By: Tom Hannagan While waiting on the compilation of fourth quarter banking industry results, I thought it might be interesting to relate the commercial real estate (CRE) risk management position facing commercial banks from the third quarter. CRE risk is an important consideration in enterprise risk management and for loan pricing and profitability. The slowdown in the global economy has affected CRE credit risk because of increased vacancy rates, halted development projects, and the loss of value affecting commercial properties. As CRE loans come up for renewal, many will find that there have equity deficits and that they are facing tightened credit standards. If a commercial property loan started life at 80 percent loan to value, and the property value has dropped 25 percent, the renewed loan balance will be down at least 25 percent, requiring a substantial net payoff from the borrower. This net cash payoff requirement would be tough to accomplish in good times and all-but-impossible for many borrowers in this economy. After all, the main reason for the decline in property value to begin with is its reduced cash flow performance. Following the third quarter numbers, total U.S. commercial real estate is generally estimated at $3.4 to $3.5 trillion. Commercial banks owned just over half of that debt, or about $1.8 trillion according to Federal Reserve and FDIC sources. The (possibly only) good news with that total is that commercial banks owned a relatively small share of the commercial-mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) slice of CRE exposure. CMBS assets were 21 percent of total CRE credit or $714 billion, but banks owned a total of $54 billion, which represented only 3 percent of total bank CRE assets. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for construction lending. U.S. banks, in total, had $486 to $534 billion (depending on the source) in construction and land loans, representing 27 percent to 30 percent of banks’ total CRE holdings. The true credit risk management picture is much more revealing if we cut the numbers by bank size. According to Deutsche Bank research, the largest 97 banks (those with over $10 billion in total assets) had $14.8 trillion in total assets and $1.0 trillion of the banking industry’s CRE credits.  This amounts to about 7 percent of the total assets for this group of larger banks. The 7,500 community banks, with aggregate assets of $2 trillion, had about $786 billion in CRE lending. This amounts to about 28 percent of total assets. That is roughly four times the level of exposure found in the larger banks. The 7 percent level of credit risk average exposure at the large bank group is less than their average level of equity or risk-based capital. For the banks under the $10 billion level, the 28 percent level of CRE exposure is almost three times their average equity position. The riskiest portion of CRE lending is clearly the construction and land development loans. The subtotals in this area confirm where the cumulative risk lies. Again, according to Deutsche Bank research, the largest 97 banks had $299 billion of the banking industry’s $534 billion in construction loans. Although this is 56 percent of total bank construction lending, it amounts to only 2 percent of this group’s total assets.  The 7,500 community banks had aggregate construction loans of $235 billion. This amounts to about 8.5 percent of total assets. That is a bit over four times the level of exposure found in the larger banks. The 2 percent level of construction credit risk exposure at the large bank group is one-fourth of their average level of common equity. At banks under the $10 billion level, the 8.5 percent level of CRE exposure, compared to total assets, is about the same as their average equity position. According to Moody’s, bank have already taken about $90 billion in net loan losses in CRE assets through the third quarter of 2009. That means the industry has perhaps another $150 billion in write-offs coming. This would total $240 billion in CRE credit losses for the banking industry due to this economic downturn. That would equate to 13.3 percent of the banking industry’s share of total CRE credit. With the decline in commercial property values ranging from 10 percent to 40 percent, a 13 percent loss is certainly not a worst case scenario. Banks have ramped up their loss reserves, and although the numbers aren’t out yet, we know many banks have used the fourth quarter 2009 to further bolster their allowances for loan and lease losses (ALLL). The larger the ALLL, the safer the risk-based equity account. Risk managers are aware of all of this and banks are very actively developing their strategies to handle the refunding requirements and, at the same time, be in a position to explain to regulators and external auditor how they are protecting shareholders. But the numbers are very daunting and not every bank will have enough net cash flow and risk equity to cover the inevitable losses.  

My last entry covered the benefits of consortium databases and industry collaboration in general as a proven and technologically feasible method for combating fraud across industries.  They help minimize fraud losses.  So – with some notable exceptions – why are so few industries and companies using fraud consortiums and known fraud databases? In my experience, the reasons typically boil down to two things: reluctance to share data and perception of ROI.  I say "perception of ROI" because I firmly believe the ROI is there – in fact it grows with the number of consortium participants. First, reluctance to share data seems to stem from a few areas. One is concern for how that data will be used by other consortium members.  This is usually addressed through compelling reciprocation of data contribution by all members (the give to get model) as well as strict guidelines for acceptable use. In today’s climate of hypersensitivity, another concern – rightly so – is the stewardship of Personally Identifiable Information (PII).  Given the potentially damaging effects of data breaches to consumers and businesses, smart companies are extremely cautious and careful when making decisions about safeguarding consumer information.  So how does a data consortium deal with this?  Firewalls, access control lists, encryption, and other modern security technologies provide the defenses necessary to facilitate protection of information contributed to the consortium. So, let’s assume we’ve overcome the obstacles to sharing one’s data.  The other big hurdle to participation that I come across regularly is the old “what’s in it for me” question.  Contributors want to be sure that they get out of it what they put into it.  Nobody wants to be the only one, or the largest one, contributing records. In fact, this issue extends to intracompany consortiums as well.  No line of business wants to be the sole sponsor just to have other business units come late to the party and reap all the benefits on their dime.  Whether within companies or across an industry, it’s obvious that mutual funding, support, equitable operating rules, and clear communication of benefits – to those contributors both big and small – is necessary for fraud consortiums to succeed. To get there, it’s going to take a lot more interest and participation from industry leaders.  What would this look like? I think we’d see a large shift in companies’ fraud columns: from “Discovered” to “Attempted”.  This shift would save time and money that could be passed back to the legitimate customers.  More participation would also enable consortiums to stay on top of changing technology and evolving consumer communication styles, such as email, text, mobile banking, and voice biometrics to name a few.  

By: Amanda Roth Last week, we discussed how pricing with competition is important to ensure sound decision practices are being implemented in the domains of loan pricing and profitability.  The extreme of pricing too high for the market can obviously be detrimental to your organization.  The other extreme can be just as dangerous. Pricing for your profitability, regardless of what the competition is charging in your area, has a few potential issues associated with it regarding management of risk.  For example, the statistics state you can charge 5 percent in your “A” tier and still be profitable, but the competition is charging 7.5 percent for the same tier.  You may be thinking that by offering 5 percent you will attract the “best of the best” to your organization.  However, what your statistics may not be showing you is the risk outside of your applicant base.  If you significantly change the customers you are bringing in, does your risk increase as well, ultimately increasing the cost associated with each loan?   Increased costs will reduce or even eliminate the profitability you had expected. A second potential issue is setting the expectation within the marketplace.  It is often understood with the consumers that when changes occur to the interest rate at the federal level, there will be changes at their local financial institution.  These changes are often very small.  By undercutting your competition by such an extreme amount, your customers may question any attempts to raise rates more than 50bp, if you do experience increased costs as a result of the earlier situation or any other factors.  A safer strategy would be to charge between 6.5 percent and 7 percent, which allows you to obtain some of the best customers, ensure stability within the market, and take advantage of additional profitability while it is available.  This is definitely a winning strategy for all — and an important consideration as you develop your portfolio risk management objectives.    

By: Tom Hannagan While waiting on the compilation of fourth quarter banking industry results, I thought it might be interesting to relate the commercial real estate (CRE) risk management position facing commercial banks from the third quarter. CRE risk is an important consideration in enterprise risk management and for loan pricing and profitability. The slowdown in the global economy has affected CRE credit risk because of increased vacancy rates, halted development projects, and the loss of value affecting commercial properties. As CRE loans come up for renewal, many will find that there have equity deficits and that they are facing tightened credit standards. If a commercial property loan started life at 80 percent loan to value, and the property value has dropped 25 percent, the renewed loan balance will be down at least 25 percent, requiring a substantial net payoff from the borrower. This net cash payoff requirement would be tough to accomplish in good times and all-but-impossible for many borrowers in this economy. After all, the main reason for the decline in property value to begin with is its reduced cash flow performance. Following the third quarter numbers, total U.S. commercial real estate is generally estimated at $3.4 to $3.5 trillion. Commercial banks owned just over half of that debt, or about $1.8 trillion according to Federal Reserve and FDIC sources. The (possibly only) good news with that total is that commercial banks owned a relatively small share of the commercial-mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) slice of CRE exposure. CMBS assets were 21 percent of total CRE credit or $714 billion, but banks owned a total of $54 billion, which represented only 3 percent of total bank CRE assets. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for construction lending. U.S. banks, in total, had $486 to $534 billion (depending on the source) in construction and land loans, representing 27 percent to 30 percent of banks’ total CRE holdings. The true credit risk management picture is much more revealing if we cut the numbers by bank size. According to Deutsche Bank research, the largest 97 banks (those with over $10 billion in total assets) had $14.8 trillion in total assets and $1.0 trillion of the banking industry’s CRE credits.  This amounts to about 7 percent of the total assets for this group of larger banks. The 7,500 community banks, with aggregate assets of $2 trillion, had about $786 billion in CRE lending. This amounts to about 28 percent of total assets. That is roughly four times the level of exposure found in the larger banks. The 7 percent level of credit risk average exposure at the large bank group is less than their average level of equity or risk-based capital. For the banks under the $10 billion level, the 28 percent level of CRE exposure is almost three times their average equity position. The riskiest portion of CRE lending is clearly the construction and land development loans. The subtotals in this area confirm where the cumulative risk lies. Again, according to Deutsche Bank research, the largest 97 banks had $299 billion of the banking industry’s $534 billion in construction loans. Although this is 56 percent of total bank construction lending, it amounts to only 2 percent of this group’s total assets.  The 7,500 community banks had aggregate construction loans of $235 billion. This amounts to about 8.5 percent of total assets. That is a bit over four times the level of exposure found in the larger banks. The 2 percent level of construction credit risk exposure at the large bank group is one-fourth of their average level of common equity. At banks under the $10 billion level, the 8.5 percent level of CRE exposure, compared to total assets, is about the same as their average equity position. According to Moody’s, bank have already taken about $90 billion in net loan losses in CRE assets through the third quarter of 2009. That means the industry has perhaps another $150 billion in write-offs coming. This would total $240 billion in CRE credit losses for the banking industry due to this economic downturn. That would equate to 13.3 percent of the banking industry’s share of total CRE credit. With the decline in commercial property values ranging from 10 percent to 40 percent, a 13 percent loss is certainly not a worst case scenario. Banks have ramped up their loss reserves, and although the numbers aren’t out yet, we know many banks have used the fourth quarter 2009 to further bolster their allowances for loan and lease losses (ALLL). The larger the ALLL, the safer the risk-based equity account. Risk managers are aware of all of this and banks are very actively developing their strategies to handle the refunding requirements and, at the same time, be in a position to explain to regulators and external auditor how they are protecting shareholders. But the numbers are very daunting and not every bank will have enough net cash flow and risk equity to cover the inevitable losses.  

My last entry covered the benefits of consortium databases and industry collaboration in general as a proven and technologically feasible method for combating fraud across industries.  They help minimize fraud losses.  So – with some notable exceptions – why are so few industries and companies using fraud consortiums and known fraud databases? In my experience, the reasons typically boil down to two things: reluctance to share data and perception of ROI.  I say "perception of ROI" because I firmly believe the ROI is there – in fact it grows with the number of consortium participants. First, reluctance to share data seems to stem from a few areas. One is concern for how that data will be used by other consortium members.  This is usually addressed through compelling reciprocation of data contribution by all members (the give to get model) as well as strict guidelines for acceptable use. In today’s climate of hypersensitivity, another concern – rightly so – is the stewardship of Personally Identifiable Information (PII).  Given the potentially damaging effects of data breaches to consumers and businesses, smart companies are extremely cautious and careful when making decisions about safeguarding consumer information.  So how does a data consortium deal with this?  Firewalls, access control lists, encryption, and other modern security technologies provide the defenses necessary to facilitate protection of information contributed to the consortium. So, let’s assume we’ve overcome the obstacles to sharing one’s data.  The other big hurdle to participation that I come across regularly is the old “what’s in it for me” question.  Contributors want to be sure that they get out of it what they put into it.  Nobody wants to be the only one, or the largest one, contributing records. In fact, this issue extends to intracompany consortiums as well.  No line of business wants to be the sole sponsor just to have other business units come late to the party and reap all the benefits on their dime.  Whether within companies or across an industry, it’s obvious that mutual funding, support, equitable operating rules, and clear communication of benefits – to those contributors both big and small – is necessary for fraud consortiums to succeed. To get there, it’s going to take a lot more interest and participation from industry leaders.  What would this look like? I think we’d see a large shift in companies’ fraud columns: from “Discovered” to “Attempted”.  This shift would save time and money that could be passed back to the legitimate customers.  More participation would also enable consortiums to stay on top of changing technology and evolving consumer communication styles, such as email, text, mobile banking, and voice biometrics to name a few.  

By: Amanda Roth Last week, we discussed how pricing with competition is important to ensure sound decision practices are being implemented in the domains of loan pricing and profitability.  The extreme of pricing too high for the market can obviously be detrimental to your organization.  The other extreme can be just as dangerous. Pricing for your profitability, regardless of what the competition is charging in your area, has a few potential issues associated with it regarding management of risk.  For example, the statistics state you can charge 5 percent in your “A” tier and still be profitable, but the competition is charging 7.5 percent for the same tier.  You may be thinking that by offering 5 percent you will attract the “best of the best” to your organization.  However, what your statistics may not be showing you is the risk outside of your applicant base.  If you significantly change the customers you are bringing in, does your risk increase as well, ultimately increasing the cost associated with each loan?   Increased costs will reduce or even eliminate the profitability you had expected. A second potential issue is setting the expectation within the marketplace.  It is often understood with the consumers that when changes occur to the interest rate at the federal level, there will be changes at their local financial institution.  These changes are often very small.  By undercutting your competition by such an extreme amount, your customers may question any attempts to raise rates more than 50bp, if you do experience increased costs as a result of the earlier situation or any other factors.  A safer strategy would be to charge between 6.5 percent and 7 percent, which allows you to obtain some of the best customers, ensure stability within the market, and take advantage of additional profitability while it is available.  This is definitely a winning strategy for all — and an important consideration as you develop your portfolio risk management objectives.