tightened lending.)   Now, following the TARP capital infusion, the press and Congress seem very upset that banks aren’t rapidly expanding their lending, or even moderating their credit risk regimen.  This dismay, with the lack of an immediate expansion of credit granting, occurs in the face of what the same press and most politicians refer to as the greatest economic meltdown since the Great Depression.   Granted, banks are historically easy whipping boys, but they now seem damned for what they did and damned if they don’t do some more of it. Although suffering in many ways, most banks are still for-profit organizations. Contrary to popular belief, they also actually have credit policies and processes that are aimed at responsible credit risk management – at least for the loans they intend to keep on their own books. Average management intelligence would dictate being cautious in the middle of an economic downturn.   The TARP capital infusion is a sudden large windfall of new equity, like a 20 percent increase for the receiving banks. It begs the question of what to do with it. To grow assets proportionately to the TARP infusion would mean a very rapid (circa plus 30 percent) growth in lending in a very short timeframe. Given the prevalence of banks, it would be very difficult for all of them to grow their loan portfolios this fast even in a good economy.   Most banks do not need TARP funds to survive in the short term. And the weakest banks are not supposed to be granted TARP funds. This is like a steroid shot into the natural process of bank consolidation. It’s obvious that the stronger banks, now infused with hot capital, are using TARP funds to acquire other banks. In many cases the acquired banks have weaknesses that they could not likely overcome on their own. So, the TARP funds are addressing the over-banked state of the financial industry and probably offsetting what would otherwise have been a drain on the Deposit Insurance Fund. I maintain that this is a good, if unintended, outcome for both the industry and the taxpayers.   I’ve heard and read comments (by people who should know better) that the hoarding of TARP funds is aiding bank earnings. Some say that those earnings are protected by TARP because it offsets credit losses. This is an accounting absurdity. The TARP will only help bank earnings if and when it is deployed successfully. This, in turn, requires two things to take place: 1) leveraging up the new capital with other sources of funds; and 2) successfully investing the proceeds in assets that provide a decent risk-adjusted return. In any event, whenever a new amount of risk-based capital comes into the equity account, the ROE will suffer for a while.   Another kind of issue with TARP, even if it isn’t needed or desired by a healthy bank, is the stigma associated with not getting it. The few banks in this category have had to go out of their way to explain why they didn’t go for it. There is a concern that, even if it really isn’t needed, a bank will be at a cash and balance sheet disadvantage in the big fish eating the little fish game.   Finally, who asked for TARP to be created? Bear and Lehman went down. Merrill was rescued. Countrywide went down early and WAMU went later. Citi is now on both a heart-lung machine and dialysis. A bunch of the big boys got killed or were in serious trouble. But not all of them. And, several of them reportedly had to be coerced into taking their share of the first $125 billion. Everyone else pretty much observed the circus on Wall Street and Capital Hill.   So, policy makers, make up your mind.  Do you want banks exercising sound credit risk management practices or not?  Do you want industry consolidation or don’t you?  Do you want sounder banks to acquire relatively weaker ones or would you rather see the FDIC pick up the pieces later?  Do you want to dictate how and when private organizations allocate risk-based capital or not?  A little clarity would be appreciated.  After all, TARP was your idea.  It wasn’t requested by the industry at large. And the flow through to businesses and consumers will take a while. Sorry. It’s in everybody’s best interest that good risk management processes prevail at this time (and always) -- in granting and pricing credit, and in managing available capital. The lack of same helped get us all to this point.

In my last blog, I talked about the overall need for a vision for your loan portfolio and the similarity of a loan portfolio to that of an investment portfolio.  Now that we have that vision in place, we can focus on the overall strategy to achieve that vision. A valuable first step in managing an investment portfolio is to establish a targeted value by a certain time (say, our targeted retirement age).  Similarly, it’s important that we establish our vision for the loan portfolio regarding overall diversification, return and risk levels. The next step is to create a strategy to achieve the targeted state.  By focusing on the gaps between our current state and the vision state we have created, we can develop an action plan for achieving the future/vision state.  I am going to introduce some rather unique ideas here. Consider which of your portfolio segments are overweight?  One that comes to mind would be the commercial real estate portfolio.  The binge that has taken place over the past five plus years has resulted in an unhealthy concentration of loans in the commercial real estate segment.  In this one area alone, we will face the greatest challenge of right-sizing our portfolio mix and achieving the appropriate risk model per our vision. We have to assess our overall credit risk in the portfolios next.  For small business and consumer portfolios, this is relatively easy using the various credit scores that are available to assess the current risk.  For the larger commercial and industrial portfolios and the commercial real estate portfolios, we must employ some more manual processes to assess risk.  Unfortunately, we have to perform appropriate risk assessments (current up-to-date risk assessments) in order to move on to the next stage of this overall process (which is to execute on the strategy). Once we have the dollar amounts of either growth or divestiture in various portfolio segments, we can employ the risk assessment to determine the appropriate execution of either growth or divestiture. Stick with me on this topic because in my next blog we will discuss appropriate risk assessment methodologies and determine appropriate portfolio distributions/segmentations.

By: Tom Hannagan I was hoping someone would ask about this. Return on Equity (ROE) is generally net income divided by equity, while Return on Assets (ROA) is net income divided by average assets. There you have it. The calculations are pretty easy. But, what do they mean? ROA tends to tell us how effectively an organization is taking earnings advantage of its base of assets.  This used to be the most popular way of comparing banks to each other -- and for banks to monitor their own performance from period to period. Many banks and bank executives still prefer to use ROA…though typically at the smaller banks. ROE tends to tell us how effectively an organization is taking advantage of its base of equity, or capital. This has gained in popularity for several reasons and has become the preferred measure at larger banks. One huge reason for the growing popularity of ROE is, simply, that it is not asset-dependent. ROE can be applied to any line of business or any product. You must have “assets” for ROA, since one cannot divide by zero. This flexibility allows banks with differing asset structures to be compared to each other, or even for banks to be compared to other types of businesses. The asset-independency of ROE also allows a bank to compare internal product line performance to each other. Perhaps most importantly, this permits looking at the comparative profitability of lines of business like deposit services. This would be difficult, if even possible, using ROA. If you are interested in how well a bank is managing its assets, or perhaps its overall size, ROA may be of assistance. Lately, what constitutes a good and valid portrayal of assets has come into question at several of the largest banks. Any measure is only as good as its components. Be sure you have a good measure of asset value, including credit risk adjustments. ROE on the other hand looks at how effectively a bank (or any business) is using shareholders’ equity. Many observers like ROE, since equity represents the owners’ interest in the business. Their equity investment is fully at risk compared to other sources of funds supporting the bank. Shareholders are the last in line if the going gets rough. So, equity capital tends to be the most expensive source of funds, carrying the largest risk premium of all funding options. Its deployment is critical to the success, even the survival, of the bank. Indeed, capital allocation or deployment is the most important executive decision facing the leadership of any organization. If that isn’t enough, ROE is also Warren Buffet’s favorite measure of performance. Finally, there are the risk implications of the two metrics. ROA can be risk-adjusted up to a point. The net income figure can be risk adjusted for mitigated interest rate risk and for expected credit risk that is mitigated by a loan loss provision. The big missing element in even a well risk-adjusted ROA metric is unexpected loss (UL). Unexpected loss, along with any unmitigated expected loss, is covered by capital. Further, aside from the economic capital associated with unexpected loss, there are regulatory capital requirements. This capital is left out of the ROA metric. This is true at the entity level and for any line-of-business performance measures internally. Since ROE uses shareholder equity as its divisor, and the equity is risk-based capital, the result is, more or less, automatically risk-adjusted. In addition to the risk adjustments in its numerator, net income, ROE can use an economic capital amount. The result is a risk-adjusted return on capital, or RAROC. RAROC takes ROE to a fully risk-adjusted metric that can be used at the entity level and that can also be broken down for any and all lines of business within the organization. As discussed in the last post, ROE and RAROC help a bank get to the point where they are more fully “accounting” for risk – or “unpredictable variability”. Sorry about all of the alphabet soup, but there is a natural progression that I’m pointing to that we do see banks working their way through. That progression is being led by the larger banks that need to meet more sophisticated capital reporting requirements, and is being followed by other banks as they get more interested in risk-adjusted monitoring as a performance measurement. The better bank leadership is at measuring risk-adjusted performance, using ROE or RAROC, the better leadership can become at pricing for all risk at the client relationship and product levels.

We get the following question quite a bit: Would the regulators expect to see a log of detected activity and resulting mitigation? Short answer: The Red Flags Rule does not specifically require you to maintain a log, nor do the guidelines suggest that a log should be maintained. However, covered institutions are required to prepare regular reports around the effectiveness of their program.  Additionally, there exists the requirement to incorporate an institution’s own experiences with identity theft when reviewing and updating their program. Long answer: Think now about the value of incorporating robust (and, optimally, transaction level) reporting into your program for a few key reasons: 1. Reporting allows you to more easily and comprehensively create and disseminate board-level reports related to program effectiveness.  These aren’t a bad thing to show a regulator either. 2. Detailed reporting provides you an opportunity to more accurately monitor your program’s performance with respect to decisioning strategies, false positives, false negatives, fraud detection and prevention rates, resultant losses and legitimate costs. 3. The more historic detail you have compiled, the easier it will be to make educated, analytically based, and quantifiable updates to your program over time.  Without this, you may be living and dying with anecdotal decision making….never good. 4. Finally, maintaining program performance data will afford you the ability to work with other service providers in validating their capabilities against known transactional or account level outcomes.  We, at Experian, certainly find this useful in working with our clients to deliver optimal strategies. Thanks as always.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) suspended enforcement of the new Red Flag Rule until May 1, 2009.  According to the FTC’s Enforcement Policy, “…during the course of the Commission’s education and outreach efforts following publication of the rule, the Commission has learned that some industries and entities within the FTC’s jurisdiction have expressed confusion and uncertainty about their coverage under the rule.  These entities indicated that they were not aware that they were undertaking activities that would cause them to fall within FACTA Sections 114 and 315 definitions of ‘creditor’ or ’financial institution’.” So, depending upon which enforcement entity (or entities) will be knocking on your door in the coming months, you may (and I emphasize “may”) have some extra time to get your house in order.   While many of you are likely confident that you have a compliant written and operational Identity Theft Prevention Program, this break in the action can be a great time to take care of setting up some ongoing procedures for keeping your program up to date.  Here are some ideas to keep in mind along the way: 1. Make sure you have clear responsibilities and accountabilities identified and assigned to appropriate persons.  Lack thereof may lead to everyone thinking someone else is keeping tabs. 2. Start setting the stage for a process to update your program based on: a. Your new experiences with identity theft; b. Changes in methods of identity theft; c. Changes in methods to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft; d. Changes in the types of accounts you offer or maintain; and e. Changes in your business arrangements, including mergers, acquisitions, alliances, joint ventures and service provider arrangements. 3. Set up a process for program review at the board level.  Remember that your program does not have to be approved by your board of directors annually, but the board (or a committee of the board) or senior management must review reports regarding your program each year.  They must approve any material changes to your program should they occur. 4. Prepare now for follow up actions associated with your first Red Flag Rule examination(s).  There will surely be suggestions or mandates stemming from that exercise, and now is a good time to start securing appropriate resources and time. My key message here is that, while there may be lull in the world of Red Flags activity, this is a great time to keep momentum in your program development and upkeep by planning for the next wave of updates and your impending examinations.  Best of luck.

It is the time of year during which budgets are either in the works or have been completed.  Typically, when preparing budgets, we project overall growth in our loan portfolios…maybe.  Recently we conducted an informal survey, the results of which indicate that loan portfolio growth is still a major target for 2009.  But when asked what specific areas in the loan portfolio -- or how loan pricing and profitability -- will drive that growth, there was little in the way of specifics available.  This lack of direction (better put, vision) is a big problem in credit risk management today.   We have to remember that our loan portfolio is the biggest investment vehicle that we have as a financial institution.  Yes; it is an investment.  We choose not to invest in treasuries or fed funds -- and to invest in loan balances instead -- because loan balances provide a better return.  We have to appropriately assess the risk in each individual credit relationship; but, when it comes down to the basics, when we choose to make a loan, it is our way of investing our depositors’ money and our capital in order to make a profit.   When you compare lending practices of the past to that of well-tested investment techniques, we can see that we have done a poor job with our investment management.  Remember the basics of investing, namely: diversification; management of risk; and review of performance.  Your loan portfolio should be managed using these same basics.  Your loan officers are pitching various investments based on your overall investment goals (credit policy, pricing structure, etc.).  Your approval authority is the final review of these investment options.  Ongoing monitoring is management of the ongoing risk involved with the loan itself.   What is your vision for your portfolio?  What type of diversification model do you have?  What type of return is required to appropriately cover risk?  Once you have determined your overall vision for the portfolio, you can begin to refine your lending strategy.  I’ll comment on that in my next blog entry.

By: Tom Hannagan In several posts we’ve discussed financial risk management, the role of risk-based capital, measuring profitability based on risk characteristics and the need for risk-based loan pricing (credit risk modeling). I thought it might be worthwhile to take one step back and explain what we mean by the term “risk.”   “Risk” means unpredictable variability. Reliable predictions of an outcome tend to reduce the risk associated with that outcome. Similarly, low levels of variability also tend to reduce risk. People who are “set in their ways” tend to lead less risky lives than the more adventuresome types. Insurance companies love the former and charge additional premiums to the latter. This is a terrific example of risk-based pricing.   Risk goes to both extremes. It is equally impossible to predict who will win a record amount in the lottery (a good outcome) and who will be struck by a meteor (a very bad outcome for the strikee). Both occurrences represent significant outcomes (very high variability from the norm). However, the probability of either event happening to any one of us is infinitesimally small. Therefore, the actual risk is small – not even enough to bother planning for or mitigating. That is why most of us don’t buy meteor strike insurance. It is also why most of us don’t have a private jet on order.   Most of us do purchase auto insurance, even in states that do not require it. Auto accidents (outcomes) happen often enough that actuaries can and do make a lot of good predictions as to both the number of such events and their cost impact. In fact, so many companies are good at this that they can and do compete on their prices for taking on our risk. The result is that we can economically mitigate our individual inability to predict a collision by buying car insurance.   Financial services involve risk. Banks have many of the same operational risks as other non-financial businesses. They additionally have a lot of credit risk associated with lending money to individuals and businesses. Further, banks are highly leveraged, borrowing funds from depositors and other sources to support their lending activities. Because banks are both collecting interest income and incurring interest expense, they are subject to market, or interest rate, risk.   Banks create credit policies and processes to help them manage credit risk. They try to limit the level of risk and predict how much they are incurring so they can reserve some funds to offset losses. To the extent that banks don’t do this well, they are acting like insurance companies without good actuarial support. It results in a practice called “adverse selection” – incorrectly pricing risk and gathering many of the worst (riskiest) customers.   Sufficiently good credit risk management practices control and predict most of the bad outcomes most of the time, at least at portfolio levels. Bad outcomes (losses) that are not well-predicted, and therefore mitigated with sufficient loan-loss reserves, will negatively impact the bank’s earnings and capital position. If the losses are large enough, they can wipe out capital and result in the bank’s failure.   Market risk is different than credit risk. The bank’s assets are mostly invested in loans and securities (about 90% of average assets). These loans and securities have differing interest rate structures – some are fixed and some are floating. They also have differing maturities. Meanwhile, the bank’s liabilities, deposits and borrowings also have differing maturities and interest rate characteristics. If the bank’s (asset-based) interest income structure is not properly aligned with the (liability-based) interest expense structure, the result is interest rate risk. As market rates change (up or down), the bank’s earning are impacted (positively or negatively) based on the mismatch in its balance sheet structure.   The bank can offset market risk by purchasing interest rate swaps or other interest rate derivatives. The impact of insufficient attention to interest rate risk can damage earnings and may, again, negatively affect the bank’s capital position.   So, ultimately, the bank’s risk-based capital acts as the last line of defense against the negative impact from, you guessed it, unpredictable variability – or “risk.” That is why equity is considered risk-based capital. Good management, predicting and pricing for all risks leads to safer earnings performance and equity position.

I’m working with many of our clients in reviewing their existing or evolving Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention Programs.  While the majority of them appear to be buttoned up from the perspective of identifying covered accounts and applicable Red Flag conditions, as well as establishing detection methodologies, I often still see too much subjectivity in their response and reconciliation procedures. Here are a few reasons why the “response” portion of a strong Red Flags Identity Theft Prevention program needs to employ consistent and objective process, decisioning, and actions: 1. Inconsistent or subjectively varied responses and actions greatly reduce the ability to measure process effectiveness over time.  It becomes increasingly difficult for retro-analysis to identify which processes and specific steps in those processes were successful in either positively or negatively reconciling potential fraudulent activity.  Subsequently, it clouds any ability to make effective or necessary changes to specific activities that may not be working well. 2. Examiners may focus heavily on the response portion of your program.  During operational side by sides, or even written program reviews, the less ambiguity and inconsistency identified or perceived, the better.  A quick rule of thumb for any examination: preempt any questions with exhaustive information and clarity.  Examiners that don’t need to ask many, or any, questions are happy examiners. 3. Objective and consistent process allows for more manageable staff training.  It is much easier to educate your staff around a justified and effective uniform process than around intuitive and haphazard procedures and consumer interactions.  It is tough to set expectations with your staff if there are gaping holes in the activities they are expected to execute. 4. Customer experience will certainly be more positive, and less of a worry for managers, as inequity of treatment is removed from the equation.  It is better to have each customer progress through similar steps toward authentication than varied ones from the perspective of time, perception, effectiveness, and convenience.   Now, certainly, a risk-based approach allows for varied treatment based on that risk.  The point here is more toward the need to apply those varied techniques consistently. 5. Social engineering.  Fraudsters are pretty good at figuring out if an operational process is open to interpretation and manipulation.  They’ll continue to engage in a process with the goal of landing with the right associate who may be following a more easily penetrable fraud detection method.  Bottom line: keep the walls around your business the same height throughout. Until next time, best of luck as you continue to develop and improve your Red Flags programs.

The pendulum has definitely swung back in favor of the credit discipline within financial institutions. The free wheeling credit standards of the past have proven once again to be problematic. So, things like cost of credit, credit risk modeling, and scoring models are back in fashion. The trouble that we have created is that, in an effort to promote greater emphasis on the sales role, we centralized the underwriting function. This centralization allowed the sales team to focus on business development and underwriting, on credit. The unintended result, however, is that we removed the urgent need to develop credit professionals. Instead, we pushed for greater efficiencies and productivity in underwriting -- further stalling any consideration for the development of the credit professional.   Now we find ourselves with more problem credits than we have seen in the past 20 years and the pool of true credit professionals is nearly gone.   Once this current environment is corrected, let's be sure to keep balance in mind. Again, soundness, profitability and growth -- in that order of priority.

As someone heavily engaged with the market and our clients discussing Red Flag Rule compliance, Red Flag guidelines, etc...this question has come up over and over again.  You’d think by now I’d have a simple, clever, and strategically created product name to throw out there.  Well, I don’t, and here’s why: we had Red Flag relevant products before Red Flags were in vogue.  So, why didn’t we just rename them under the Red Flag brand?  Because honestly, that would border on irresponsibility.  Let me explain briefly… If you recall, the Red Flags Rule requires that covered institutions employ a written and operational Program that addresses the four mandatory elements of: • Identifying Red Flags applicable to covered accounts and incorporating them into the Program; • Detecting and evaluating the Red Flags included in the Program; • Responding to the Red Flags detected in a manner that is appropriate to the degree of risk they pose; and • Updating the Program to address changes in the risks to customers, and to the financial institution’s or creditor’s safety and soundness, from identity theft. You read in these requirements words like “applicable” and “appropriate” and “degree of risk.”  You don’t read words like “use this tool” or “detect this specific set of conditions.”  My point here is that, over the past year, we’ve been working with our clients to map in the “appropriate” and “applicable” set of products and services to allow them to become Red Flag compliant.  These products and services range in data leverage and provision, predictive power, decisioning, and of course, cost.  That is a good thing, as our clients require individualized tool sets and processes based on their serviced market, gathered information, consumer relationships, products offered, and risk associated with all of those factors. We don’t offer an unlimited or overwhelming number of Red Flag relevant products, but we do offer a diverse enough set that has afforded our clients an opportunity to select the best fit.  Whether you choose to adopt Experian as your Red Flag partner or another service provider, keep in mind that one size does not fit all, and be wary of those claiming to be just that.  As Red Flag examinations start rolling out in the coming months, there will be a focus on ensuring that your programs are comprehensive and effective.  Examiners will be looking at your programs, not your service provider.  Be sure to collaborate with your partners to meticulously apply the best solution.  At Experian, we’ve taken this collaborative approach with each of our clients, and have employed products ranging from our robust Precise ID SM consumer authentication platform to our Fraud Shield SM risk warning product.  Time spent up front in identifying your Red Flag requirements and working with your service provider to determine the best course of action will pay dividends down the road, and ensure you implement a compliant process once….not twice.