Get Smart About Core Contracts



Bank leaders focus on a number of issues when M&A is on their radar—but they shouldn’t overlook the bank’s core contract. Proactively negotiating with the core provider to account for a potential sale or acquisition can make or break a future deal. In this video, Aaron Silva of Paladin fs shares his advice for negotiating these vital contracts so they align with the bank’s strategy.

  • How Core Contracts Derail Deals
  • How to Mitigate Their Impact
  • Why and How to Conduct a Merger Readiness Assessment

The Story Behind 2018’s Most Transformative Deal


acquisition-2-8-19.pngMalcolm Holland, the CEO of Veritex Holdings in Dallas, Texas, wanted to expand in the Houston market in 2017 and was looking for a deal. He pursued three targets, but they were all snapped up by competing buyers.

Just as Holland was resigning himself to expand more slowly through de novo branch expansion, his phone rang. It was Geoffrey Greenwade, the president of Green Bancorp, a Houston-based bank with $4.4 billion in assets.

Would Holland be interested in meeting with Greenwade and Manuel Mehos, Green’s CEO and chairman? Greenwade asked.

Holland thought the executives were courting him. Instead, they asked if Veritex wanted to acquire Green.

It’s a unique story, as the now-$8 billion Veritex was smaller than Green when the deal was announced—Green’s balance sheet was 40 percent larger than Veritex’s.

The acquisition of Green—which closed on Jan. 1, 2019—has more than doubled the size of Veritex, and significantly increased its share in a second Texas market. It’s for these reasons that Bank Director identified this deal as the most transformative of 2018.

A deal as transformative as this—in which the seller is bigger than the buyer—is rare. With good reason: Most banks prefer bite-sized deals to minimize integration risk.

But this kind of deal can work well for the right buyer—expanding its capabilities and markets in one fell swoop.

To measure which of the deals announced in 2018 were the most transformative, Bank Director calculated seller assets as a percentage of buyer assets, using data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. The larger the seller compared to the buyer, the greater the opportunity and the more complicated the integration. We also examined seller size as an absolute value, to represent the deal’s transformative impact in its market.

You’ll find a list of the top ten deals at the end of this story.

Because the list does not award deal size alone, the two largest deals announced last year—Fifth Third Bancorp’s acquisition of $20 billion asset MB Financial and Synovus Financial Corp.’s acquisition of $12 billion asset FCB Financial Holdings—did not make the list. MB represented just 14 percent of Fifth Third’s assets and FCB 38 percent of Synovus.

Despite the difference in size, the deal between Veritex and Green made sense. “What we provided for them [was] a really clean credit history, and our stock had a higher value,” says Holland.

Just as importantly, says Holland, “I needed to mark their balance sheet. If they were going to be the accounting acquirer …. The deal would not have penciled out. So, I needed to acquire them, from an accounting standpoint, and mark their balance sheet down where it was appropriate.”

“Investors viewed the Veritex franchise maybe a little better than Green,” says Brett Rabatin, a senior research analyst at Piper Jaffray who covers Veritex. In 2015, a troubled energy sector resulted in a higher level of charge-offs in Green’s loan portfolio, raising concerns among investors that there could be further credit problems down the road.

Green addressed the energy exposure, and oil and gas represent a small portion of Veritex’s loan portfolio today, says Holland.

The combination roughly doubled Veritex’s branch footprint and has greatly expanded its presence in Houston—from one office to 11, giving Veritex the scale it needs to better compete in that market. The bank also gained expertise in commercial and middle market lending, as well as new treasury management products and services.

Green CFO Terry Earley has stayed on with Veritex in the same role, and Donald Perschbacher, Green’s chief credit officer, also joined the executive team. Greenwade is now president of the Houston market. Six directors from Veritex and three from Green, including Mehos, form the current board.

Holland isn’t afraid to adopt new practices from a seller that will improve his bank. It’s a lesson he’s learned over the years integrating the bank’s six previous acquisitions. “Individually, none of us could probably get where we can get together, and so let’s pick the best of each side, and together we will be better,” says Holland.

He’s also learned that integrating people—not technology and systems—ultimately determines the success of a transformative deal.

“The question is, how do you take that culture, your culture that’s been so successful, and institute it into their culture, yet picking up some of the things they do and putting into yours,” says Holland. The integration team spends time reviewing employee handbooks, for example, picking up new practices from the seller.

Culturally, Holland believes the Green acquisition is the best deal his bank has done. “Everybody pulling in the same direction, everybody working toward the same target. The openness and the collaboration have been unbelievable,” he says.

Veritex is now the 10th largest Texas-based banking franchise as a result of this transformative merger. “We think this bank has the ability to be a Texas powerhouse,” says Holland.

Ten Most Transformative Deals in 2018

Rank Buyer Seller Size of acquired bank (millions) Impact on size of acquirer Score*
1 Veritex Holdings (VBTX) Dallas, TX Green Bancorp (GNBC) Houston, TX $4,392 140% 3.33
2 WSFS Financial Corp. (WSFS) Wilmington, DE Beneficial Bancorp (BNCL) Philadelphia, PA $5,770 81% 8.33
3 Vantage Bancorp San Antonio, TX Inter National Bank McAllen, TX $1,379 250% 9.33
4 North Easton Savings Bank South Easton, MA Mutual Bank Whitman, MA $518 94% 24.7
5 CVB Financial Corp. (CVBF) Ontario, CA Community Bank (CYHT) Pasadena, CA $3,747 45% 27.0
6 Allegiance Bancshares (ABTX) Houston, TX Post Oak Bancshares Houston, TX $1,431 50% 27.7
7 Adam Bank Group College Station, TX Andrews Holding Co. Andrews, TX $639 60% 27.7
8 Ameris Bancorp (ABCB) Moultrie, GA Fidelity Southern Corp. (LION) Atlanta, GA $4,812 42% 28.3
9 Cadence Bancorp. (CADE) Houston, TX State Bank Financial Corp. (STBZ) Atlanta, GA $4,924 42% 28.7
10 Independent Bank Group (IBTX) McKinney, TX Guaranty Bancorp (GBNK) Denver, CO $3,722 42% 29.3

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence
*The score reflects how each deal ranked in terms of the impact of the seller’s size on that of the acquiring bank and the absolute size of the seller.

Should Banks Repurchase Stock Right Now?


stocks-2-5-19.pngWith expectations of regulatory reform and growth in organic capital generation, it is generally expected that over the next 12 months banks will continue to return capital to shareholders through continued M&A activity, dividend increases or share buybacks.

Given the current market environment, it is an opportune time for banks to consider initiating a share repurchase program.

As market volatility continues, a growing number of banks have been implementing share repurchase – or stock buyback – strategies to manage capital and shore up stability. During volatile periods, financial companies are frequently the first to feel the pain, and buyback programs are a means of getting in front of potential price dips and preserving value.

The buyback market set records in 2018 across many industries. As of late December, more than $1 trillion in share repurchase programs had been authorized – eclipsing the $655 billion total for 2017. The third quarter of 2018 was especially active, with financial institutions making up the third-largest sector. In the bank buyback space alone, 22 repurchase programs were announced in October, 18 in November and 27 in December.

chart.png

Generally, companies that participate in share repurchase programs are carrying cash on the balance sheet in excess of what is necessary to fund daily operations and growth opportunities. The question then becomes how to use it. Given the relative slowdown lately in the M&A market, buybacks have presented banks with the opportunity to accomplish a variety of goals.

Reasons why banks undertake share repurchase programs:

  • Reducing the number of outstanding shares can be accretive to earnings per share, making the company more attractive to investors 
  • A buyback signals to the market that a bank views its share price as undervalued
  • It can absorb overhang from capital markets transactions
  • These programs can help manage or optimize capital structure 
  • They return excess capital to shareholders 
  • Buybacks can offset or mitigate the dilution from employee equity compensation awards

What banks should keep in mind when pursuing buybacks:

  • It will reduce capital available for future growth and acquisitions
  • A buyback utilizes cash and regulatory capital and may impact book value
  • They will likely reduce the number of shareholders and future share liquidity.
  • The impacts are temporary.
  • Blackout periods may apply.
  • Banks with pending acquisitions where the target shareholder vote has not taken place cannot execute a buyback unless the transaction is paid with solely cash, or unless the bank was repurchasing shares pursuant to SEC Rule 10b-18 in the three months preceding the announcement.

While there is no cookie-cutter profile for companies that elect to participate in share repurchase programs–they vary in terms of market capitalization, balance sheet composition and industry sector – there is a well-defined and strictly regulated process these types of transactions must follow.

While SEC Rule 10b-18 governs the parameters of a buyback, including the manner of purchase, the timing of the repurchases, the prices paid and the volume of shares repurchased, companies executing a buyback program should consider the benefits of Rule 10b5-1.

The rule provides companies the ability to establish a buyback plan in an open window that can be executed during closed trading periods. Many companies establish 10b5-1 plans to ensure continuous execution of their buyback strategy and to take advantage of periods of market volatility where opportunistic purchases may be realized.

The buyback market is busy and breaking records. The Corporate & Executive Services team at Raymond James has discussed repurchase programs with more than 50 regional banks in recent months.

Now is a good time for banks with excess capital to weigh their options and reach out to partner firms that can help develop and execute successful repurchase strategies.

Investment products are: not deposits, not FDIC/NCUA insured, not insured by any government agency, not bank guaranteed, subject to risk and may lose value. © 2019 Raymond James & Associates, Inc., member New York Stock Exchange/SIPC. © 2019 Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., member FINRA/SIPC. Raymond James® is a registered trademark of Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Fuel for More M&A in 2019



How will economic factors like today’s strong stock market and rising interest rates, along with the banking industry’s demand for core deposits, impact profitability and growth in 2019? Dory Wiley of Commerce Street Capital predicts we’ll see more deals. Find out why in this video.

  • M&A Drivers in 2019
  • What to Know About Valuations
  • Powering Future Growth
  • Headwinds Facing the Industry

Who Will Lead the Bank Industry Into the Future?


leadership-2-1-19.pngLeadership is a central aspect of banking. Not only do bank executives lead their institutions, but directors who sit on bank boards tend to be leading members of their communities.

Indeed, it’s no coincidence that the biggest and tallest buildings in many cities and towns across the country are named after banks.

That’s why leadership was one underlying theme of this year’s Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired Conference held at the JW Marriott in Phoenix, Arizona.

It was the 25th anniversary of the conference, one of the marquee events in the banking industry each year.

The conference opened with a video tracing the major events in banking since 1994—a period of deregulation, consolidation and innovation.

In that time, the population of banks has been cut in half, Great Depression-era regulations have rolled back and the internet and iPhone have made it possible for three-quarters of deposit transactions at some banks to be completed from the comforts of bank customers’ own homes.

It was only fitting then to bookend the conference with some of the greatest leaders in the banking industry throughout this tumultuous time.

The first day concluded with the annual L. William Seidman CEO Panel, featuring Michael “Mick” Blodnick, the chief executive officer of Glacier Bancorp from 1998-2016, and Joe Turner, the CEO of Great Southern Bancorp since 2000.

The banks run by Blodnick and Turner have created more value than nearly all other publicly traded banks in the United States. Glacier ranks first in all-time total shareholder return—dividends plus share price appreciation—while Great Southern ranks fifth on the list.

As Blodnick and Turner explained on stage, there is no one right way to grow. Blodnick did so at Glacier through a series of 30 mergers and acquisitions, building one of the leading branch networks throughout the Rocky Mountain region.

Turner took a different approach at Great Southern. He and his father, who had run the bank from 1974 to 2000, focused instead on organic growth. They built a leading footprint in the Southwest corner of Missouri, and then, in the financial crisis, completed five FDIC-assisted transactions to spread their footprint into cities up the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

One consequence of this approach was it enabled Great Southern to consistently decrease its outstanding share count by upwards of 40 percent since originally going public, as it never had to issue shares to buy other banks.

Asked what one thing he wanted to share with the audience, Turner talked about the importance of ignoring shortsighted stock analysts. Despite Great Southern’s extraordinary returns through the years, it has rarely if ever been “buy” rated by the analyst community.

Why not? When the economy is great and other banks are growing at a rapid clip, Great Southern tempers its growth to avoid making imprudent loans. Then when times are tough, and a pall is cast over all stocks, Great Southern surges ahead.
Blodnick’s advice focused on M&A. For sellers, the goal should never be to get the last nickel, he explained. Rather, the goal should be to establish a partnership that will maximize value over time.

The conference also had a parallel track of sessions, FinXTech, focused on technology.

These sessions were often standing-room only. It was an obvious indication about what the future leaders of banking are focused on now.

Don MacDonald, the chief marketing officer of MX Technologies, took a particularly broad approach to the subject. Although his session ostensibly focused on harnessing data to increase growth and returns, he put the topic into historical perspective.

The question MacDonald was trying to answer was: How do we know if the banking industry has reached a genuine inflection point, after which the rules of the game, so to speak, have changed?

The answer to this question, MacDonald said, can be found in developing a framework for assessing change. That framework should include multiple forces in an industry, such as regulations, customer expectations and technology.

It’s only when multiple major forces experience change at or around the same time that a true strategic inflection point has been reached, explained MacDonald.

Has banking reached such a point?

MacDonald didn’t answer that question, but given the environment banks operate in right now with the growth of digital distribution channels and the ever-evolving regulatory regime, one would be excused for coming to that conclusion.

Given these two tracks—the general sessions focusing on banking and the FinXTech sessions focusing on technology—it was fitting that the final day of the conference was opened by John B. McCoy, the former CEO of Bank One, from 1984-99.
McCoy hails from the notoriously innovative McCoy banking dynasty, preceded by his father and grandfather. Bank One was one of the earliest adopters of credit cards, drive-through windows and ATMs, among other things.

Furthermore, it was McCoy’s approach to acquisitions at Bank One, where he completed more than 100 deals, that helped to inform Blodnick’s approach at Glacier. Known as the “uncommon partnership,” the approach focused on buying banks, but allowing them to retain their autonomy.

The decentralized aspect of the uncommon partnership left decision-making at the local level—within the acquired banks. It allowed Bank One and Glacier to have their cake and eat it too—growing through M&A, but leaving the leadership of the individual institutions where it belongs: In their local communities. This resulted in lower customer attrition, the scourge of most deals.

One overarching lesson from Acquire or Be Acquired is that banking is about facilitating the growth of communities, and the best people to spearhead this are the ones with the most on the line—the leaders of those communities.

How History’s Playbook Can Help You Grow Today


leadership-1-30-19.pngOne might assume that many attendees at Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired Conference in Arizona left town with an M&A game plan focused solely on their next acquisition, but a legendary banker suggested a different strategy.

John B. McCoy, the former chairman and chief executive officer of Banc One Corp., recommended during a presentation on the final day of the conference that bankers consider a strategy his father used that ended up revolutionizing banking.

This year’s conference, which celebrated its 25th anniversary, was held at the JW Marriott Phoenix Desert Ridge resort in Phoenix.

McCoy’s advice is a page taken directly from the playbook of his father, John G. McCoy, who founded Bank One and turned it into a regional powerhouse before it was eventually acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in 2004.

“One of the things he did, which I suggest for all of you, is he set aside that first year 4 percent of the profits, (which) went to (research and development) to do new things, not fix old problems,” McCoy said.

The advice is especially prescient today because the banking industry is being pressured to keep pace with an evolving digital economy and changing customer preferences for how they bank, especially in the retail sector.

Bank One spent that money building an exceptional retail franchise. It was the first bank to place ATMs in every branch, add drive-thru lanes at its branches, offer a Bank of America credit card and essentially invent the country’s first debit card.

“That set us off,” McCoy said. “One took us to the next.”

That investment strategy played an important role in its growth: Bank One’s assets grew from $140 million in 1958—when it was the smallest of three banks in Columbus, Ohio—to more than $8 billion 25 years later, eventually becoming the sixth-largest bank in the country.

Early in its history, Bank One pursued an ambitious M&A strategy where it bought dozens of small banks—first in Ohio and later in surrounding states—using a concept that it called the “Uncommon Partnership,” where it would leave the management team of the acquired bank in place while centralizing many of its back office functions to save money. In fact, McCoy said they would only acquire a bank if the CEO agreed to stay in place.

Bank One also limited the risks of its acquisition program by never buying a bank that was more than 20 percent of its own asset size.

An announcement on Monday that Detroit-based Chemical Financial Corp. was acquiring Minneapolis-based TCF Financial in a $3.6 billion deal, creating the country’s 27th largest bank with $45 billion in assets, also generated a lot of talk during the conference. Chemical and TCF billed the transaction as a merger of equals even though Chemical’s shareholders will own 54 percent of the merged company.

While some some conference presenters suggested that mergers of equals could occur with more frequency given the recent declines in bank valuations, which has made it more difficult for acquirers to pay a big takeover premium, others were more skeptical.

Tom Brown, founder and CEO of the hedge fund Second Curve Capital, which invests exclusively in banks and other financial companies, doubted that those deals will become regular. For one thing, there are significant social issues to resolve, like which CEO will end up running the company, how many directors from the two banks will constitute the new board and what will the new company’s name be. (In the TCF/Chemical deal, the new company’s headquarters will be in Chemical’s hometown of Detroit, but it will take the TCF name.)

“They’re just really tough to do,” Brown said during the conference’s closing session. “Someone who has been a CEO is not going to take a different role. And, while they all make great sense to me as an investor, the amount of work before the deal could even be agreed upon is just too challenging.”

Several speakers at the conference also said that smaller banks will need to gain scale to compete in a consolidating industry. Conventional wisdom says that scale helps improve efficiency, reduces costs and boosts profitability–but the urge to grow bigger purely for the scale must be tempered, Brown said.

“I talk to all sorts of CEO’s who are $250 billion assets and they still think they don’t have scale,” Brown said. “Let’s just stop using the get bigger to get scale idea because I haven’t seen that work yet.”

The Biggest Changes in Banking Since 1993


acquire-1-25-19.pngWhen Bank Director hosted its first Acquire or Be Acquired Conference 25 years ago, Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You” held the top spot on Billboard’s Top 40 chart.

Boston Celtics legend, Larry Bird, was about to retire.

Readers flocked to bookstores for the latest New York Times best seller: “The Bridges of Madison County.”

Bill Clinton had just been sworn in as president of the United States.

And the internet wasn’t yet on the public radar, nor was Sarbanes Oxley, the financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act, Occupy Wall Street or the #MeToo movement.

It was 1993, and buzzwords like “digital transformation” were more intriguing to science-fiction fans than to officers and directors at financial institutions.

My, how times have changed.

AL-CurtainRaiser-Image[1].png

When we introduced Acquire or Be Acquired to bank CEOs and leadership teams a quarter century ago, there were nearly 11,000 banks in the country. Federal laws prohibited interstate banking at the time, leaving it up to the states to decide if a bank holding company in one state would be allowed to acquire a bank in another state. And commercial and investment banks were still largely kept separate.

Today, there are fewer than half as many commercial banks—of the 10 banks with the largest markets caps in 1993, only five still exist as independent entities.

It’s not only the number of banks that has changed, either; the competitive dynamics of our industry have changed, too.

Three banks are so big that they’re prohibited from buying other banks. These behemoths—JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp.—each control more than 10 percent of total domestic deposits.

Some people see this as an evolutionary process, where the biggest and strongest players consume the weakest, painting a pessimistic, Darwinian picture of the industry.

Yet, this past year was the most profitable for banks in history.

Net income in the industry reached a record level in 2018, thanks to rising interest rates and the corporate tax cut.

Profitability benchmarks in place since the 1950s had to be raised. Return on assets jumped from 1 percent to 1.2 percent, return on equity climbed from 10 percent to 12 percent.

Nonetheless, ominous threats remain on the horizon, some drawing ever nearer.

  • Interest rates are rising, which could spark a recession and influence the allocation of deposits between big and little banks.
  • Digital banking is here. Three quarters of Bank of America’s deposits are completed digitally, with roughly the same percentage of mortgage applications at U.S. Bancorp completed on mobile devices.
  • Innovation will only accelerate, as banks continue investing in technology initiatives.
  • Credit quality is pristine now, but the cycle will turn. We are, after all, 40 quarters into what is now the second-longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
  • Consolidation will continue, though no one knows at what rate.

But it shouldn’t be lost that certain things haven’t changed. Chief among these is the fact that bankers and the institutions they run remain at the center of our communities, fueling this great country’s growth.

That’s why it’s been such an honor for us to host this prestigious event each year for the past quarter century.

For those joining us at the JW Marriott Desert Ridge outside Phoenix, Arizona, you’re in for a three-day treat. Can’t make it? Don’t despair: We intend to share updates from the conference via BankDirector.com and over social media platforms, including Twitter and LinkedIn, where we’ll be using the hashtag #AOBA19.

Today’s Outlook For Bank M&A



Bank Director’s 2019 Bank M&A Survey finds that many banks see themselves as prospective acquirers. However, as a result of a recent wave of industry optimism—fueled by strong loan demand and regulatory relief—fewer banks may want to sell in 2019. So how can buyers position themselves to win in a more competitive M&A marketplace? Rick Childs, a partner at survey sponsor Crowe LLP, shares how a strong strategy is key to success. He also provides his outlook for the banking environment in 2019.

  • Advice for Prospective Acquirers
  • Expectations for Bank M&A in 2019

In accordance with applicable professional standards, some firm services may not be available to attest clients. © 2019 Crowe LLP, an independent member of Crowe Global. crowe.com/disclosure

Dealing With Nonbank Buyers


merger-1-16-19.pngMergers and acquisitions in the banking industry historically have been relatively straight forward, but things are beginning to change.

Typically, there’s a familiar pattern: Bank A wants to sell. Banks B, C and D bid, and the winner moves forward with a merger at the bank or holding company level.

Over the past few years, there have been more instances where the buyer is not a traditional bank. Investor groups, fintech entities, credit unions and other nontraditional bank acquirers are becoming more interested in acquiring banks. There may be specific regulatory or operational challenges when the buyer is not a traditional bank or bank holding company.

Here are some factors that sellers should keep in mind at the beginning of the process.

The acquirer and transaction will need approval from regulators. If a buyer is not already “known” to banking, regulators may scrutinize the transaction more than if a traditional bank were involved.

Individual investors may need to submit Interagency Biographical and Financial Reports, or IBFRs, and that process may be more invasive and time consuming than a person not familiar with the banking industry would expect. If the buyer is forming an entity that will eventually control the bank, then the Federal Reserve will need to approve it as a bank holding company in connection with the change in control.

Ensure the buyer is prepared for the process. The sophistication and deal experience of nontraditional buyers varies broadly. Working through the process with investor groups and credit unions is important. Regulators may expect to see a detailed business plan regarding how the buyer plans to operate the bank following the transaction.

A seller should carefully review the business plan prior to committing to a transaction to ensure it is viable and to be comfortable regulators will approve the plan. In many instances, it may be appropriate to have pre-transaction conferences with the regulators to get their preliminary indication on any strengths and weaknesses of the proposed acquirers and their business plan.

The seller’s management team may be required post-closing. Many nontraditional buyers will not have their own, full management team in place to run the organization after closing. In those situations, the buyer may have additional pressure to deliver management along with the transaction.

Sellers should ensure management is on board with the transaction and that appropriate compensation tools like change-in-control agreements and stay-bonus arrangements are in place at the start of the process. Additionally, both parties should work early in the process to lock in any post-transaction employment arrangements.

Understand and negotiate the transaction structure. In a bank-to-bank transaction, the buffet of possible deal structures is fairly limited. The menu may expand with a nontraditional buyer, if it does not already have a holding company or existing entity formed. Depending on the situation, particularly the desired tax treatment by both parties, transactions can be structured as a stock purchase or merger at either the holding company or bank level. It is important to plan the transaction structure early, as it will impact what regulatory and corporate approvals are needed to complete the transaction.

Be sure the board is aware of, and understands, alternative strategies. There is enhanced risk that it will be more difficult to obtain regulatory approval for a transaction with a nontraditional buyer, and it may take longer to close the transaction. Therefore, it is that much more important that the board understands the process. For a potential seller, the board should be aware of the alternatives, so the company can change gears and execute a different strategy if the nontraditional buyer ends up not being a viable partner.

Every potential bank deal should be approached with the realization that the process can be lengthy. When a nontraditional buyer is involved, both the buyer and seller should work closely with one another in the beginning to help ensure that it will go as smoothly as possible. Fully understanding in the beginning what the resulting entity will look like at the end of the transaction (financially, structurally and operationally) is critical to being able to properly plan the transaction and to receive regulatory approval.

What You Should Know About M&A in 2019



Deal values have been rising, and economic factors—including regulatory easing and increased deposit competition—could drive more deals for regional acquirers, explains Deloitte & Touche Partner Matt Hutton in this video. He also shares how nontraditional acquisitions could impact deal structures, and the importance of due diligence and stress testing at this stage in the credit cycle.

  • Today’s M&A Environment
  • Deal Structure Considerations
  • Expectations for 2019
  • Advice for Boards and Management Teams