How Bank Executives Can Address Signs of Trouble

As 2021’s “roaring” consumer confidence grinds to a halt, banks everywhere are strategizing about how best to deal with the tumultuous days ahead.

Jack Henry’s annual Strategic Priorities Benchmark Study, released in August 2022, surveyed banks and credit unions in the U.S. and found that many financial institutions share the same four concerns and goals:

1. The Economic Outlook
The economic outlook of some big bank executives is shifting. In June 2022, Bernstein Research hosted its 38th Annual Strategic Decisions Conference where some chief executives leading the largest banks in the U.S., including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co. and Morgan Stanley, talked about the current economic situation. Their assessment was not entirely rosy. As reported by The New York Times, JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon called the looming economic uncertainty a “hurricane.” How devastating that hurricane will be remains a question.

2. Hiring and Retention
The Jack Henry survey also found 60% of financial institution CEOs are concerned about hiring and retention, but there may be some hope. A 2022 national study, conducted by Alkami Technology and The Center for Generational Kinetics, asked over 1,500 US participants about their futures with financial institutions. Forty percent responded they are likely to consider a career at a regional or community bank or credit union, with significant portion of responses within the Generation Z and millennial segments.

3. Waning Customer Loyalty
The imperative behind investing in additional features and services is a concern about waning customer loyalty. For many millennials and Gen Z bank customers, the concept of having a primary financial institution is not in their DNA. The same study from above found that 64% of that cohort is unsure if their current institution will remain their primary institution in the coming year. The main reason is the ease of digital banking at many competing fintechs.

4. Exploding Services and Payment Trends
Disruptors and new competition are entering the financial services space every day. Whether a service, product or other popular trend, a bank’s account holders and wallet share are being threatened. Here are three trends that bank executives should closely monitor.

  • The subscription economy. Recurring monthly subscriptions are great for businesses and convenient for customers: a win-win. Not so much for banks. The issue for banks is: How are your account holders paying for those subscriptions? If it’s with your debit or credit card, that’s an increased source of revenue. But if they’re paying through an ACH or another credit card, that’s a lost opportunity.
  • Cryptocurrency. Your account holders want education and guidance when it comes to digital assets. Initially, banks didn’t have much to do with crypto. Now, 44% of execs at financial institutions nationwide plan to offer cryptocurrency services by the end of 2022; 60% expect their clients to increase their crypto holdings, according to Arizent Research
  • Buy now, pay later (BNPL). Consumers like BNPL because it allows them to pay over time; oftentimes, they don’t have to go through a qualification process. In this economy, consumers may increasingly use it to finance essential purchases, which could signal future financial trouble and risk for the bank.

The Salve for It All: The Application of Data Insights
Banks need a way to attract and retain younger account holders in order to build a future-proof foundation. The key to dealing with these challenges is having a robust data strategy that works around the clock for your institutions. Banks have more data than ever before at their disposal, but data-driven marketing and strategies remains low in banking overall.

That’s a mistake, especially when it comes to data involving how, when and why account holders are turning to other banks, or where banks leave revenue on the table. Using their own first-party data, banks can understand how their account holders are spending their money to drive strategic business decisions that impact share of wallet, loyalty and growth. It’s also a way to identify trouble before it takes hold.

In these uncertain economic times, the proper understanding and application of data is the most powerful tool banks can use to stay ahead of their competition and meet or exceed account holder expectations.

Digital Transformation Starts With the Customer

Digital transformation isn’t an end unto itself; the goal should ultimately be to make your customers’ financial lives easier. Without figuring out what customers need help with, a bank’s digital journey lacks strategic focus, and risks throwing good money after bad. In this video, Devin Smith, experience principal at Active Digital, walks through the key questions executives should ask when investing in digital transformation.

  • Customer Centricity
  • Creating a Cohesive Experience
  • Build versus Buy

Tales From Bank Boardrooms

If anyone in banking has seen it all, it’s Jim McAlpin. 

He’s sat in on countless board deliberations since he got his start under the late Walt Moeling, a fellow Alabamian who served as his mentor at Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, which later merged with Bryan Cave in 2009. 

“That’s how I started in the banking world, literally carrying Walt’s briefcase to board meetings. Which sometimes was a very heavy briefcase,” quips McAlpin. Moeling made sure that the young McAlpin worked with different attorneys at the firm, learning various ways to practice law and negotiate on behalf of clients. “He was my home base, but I also did lending work, I did securities work, I did some real estate work. I did a lot of M&A work” in the 1990s, including deals for private equity firms and other companies outside the banking sector.

But it’s his keen interest in interpersonal dynamics and his experience in corporate boardrooms, fueled by almost four decades attending board meetings as an attorney and board member himself, that has made McAlpin a go-to resource on corporate governance matters. Today, he’s a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, and he recently joined the board of DirectorCorps, Bank Director’s parent company. 

“I’ve gone to hundreds of meetings, and each board is different. You can have the same set of circumstances more or less, be doing the same kind of deal, facing the same type of issue or regulatory situation,” he says. “But each set of people approaches it differently. And that fascinates me.”  

McAlpin’s a consummate storyteller with ample anecdotes that he easily ties to lessons learned about corporate governance. Take the time he broke up a physical fight during the financial crisis. 

“During that time period, I saw a lot of people subjected to stress,” he says. “There are certain people who, under stress, really rise to the occasion, and it’s not always the people you think are going to do so. And then there are others who just fall apart, who crumble. Collectively as a board, it matters.”

Boards function based on the collection of individual personalities, and whether or not those directors are on the same page about their organization’s mission, goals and values. McAlpin’s intrigued by it, saying that for good boards, the culture “permeates the room.”

McAlpin experienced the 1990s M&A boom and the industry’s struggles through the financial crisis. On the precipice of uncertainty, as interest rates rise and banks weather technological disruption, he remains bullish on banking. “This is a good time to be in banking,” he says. “It’s harder to get an M&A deal done this year. So, I think it’s caused a lot of people to step back and say, ‘OK, what are we going to do over the next few years to improve the profitability of our bank, to grow our bank, to promote organic growth?’. … [That’s] the subject of a lot of focus within bank boardrooms.”

McAlpin was interviewed for The Slant podcast ahead of Bank Director’s Bank Board Training Forum, where he spoke about the practices that build stronger boards and weighed in on the results of the 2022 Governance Best Practices Survey, which is sponsored by Bryan Cave. In the podcast, McAlpin shares his stories from bank boardrooms, his views on corporate culture and M&A, and why he’s optimistic about the state of the industry. 

Digitizing Documentation: The Missed Opportunity in Banking

To keep up in an increasingly competitive world, banks have embraced the need for digital transformation, upgrading their technology stacks to automate processes and harness data to help them grow and find operational efficiencies.

However, while today’s community and regional banks are increasingly making the move to digital, their documentation and contracting are still often overlooked in this transformation – and left behind. This “forgotten transformation” means their documentation remains analog, which means their processes also remain analog, increasing costs, time, data errors and risk.

What’s more, documentation is the key that drives the back-office operations for all banks. Everything from relationship management to maintenance updates and new business proposals rely on documents. This is especially true for onboarding new clients.

The Challenges of Onboarding
Onboarding has been a major focus of digital transformation efforts for many banks. While account opening has become more accessible, it also arguably requires more customer effort than ever. These pain points are often tied back to documentation: requesting multiple forms of ID or the plethora of financial details needed for background verification and compliance. This creates friction at the first, and most important, interaction with a new customer.

While evolving regulatory concerns in areas such as Know-Your-Customer rules as well as Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance have helped lower banks’ risks, it often comes at the expense of the customer experience. Slow and burdensome processes can frustrate customers who are accustomed to smoother experiences in other aspects of their digital lives.

The truth is that a customer’s perception of the effort required to work with a bank is a big predictor of loyalty. Ensuring customers have a quick, seamless onboarding experience is critical to building a strong relationship from the start, and better documentation plays a key role in better onboarding.

An additional challenge for many banks is that employees see onboarding and its associated documentation as a time consuming and complicated process from an operations perspective. It can take days or even weeks to onboard a new retail customer and for business accounts it can be much worse; a Deloitte report suggests it can take some banks up to 16 weeks to onboard a new commercial customer. Most often, the main problems in onboarding stem from backend processes that are manual when it comes to documentation, still being largely comprised of emails, word documents and repositories that sit in unrelated silos across an organization, collecting numerous, often redundant, pieces of data.

While all data can be important, better onboarding requires more collaboration and transparency between banks and their customers. This means banks should be more thoughtful in their approach to onboarding, ensuring they are using data from their core to the fullest to reduce redundant and manual processes and to make the overall process more streamlined. The goal is to maximize the speed for the customer while minimizing the risk for the bank.

Better Banking Through Better Documentation
Many banks do not see documentation as a data issue. However, by taking a data-driven approach, one that uses data from the core and feed backs into it, banks transform documents into data and, in turn, into an opportunity. Onboarding documents become a key component of the bank’s overall, end-to-end digital chain. This can have major impacts for banks’ operational efficiencies as well as bottom lines. In addition to faster onboarding to help build stronger customer relationships, a better documentation process means better structured data, which can offer significant competitive advantages in a crowded market.

When it comes to documentation capabilities, flexibility is key. This can be especially true for commercial customers. An adaptable solution can feel less “off the shelf” and provide the flexibility to meet individual client needs, while giving a great customer experience and maintaining regulatory guidelines. This can also provide community bankers with the ability to focus on what they do best, building relationships and providing value to their customers, rather than manually gathering and building documents.

While digitizing the documents is critical, it is in many ways the first step to a better overall process. Banks must also be able to effectively leverage this digitized data, getting it to the core, and having it work with other data sources.

Digital transformation has become an imperative for most community banks, but documentation continues to be overlooked entirely in these projects. Even discounting the operational impacts, documents ultimately represent the two most important “Rs” for banks – relationships and revenue, which are inextricably tied. By changing how they approach and treat client documentation, banks can be much more effective in not only the customer onboarding process, but also in responding to those customer needs moving forward, strengthening those relationships and driving revenue now and in the future.

Research Report: Fortifying Boards for the Future

Good corporate governance requires, among many other things, a strong sense of balance.

How do you bring in new perspectives while also sticking to your core values? How does the board balance responsibilities among committees? What’s the right balance between discussion about the fundamentals of banking, versus key trends and emerging issues?

There’s an inherent tension between the introduction of new ideas or practices and standard operating procedures. We explore these challenges in Bank Director’s 2022 Governance Best Practices Survey, sponsored by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. But tension isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The survey polled 234 directors, chairs and chief executives at U.S. banks with less than $100 billion in assets during February and March 2022. Half of respondents hailed from banks with $1 billion to $10 billion of assets. Just 9% represent a bank above the $10 billion mark. Half were independent directors.

We divide the analysis into five modules in this report: board culture, evaluating performance, building knowledge, committee structure and environmental, social and governance oversight in the boardroom. Jim McAlpin, a partner at the Bryan Cave law firm in Atlanta and leader of the firm’s banking governance practice, advised us on the survey questions and shared his expertise in examining the results.

We also sought the insights of three independent bank directors: Samuel Combs III, a director and chair of the board’s governance committee at $2.8 billion First Fidelity Bancorp in Oklahoma City; Sally Steele, lead director with $15.6 billion Community Bank System in DeWitt, New York; and Maryann Goebel, the compensation and governance chair at $11 billion Seacoast Banking Corp. of Florida, which is based in Stuart, Florida. They weighed in on a range of governance practices and ideas, from the division of audit and risk responsibilities to board performance assessments.

The proportion of survey respondents representing boards that conduct an annual performance assessment rose slightly from the previous year’s survey, to 47%. Their responses indicate that many boards leverage evaluations as an opportunity to give and receive valuable feedback — rather than as an excuse to handle a problem director.

Forty-seven percent of respondents describe their board’s culture as strong, while another 45% rank it as “generally good,” so the 30% whose board doesn’t conduct performance assessments may believe that their board’s culture and practices are solid. Or in other words, why fix something that isn’t broken? However, there’s always room for improvement.

Combs and Steele both attest that performance evaluations, when conducted by a third party to minimize bias and ensure anonymity, can be a useful tool for measuring the board’s engagement.

Training and assessment practices vary from board to board, but directors also identify some consistent knowledge gaps in this year’s results. Survey respondents view cybersecurity, digital banking and e-commerce, and technology as the primary areas where their boards need more training and education. And respondents are equally split on whether their board would benefit from a technology committee, if it doesn’t already have one.

And while directors certainly do not want to be mandated into diversifying their ranks, in anonymous comments some respondents express a desire to get new blood into the boardroom and detail the obstacles to recruiting new talent.

“Our community bank wants local community leaders to serve on our board who reflect our community,” writes one respondent. “Most local for[-] profit and not-for-profit boards are working to increase their board diversity, and there are limited numbers of qualified candidates to serve.”

To read more about these critical board issues, read the white paper.

To view the results of the survey, click here.

Using the Succession Plan to Evaluate Talent

Boards have many duties, from overseeing the long-term strategy of the institution, to approving executive pay packages, to vetting and approving the budget. But one job that they often leave for another day: succession planning. Yet, for forward-thinking banks, having a process for succession not only can strengthen the organization in the future, but also build talent today.

Brian Moynihan, chairman and CEO of Bank of America Corp., recently spoke about this very fact. Despite not having plans to leave the institution he’s led since 2010, the 62-year-old Moynihan explained that the bank reworks its succession plan twice a year.

We have a deep succession planning process that we go through every six months [on] the board that alternates between the senior most people and then … I do it multiple levels down so we’re always looking,” said Moynihan in an interview last December with CNBC’s Closing Bell. “The board will pick somebody. My job is to have many people prepared.”

Such a clear process makes Bank of America unique, in some regards. While surveys over the years have tried to pinpoint how many companies have formal succession plans, organizations often avoid outlining it to investors, leaving it an open question. The Securities and Exchange Commission revised disclosure rules in November 2020 to encourage companies to outline human capital resources, like diversity rates, employment practices, and compensation and benefits. Of the first 100 forms filed by companies with $1 billion in market capitalization, only 5% of the companies added any additional detail to the succession planning process, according to researchers working with Stanford University and corporate data provider Equilar. Bank Director’s 2019 Compensation Survey found 37% of bank executives and board members reporting that their bank had not designated a successor or potential successors for the CEO.

So much of a bank’s long-term success has to do with having a clear plan if the head of the business must leave. This becomes especially true if the CEO must step aside suddenly, like for a health concern or other emergency. It’s on the board to lead this search. But when done right, it can also become a powerful tool to prepare internal and external talent, a process embraced by the current CEO. 

David Larcker has studied CEO succession planning as a professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business, where he leads the school’s Corporate Governance Research Initiative. “One of the two key things that boards do is hiring and firing the CEO,” says Larcker. Many boards, though, “do not put in enough time and effort in succession,” he adds.

By not taking an active approach to this part of the job, it can lead to the wrong hire, resulting in years of poor management. Larcker says one of the reasons for a lack of proper succession plans is often because it’s one of the least exciting roles a board undertakes, so it gets put to the backburner. Plus, since you rarely replace the CEO, it’s not always a priority.

Larcker and his research team sought to identify what occurs when a board lacks a succession plan. They looked at scenarios where the CEO left abruptly, either because the person resigned, retired or made other transitions. These are often the reasons disclosed to the public; in reality, the company may have fired a CEO without stating that fact. Out of the various scenarios, the researchers identified situations where the board and CEO likely parted ways due to performance. 

Out of all the media citations, 67% of the time the company named a permanent successor in the announcement; in 10% of the cases, it appointed a permanent successor but after a delay; and 22% of the time it named an interim successor. Those moments of upheaval provide investors with the clearest insight into whether the board took a proactive approach to succession, since the plans aren’t often public.

When a company named an interim successor, that was one of the clearest signs that the organization fired the CEO without a plan in place, and the stock performance of the company performed the worst after the announcement. Also, it’s worth noting that 8% of the time, the company named a current board member to the CEO role. When that occurred, the company’s stock price often performed worse than when internal or external candidates were chosen. 

What separates the organizations that can name a successful permanent successor from those that can’t? Often, it’s the organizations that have a clear line to the talent that’s growing inside and outside of the bank.

John Asbury knows all too well the need for this line of succession — it’s how he got the head role at Atlantic Union Bankshares, Corp., a $20 billion public bank based in Richmond, Virginia.  When Asbury was tapped as CEO in 2017, he followed G. William Beale, who had helmed the bank — then known as Union Bankshares Corp. — for almost 25 years. The bank had done a full executive search starting two years before Beale stepped away. Now, despite not having any plans to retire, Asbury, 57, takes the job of building succession within the entire organization seriously. 

“There are too few people in the industry who understand how the bank actually works or runs front to back,” Asbury says. “Oftentimes they have their area of specialty and not much else.”

Asbury, who sits on the board of directors as well, works with his human resources and talent evaluators to identify those within the organization who can fill executive roles. In addition to empowering them as executives, he gets them face time with the board. This provides the board with the ability to interact and know the talent that the bank has in the stable. 

“We want these folks to understand how the organization works, and we want them at the table to talk about not just strategy for their business unit, but the bank strategy as well,” Asbury says.

Asbury recently showed this leadership style in a public way by announcing that President Maria Tedesco would add the role of chief operating officer, and he would hand over managing many of the day-to-day operations to Tedesco. This isn’t a succession plan put in place. Instead it’s giving Tedesco the ability to have 85% of the organization reporting to her, while she and other executives at the bank continue to report to Asbury. 

Asbury thinks the move was needed to allow him the freedom to focus on growing Atlantic in other ways. But it also provides Tedesco with hands-on training in managing the organization. Despite the move, Asbury says that it doesn’t prevent him from working with the board on succession plans. 

The compensation committee, which Asbury does not sit on, also runs succession planning at Atlantic Union Bank. Sometimes boards may be hesitant to discuss succession if the current CEO views the discussion as antagonistic. But Atlantic Union undergoes an emergency succession plan evaluation once a year — currently, Tedesco would step in as interim CEO if something unexpected occurred to Asbury. She even sits in on every board meeting except when the executive team is being discussed. 

It’s a conversation that boards cannot be afraid to have. “If the CEO is on the board, that committee or board, has to own the process,” Larcker says.

What doesn’t work when it comes to succession planning? Having the new CEO step into the company while the outgoing CEO continues to helm the business for a few months to a year, added Larker. This design creates confusion from both the leadership and the staff on who they should listen and report to. “Ultimately, it’s a bad sign,” Larcker says.

Asbury knows that all too well. When he took the Atlantic Union role, Beale held the CEO position for three months while Asbury got acquainted with the organization. Within a few weeks, though, Beale let Asbury know that he would clear out the office and Asbury could call him if any questions arose. “Shorter is better in terms of transition,” Asbury adds. 

That can only happen with a plan in place.

Building a Better Nominating/Governance Committee

Boards could be missing out on valuable opportunities to better leverage their nominating/governance committees. 

There’s broad agreement on the responsibilities that many nominating/governance committees are tasked with, according to the directors and CEOs responding to Bank Director’s 2022 Governance Best Practices Survey, sponsored by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. Half of the survey participants serve on this committee. But the results also suggest there are areas that these committees may be overlooking. 

As chair of the governance committee at $2.8 billion First Fidelity Bancorp in Oklahoma City, Samuel Combs III views the committee’s overarching duty as being responsible for the board’s broader framework and committee infrastructure. He says, “We try to determine if we are balanced in what we’re covering and in our allocation of resources, board members’ time [and] assignments to certain committees.” 

First Fidelity’s governance committee typically meets three to four weeks ahead of the board meeting to develop the agenda, often working closely with the CEO to do so, Combs says. Devoting this advanced time to craft the agenda means that the board can devote sufficient time later to discussing important strategic issues. 

The survey’s respondents report that their boards’ nominating/governance committees are generally responsible for identifying and evaluating possible board candidates (92%), recommending directors for nomination (89%), and developing qualifications and criteria for board membership (81%). 

Far fewer respondents say their governance committee is responsible for making recommendations to improve the board (57%) or reviewing the CEO’s performance (40%). 

While the suggestion is unlikely to come from the chief executive, a bank’s CEO could benefit from regular reviews by the nominating/governance committee, says Jim McAlpin, a partner at Bryan Cave and leader of the firm’s banking practice group. Reviewing the CEO’s performance gives the board a chance to talk about what’s working and what could be improved, separate from compensation discussions. 

“The only review he or she [typically] gets is whether the compensation remains the same,” says McAlpin, who also serves as chair of the nominating/governance committee at a $300 million bank located in the Northeast. “Beyond compensation, there’s very rarely feedback to the CEO.” 

Almost half (47%) of the survey respondents say their board goes through regular evaluations. Among those, 60% say the nominating/governance committee chair or the committee as a whole leads that process. That tracks with the roughly half (53%) who name reviewing directors’ performance as a responsibility of the nominating/governance committee. 

First Fidelity’s board alternates board evaluations with peer evaluations every other year, but Combs stresses a holistic approach to those. “Not only do you evaluate, but you spend time reviewing it with the group,” he says. “And then with each independent board member, if necessary. And we usually give them the option of having that conversation with myself and the CEO, post-evaluation.” 

McAlpin suggests another exercise that nominating/governance committees could consider: Make it a regular practice — say every 2 or 3 years — to locate and review every committee’s charter. It can be useful to regularly review each committee’s scope of responsibilities and also provides an opportunity to update those responsibilities when needed. 

“Does it list all of the things the committee does or should be doing? And secondly, does it list things that the committee is not doing?” McAlpin says. “It’s a fairly basic thing, but important in corporate hygiene.”

Forty-five percent task the governance/nominating committee with determining whether the board should add new committees. In the case of First Fidelity, the governance committee discussed how to handle oversight of cybersecurity issues and whether it would benefit from a designated cybersecurity committee. The governance committee ultimately assigned that responsibility largely to its audit committee, with some support from its technology committee. 

Nominating/governance committees should also stay apprised of emerging issues and trends, like intensifying competition for talent and increased focus on environmental, social and governance issues. Those may ultimately help governance committees better assess the skills and expertise needed on the board, which about three-quarters of respondents identify as a key duty of the governance committee. 

“It’s good for nominating and governance committees to be forward thinking, to be thinking about the composition of the board, to be thinking about the skill sets of the board, the diversity of the board,” says McAlpin. 

Many boards may assign primary responsibility for talent-related issues to their compensation committee, but Combs argues that it should also concern the governance committee, especially in the tough, post-Covid recruiting landscape. “Talent acquisition, talent retention, talent management should have always been at this level, in my opinion,” Combs says. “These emerging trends should lead you to how you position yourself with your board talent, as well as your staffing talent.” 

The Promise and the Peril of Director Term Limits

Bank boards seeking to refresh their membership may be tempted to consider term limits, but the blunt approach carries several downsides that they will need to address.

Term limit policies are one way that boards can navigate crucial, but sensitive, topics like board refreshment. They place a ceiling on a director’s tenure to force regular vacancies. Bringing on new members is essential for banks that have a skills or experience gap at the board level, or for banks that need to transform strategy in the future with the help of different directors. However, it can be awkward to implement such a policy. There are other tools that boards can use to deliver feedback and ascertain a director’s interest in continued service.

The average age of financial sector independent directors in the S&P 500 index was 64.1 years, according to the 2021 U.S. Spencer Stuart Board Index. The average tenure was 8.3 years. The longest tenured board in the financial sector was 16 years.

“I believe that any small bank under $1 billion in assets should adopt provisions to provide for term limits of perhaps 10 years for outside directors,” wrote one respondent in Bank Director’s 2022 Governance Best Practices Survey.

The idea has some fans in the banking industry. The board of directors at New York-based, $121 billion Signature Bank, which is known for its innovative business lines, adopted limits in 2018. The policy limits non-employee directors to 12 years cumulatively. The change came after discussions over several meetings about the need for refreshment as the board revisited its policies, says Scott Shay, chairman of the board and cofounder of the bank. Some directors were hesitant about the change — and what it might mean for their time on the board.

“In all candor, people had mixed views on it. But we kept talking about it,” he says. “And as the world is evolving and changing, [the question was: ‘How do] we get new insights and fresh blood onto the board over some period?’”

Ultimately, he says the directors were able to prioritize the bank’s needs and agree to the policy change. Since adopting the term limits, the board added three new independent directors who are all younger than directors serving before the change, according to the bank’s 2022 proxy statement. Two are women and one is Asian. Their skills and experience include international business, corporate governance, government and business heads, among others.

And the policy seems to complement the bank’s other corporate governance policies and practices: a classified board, a rigorous onboarding procedure, annual director performance assessments and thoughtful recruitment. Altogether, these policies ensure board continuity, offer a way to assess individual and board performance and create a pool of qualified prospects to fill regular vacancies.

Signature’s classified board staggers director turnover. Additionally, the board a few years ago extended the expiring term of its then-lead independent director by one year; that move means only two directors leave the board whenever they hit their term limits.

Shay says he didn’t want a completely new board that needed a new education every few years. “We wanted to keep it to a maximum of a turnover of two at a time,” he says.

To support the regularly occurring vacancies, Signature’s recruitment approach begins with identifying a class of potential directors well in advance of turnover and slowly whittling down the candidates based on interest, commitment and individual interviews with the nominating and governance committee members. And as a new outside director prepares to join the board, Signature puts them through “an almost exhausting onboarding process” to introduce them to various aspects of the bank and its business — which starts a month before the director’s first meeting.

But term limits, along with policies like mandatory retirement ages, can be a blunt corporate governance tool to manage refreshment. There are a number of other tools that boards could use to govern, improve and refresh their membership.

“I personally think term limits have no value at all,” says James J. McAlpin Jr., a partner at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

He says that term limits may prematurely remove a productive director because they’re long tenured, and potentially replace them with someone who may be less engaged and constructive. He also dislikes when boards make exceptions for directors whose terms are expiring.

In lieu of term limits, he argues that banks should opt for board and peer evaluations that allow directors to reflect on their engagement and capacity to serve on the board. Regular evaluation can also help the nominating and governance committee create succession plans for committee chairs who are near the end of their board service.

Perhaps one reason why community banks are interested in term limits is because so few conduct assessments. Only 30% of respondents to Bank Director’s 2022 Governance Best Practices Survey, which published May 16, said they didn’t conduct performance assessments at any interval — many of those responses were at banks with less than $1 billion in assets. And 51% of respondents don’t perform peer evaluations and haven’t considered that exercise.

For McAlpin, a board that regularly evaluates itself — staffed by directors who are honest about their service capacity and the needs of the bank — doesn’t need bright-line rules around tenure to manage refreshment.

“It’s hard to articulate a reason why you need term limits in this day and age,” he says, “as opposed to just self-policing self-governance by the board.”

2022 Governance Best Practices Survey: Culture & Composition

Even the strongest corporate boards benefit from a regular infusion of fresh ideas.

Culture, composition and governance practices — all of these are critical elements for boards to fulfill their oversight role, support management, and maintain the bank’s vision, mission and values. The results of the 2022 Governance Best Practices Survey, sponsored by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, suggest that while most directors and CEOs believe their board’s culture is generally solid, they also see room for improvement in certain areas.

Specifically, the majority (54%) say their boardroom culture would benefit from adding new directors who could broaden the board’s perspective. In comments, some expressed a desire to get more tech expertise, greater diversity and younger directors into the boardroom. Others cited a need to retire ineffective directors or cut out micromanagement.

Bringing new perspectives, skills and backgrounds to the table can help boards tackle a host of rapidly evolving challenges, from cybersecurity to environmental or social risks.

Culture can be hard to define, and the survey finds varying opinions about the attributes of a strong board culture. Forty-five percent point to alignment around common goals and 42% value engagement with management on the performance of the bank. Just 30% favor an independent mindset as an important attribute of board culture, something that can be derived through cultivating diverse perspectives in the boardroom.

A majority believe gender, racial and ethnic diversity can improve the board’s performance, similar to previous surveys. Yet, 58% claim it’s difficult to attract suitable board candidates representing diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.

That’s not necessarily for lack of trying, however. When asked to explain why they find it hard to attract diverse board candidates, many respondents state that they have a limited pool of candidates in their markets or personal networks. But that’s changing as the U.S. population grows more diverse.

“We have a very non-diverse community, although it is changing,” writes one respondent. “I believe the difficulty will lessen with time.”

Key Findings

ESG Oversight
A vast majority – 82% – believe that measuring and understanding where banks stand on environmental, social and governance issues is important for at least some financial institutions, but there’s little uniformity when it comes to how boards address ESG. Nearly half – 45% – say their board does not discuss or oversee ESG at all. Forty-four percent say their board and management team has developed or has been working to develop an ESG strategy for their bank.

Training Mandates Vary
Forty-nine percent indicate that all directors must meet a minimum training requirement; 36% say training is encouraged but not required of members. Just over half of respondents say their board has an effective onboarding process in place for new directors. However, 27% say their board lacks an onboarding process and 13% say their current onboarding process is ineffective.

Knowledge Gaps
Respondents identify cybersecurity, digital banking and commerce, and technology as the top areas where their boards need more knowledge and training. Forty-three percent also believe they could use more education about ESG issues.

Board Evaluations
Almost half, or 47%, of respondents conduct board evaluations annually; another 23% assess their board’s performance, but not on a yearly basis. Of those that performed assessments, 58% say they then created an action plan to address gaps identified in those evaluations.

Assessing Peer Performance
Few boards take advantage of peer-to-peer evaluations, with 51% revealing that their board does not use this tool, nor have they discussed it. Of the 29% of respondents whose bank has conducted a peer evaluation, 83% use the exercise to inform conversations with individual directors about their performance.

Committee Structure
An overwhelming majority of respondents say their board had enough directors to staff all its committees, but 16% say that would no longer be the case if they added more committees. Nearly all respondents say their committees are provided adequate resources to carry out their jobs. The survey reveals continued variation in risk governance practices, with 54% managing audit and risk oversight within separate committees. In boardrooms where there isn’t a technology committee, half believe their organization would benefit from one.

To view the high-level findings, click here.

Bank Services members can access a deeper exploration of the survey results. Members can click here to view the complete results, broken out by asset category and other relevant attributes. If you want to find out how your bank can gain access to this exclusive report, contact bankservices@bankdirector.com.

2022 Governance Best Practices Survey: Complete Results

Bank Director’s 2022 Governance Best Practices Survey, sponsored by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, surveyed 234 independent directors, chairs and chief executives of U.S. banks below $100 billion in assets, with the majority of respondents representing regional and community banks. Members of the Bank Services program now have exclusive access to the full results of the survey, including breakouts by asset category.

The survey regularly explores the fundamentals of board performance, and this year examines board culture, committee structure, and how ESG is governed in the boardroom, along with practices such as evaluations and training that help boards improve their performance. The survey was conducted in February and March 2022.

Click here to view the complete results.

Key Findings

ESG Oversight
A vast majority – 82% – believe that measuring and understanding where banks stand on environmental, social and governance issues is important for at least some financial institutions, but there’s little uniformity when it comes to how boards address ESG. Nearly half – 45% – say their board does not discuss or oversee ESG at all. Forty-three percent say their board and management team has been working to develop an ESG strategy and defined goals for their bank.

Training Mandates Vary
Forty-nine percent indicate that all directors must meet a minimum training requirement; 36% say training is encouraged but not required of members. Just over half of respondents say their board has an effective onboarding process in place for new directors. However, 27% say their board lacks an onboarding process and 13% say their current onboarding process is ineffective.

Knowledge Gaps
Respondents identify cybersecurity, digital banking and commerce, and technology as the top areas where their boards need more knowledge and training. Forty-three percent also believe they could use more education about ESG issues.

Board Evaluations
Almost half, or 47%, of respondents conduct board evaluations annually; another 23% assess their board’s performance, but not on a yearly basis. Of those that performed assessments, 58% say they then created an action plan to address gaps identified in those evaluations.

Assessing Peer Performance
Few boards take advantage of peer-to-peer evaluations, with 51% revealing that their board does not use this tool, nor have they discussed it. Of the 29% of respondents whose bank has conducted a peer evaluation, 83% use the exercise to inform conversations with individual directors about their performance.

Committee Structure
An overwhelming majority of respondents said their board had enough directors to staff all its committees, but 16% say that would no longer be the case if they added more committees. Nearly all respondents said their committees are provided adequate resources to carry out their jobs. The survey reveals continued variation in risk governance practices, with 54% managing audit and risk oversight within separate committees. In boardrooms where there isn’t a technology committee, half believe their organization would benefit from one.