
In this article…
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus at nisl nunc. Sed et nunc a erat vestibulum faucibus. Sed fermentum placerat mi aliquet vulputate. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Maecenas ante dolor, venenatis vitae neque pulvinar, gravida gravida quam. Phasellus tempor rhoncus ante, ac viverra justo scelerisque at. Sed sollicitudin elit vitae est lobortis luctus. Mauris vel ex at metus cursus vestibulum lobortis cursus quam. Donec egestas cursus ex quis molestie. Mauris vel porttitor sapien. Curabitur tempor velit nulla, in tempor enim lacinia vitae. Sed cursus nunc nec auctor aliquam. Morbi fermentum, nisl nec pulvinar dapibus, lectus justo commodo lectus, eu interdum dolor metus et risus. Vivamus bibendum dolor tellus, ut efficitur nibh porttitor nec.
Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Maecenas facilisis pellentesque urna, et porta risus ornare id. Morbi augue sem, finibus quis turpis vitae, lobortis malesuada erat. Nullam vehicula rutrum urna et rutrum. Mauris convallis ac quam eget ornare. Nunc pellentesque risus dapibus nibh auctor tempor. Nulla neque tortor, feugiat in aliquet eget, tempus eget justo. Praesent vehicula aliquet tellus, ac bibendum tortor ullamcorper sit amet. Pellentesque tempus lacus eget aliquet euismod. Nam quis sapien metus. Nam eu interdum orci. Sed consequat, lectus quis interdum placerat, purus leo venenatis mi, ut ullamcorper dui lorem sit amet nunc. Donec semper suscipit quam eu blandit. Sed quis maximus metus. Nullam efficitur efficitur viverra. Curabitur egestas eu arcu in cursus.
H1
H2
H3
H4
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum dapibus ullamcorper ex, sed congue massa. Duis at fringilla nisi. Aenean eu nibh vitae quam auctor ultrices. Donec consequat mattis viverra. Morbi sed egestas ante. Vivamus ornare nulla sapien. Integer mollis semper egestas. Cras vehicula erat eu ligula commodo vestibulum. Fusce at pulvinar urna, ut iaculis eros. Pellentesque volutpat leo non dui aliquet, sagittis auctor tellus accumsan. Curabitur nibh mauris, placerat sed pulvinar in, ullamcorper non nunc. Praesent id imperdiet lorem.
H5
Curabitur id purus est. Fusce porttitor tortor ut ante volutpat egestas. Quisque imperdiet lobortis justo, ac vulputate eros imperdiet ut. Phasellus erat urna, pulvinar id turpis sit amet, aliquet dictum metus. Fusce et dapibus ipsum, at lacinia purus. Vestibulum euismod lectus quis ex porta, eget elementum elit fermentum. Sed semper convallis urna, at ultrices nibh euismod eu. Cras ultrices sem quis arcu fermentum viverra. Nullam hendrerit venenatis orci, id dictum leo elementum et. Sed mattis facilisis lectus ac laoreet. Nam a turpis mattis, egestas augue eu, faucibus ex. Integer pulvinar ut risus id auctor. Sed in mauris convallis, interdum mi non, sodales lorem. Praesent dignissim libero ligula, eu mattis nibh convallis a. Nunc pulvinar venenatis leo, ac rhoncus eros euismod sed. Quisque vulputate faucibus elit, vitae varius arcu congue et.
Ut convallis cursus dictum. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Ut eleifend eget erat vitae tempor. Nam tempus pulvinar dui, ac auctor augue pharetra nec. Sed magna augue, interdum a gravida ac, lacinia quis erat. Pellentesque fermentum in enim at tempor. Proin suscipit, odio ut lobortis semper, est dolor maximus elit, ac fringilla lorem ex eu mauris.
- Phasellus vitae elit et dui fermentum ornare. Vestibulum non odio nec nulla accumsan feugiat nec eu nibh. Cras tincidunt sem sed lacinia mollis. Vivamus augue justo, placerat vel euismod vitae, feugiat at sapien. Maecenas sed blandit dolor. Maecenas vel mauris arcu. Morbi id ligula congue, feugiat nisl nec, vulputate purus. Nunc nec aliquet tortor. Maecenas interdum lectus a hendrerit tristique. Ut sit amet feugiat velit.
- Test
- Yes

By: Tom Hannagan Part 2 In my last post, I started my review of the Uniform Bank Performance Reports for the two largest financial institution peer groups through the end of 2008. Now, lets look at the resutls relating to credit cost, loss allowance accounts and the impacts on earnings. Again, as you look at these results, I encourage you to consider the processes that your bank currently utilizes for credit risk modeling and financial risk management. Credit costs More loans, especially in an economic downturn, mean more credit risk. Credit costs were up tremendously. The Peer group 1 banks reported net loan losses of .89% of total loans. This is an increase from .28% in 2007, which was up from an average of 18 basis points on the portfolio in 2006/2005. The Peer group 2 banks reported net loan losses of .74%. This is also up substantially from 24 basis points in 2007 and an average of 15 basis points in 2006/2005. The net loan losses reported in the fourth quarter significantly boosted both groups’ year-end loss percentages above where they stood through the first three quarters last year. Loss allowance accounts Both groups also ramped up their reserve for future expected losses substantially. The year-end loss allowance account (ALLL) as a percent of total loans stood at 1.81% for the largest banks. This is an increase of almost 50% from an average of 1.21% in the years 2007/2004. Peer group 2 banks saw their reserve for losses go up to 1.57% from an average of 1.24% in the years 2007/2004. The combination of covering the increased net loan losses and also increasing the loss reserve balance required a huge provision expenses. So, loan balances were up even in the face of increased write-offs and expected forward losses. Impacts on earnings Obviously, we would expect this provisioning burden to negatively impact earnings. It did, greatly. Peer group 1 banks saw a decline in return on assets to a negative .07%. This is just below break-even as a group. The average net income percentage stood at .42% of average assets at the end of the third quarter. So, the washout in the fourth quarter reports took the group average to a net loss position for the year. The ROA was at .96% in 2007 and an average of 1.26% in 2006/2005. That is a 111% decline in ROA from 2007. Return on equity also went into the red, down from 11.97% in 2007. ROE stood at 14.36% in 2005. For the $1B to $3B banks, ROA stood at .35%. This is still a positive number, however, it is way down from 1.08% in 2007, 1.30% in 2006 and 1.33% in 2005. The decline in 2008 was 67% from 2007. ROE for the group was also down, at 4.11% from 12.37% in 2007. The drops in profitability were not entirely the result of credit losses, but this was by far the largest impact from 2007. The seriously beefed-up ALLL accounts would seem to indicate that, as a group, the banks expect further loan losses, at least through 2009. These numbers largely pre-dated the launch of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the tier one funding it provided in 2008. But, it is clear that banks had not contracted lending for all of 2008, even in the face of mounting credit issues and a declining economic picture. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in the next several quarters.

By: Tom Hannagan Part 1 It may be quite useful to compare your financial institution's portfolio risk management process or your investment plans , to the results of peer group averages. Not all banks are the same — believe it or not. Here are the averages. You should look for differences in your target institution. About half of them beat certain performance numbers and the other half may be naturally worse. As promised, I have again reviewed the Uniform Bank Performance Reports for the two largest peer groups through the end 2008. The Uniform Bank Performance Report (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 and here are a few notable findings for the two largest groups that covers 494 reporting banks. Peer group 1 Peer group 1 consisted of 189 institutions over $3 billion in average total assets for the year. Net loans accounted for 67.31% of average total assets, which is up from 65.79 % in 2007. Loans, as a percent of assets, have increased steadily since at least 2004. The loan-to-deposit ratio for the largest banks was also up to 96% from 91% in 2007 and 88% in both 2006 and 2005. So, it appears these banks were lending more in 2008 as an allocation of their total asset base and relative to their deposit sources of funding. In fact, net loans grew at a rate of 9.34% for this group, which is down from the average growth rate of 15.07% for the years 2005 through 2007. The growth rate in loans is down, which is probably due to tightened credit standards. However, it is still growth. And, since total average assets also had growth of 11.58% in 2008, the absolute dollars of loan balances increased at the largest banks. Peer group 2 Peer group 2 consisted of 305 reporting financial institutions between $1B and $3B in total assets. The net loans accounted for 72.96% of average total assets, up from 71.75% in 2007. Again, the loans as a percent of total assets have increased steadily since at least 2004. The loan-to-deposit ratio for these banks was up to 95% from 92% in 2007 and an average of 90% for 2006 and 2005. So, these banks are also lending more in 2008 as a portion of their asset base and relative to their deposit source of funding. Net loans grew at a rate of 10.48% for this group in 2008 which is down from 11.94% growth in 2007 and down from an average growth of 15.04% for 2006 and 2005. And, since total average assets also had growth of 10.02% in 2008, the absolute dollars of loan balances also increased at the intermediate size banks. Again here, the growth rate in loans is down, probably due to tightened credit standards, but it is still growth and it is at a slightly more aggressive rate than the largest bank group. Combined, for these 494 largest financial institutions, loans were still growing through 2008 both as a percentage of asset allocation and in absolute dollars. Tune in to my next blog to read more about the results shown relating to credit costs, loss allowance accounts and the impacts on earnings.

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!


