Managing risk and satisfying examiners can be difficult for any bank. It’s particularly hard for community banks that want to manage their limited resources wisely.
One bank that balances these challenges well is Bryn Mawr Bank Corp., a $4.6 billion asset based in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, on the outskirts of Philadelphia.
Bank Director Vice President of Research Emily McCormick recently interviewed Chief Risk Officer Patrick Killeen about the bank’s approach to risk for a feature story in our second quarter 2019 issue. That story, titled “Banks Regain Sovereignty Over Risk Practices,” dives into the results of Bank Director’s 2019 Risk Survey. (You can read that story here.)
In the transcript of the interview—available exclusively to members of our Bank Services program—Killeen goes into detail about how his bank approaches stress testing, cybersecurity and credit risk, and explains how the executive team and board have strengthened the organization for future growth.
The top risks facing his community bank
Hiring the right talent to balance risk and growth
Balancing board and management responsibilities in lending
Conducting stress tests as a community bank
Managing cyber risk
Responding to Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering guidance
The interview has been edited for brevity, clarity and flow.
Download transcript for the full exclusive interview
For someone who has covered the banking industry as long as I have (hint: I wrote my first banking story in 1986), these are among the best days to be a banker—or director of a bank—that I can remember. Profitability is high, as is capitalization, and the industry is gliding on the updraft of a strong economy and lower taxes.
The current health of the industry was apparent from what we did not talk about at Bank Director’s Bank Board Training Forum, which took place on May 9-10 in Nashville. There were no sessions about deteriorating loan quality, or the best way to structure a loan workout program, or the need to raise capital. Indeed, our managing editor, Kiah Lau Haslett, wrote a story that published Friday on this website warning against the perils of complacency.
When your biggest challenge is guarding against complacency, you’ve definitely found yourself in tall cotton.
It’s worth drilling down a little bit into the industry’s strong fundamentals. In addition to the continuation of a strong U.S. economy, which will be a record expansion if it continues much longer, banks have also benefited—more than any other industry—from last year’s steep cut in corporate tax rates, as well as a modest rollback of regulations in the Dodd-Frank Act.
Joseph Fenech, managing principal and head of research at the investment banking firm Hovde Group, explained during a presentation that thanks to the tax cut, both return on average assets and return on average tangible common equity jumped to levels last seen prior to the Great Recession. And not only has deregulation had a measurably positive impact on the industry’s profitability, according to Fenech, it has also brought new investors into the sector.
“It’s really driving change in how investors think about banks,” he says.
The only bad news Fenech offered was his assessment that bank M&A pricing has peaked. From 2008 to 2016, stocks of the most active acquirers traded at a premium to book value while many distressed targets traded at a discount, which translated to favorable “deal math” for buyers, according to Fenech. Deal pricing began to edge up from 2016 to 2018 as more acquirers came into the market. Many transactions had to be priced at a premium to book value, which began to make the deal math less favorable for the buyer.
Generally, the higher the deal premium, the longer it takes for it to be accretive. Since the beginning of this year, says Fenech, many investors have become wary of deals with high premiums unless they are clearly accretive to earnings in a reasonable period of time. Undisciplined acquirers that overpay for deals will see their stocks shunned by many investors.
This new dynamic in bank M&A also impacts sellers, who now may receive a lower premium for their franchise.
“I think the peak pricing in bank M&A was last year,” says Fenech.
An important theme during the entire conference was the increased attention that board diversity is getting throughout the industry. Bank Director President Mika Moser moderated a general session panel discussion on board diversity, but the topic popped up in various breakout sessions as well. This is not always a comfortable discussion for bank boards since—let’s face it—most bank boards are comprised overwhelming of older white males.
For many proponents, the push for greater board diversity is not simply to accomplish a progressive social policy. Diverse groups usually offer a diversity of thought—and that makes good business sense. Academic research shows that diverse groups or teams make better business decisions than more homogenious groups, where the members are more inclined to affirm each other’s biases and perspectives than challenge them. Larry Fink, the chairman and CEO of Blackrock—the world’s largest asset manager—believes that diverse boards are less likely to succumb to groupthink or miss emerging threats to a company’s business model, and are better able to identify opportunities that promote long-term growth.
The banking industry still has a lot of work to do in terms of embracing diversity in the boardroom and among the senior management team, but I get the sense that directors are more sensitive—and more open to making substantive changes—than just a few years ago.
The Bank Board Training Forum is, at its core, a corporate governance conference. While we cover a variety of issues, it’s always through the perspective of the outside director. James McAlpin, Jr., a partner and leader of the financial services client services group at the law firm Bryan Cave, gave an insightful presentation on corporate governance. But sometimes the simplest truth can be the most galvanizing.
“The responsibilities of directors can be boiled down to one simple goal—the creation of sustainable long-term value for shareholders,” he says. There are many decisions that bank boards must make over the course of a year, but all of them must be made through that prism.
Bank directors have a golden opportunity to position their banks for future growth and prepare them for change—if they can resist the lull of complacency, according to speakers at the opening day of Bank Director’s 2019 Bank Board Training Forum on May 9.
The current economic environment remains benign, as regulators have paused interest rate increases and credit quality remains pristine, says Joseph Fenech, managing principal and head of research at Hovde Group. Further, he argues that banks today are better equipped to withstand a future economic downturn.
But speakers throughout the day say the risk is that board members may feel lulled by their banks’ current performance and miss their chance to position these institutions for future growth.
“We’re going through the good years in banking. I would argue your biggest competitor is complacency,” says Don MacDonald, chief marketing officer at MX Technologies. He adds that bank boards needs to be asking hard questions about the future despite today’s positive operating environment.
Banks are grappling with the rapid pace of change and technology, shifting customer demographics and skills gaps at the executive and board levels. Speakers during the conference provided a variety of ways that directors can address these concerns with an eye toward future growth.
One way is to redefine how community banks think about their products and their markets, according to Ron Shevlin, director of research at Cornerstone Advisors. Shevlin says many community banks face competition from firms outside of their geographic marketplace. In response, some community banks are moving away from a geographic community and toward affinity, or common bond, groups. These firms have identified products or loans they excel at and have expanded their reach to those affinity customers. He also advises banks to examine how their products stack up to competing products. He uses the example of checking accounts, pointing out that large banks and financial technology firms sometimes offer rewards or personal financial management advice for these accounts.
“Everyone talks about customer experience, but fixing the customer experience of an obsolete product is a complete waste of money,” he says.
Another challenge for boards is the makeup of the board itself. Directors need to have a skill set that is relevant to the challenges and opportunities a bank faces. Today, directors are concerned about how the bank will respond to technology, increase the diversity of their boards and remain relevant to the next generation of bank customers, says J. Scott Petty, managing partner of financial services at Chartwell Partners, an executive search firm.
He challenges directors to consider the skills and experiences they will need in a few years, as well as how confident they are that they have the right board and leadership to run the bank.
“Change doesn’t happen overnight. It has to be planned for,” he says. “Board composition should reflect the goals of the financial institution.”
Banks can resist complacency with their culture, according to Robert Hill, Jr., CEO of South State Corp. Hill says there is never a point in time when “you’ve got it made and your bank is cruising.” Various headwinds come and go, but the overarching theme behind the bank’s challenges is that pace of change, need for customer engagement and competition are all increasing.
In response, Hill says the bank is very selective about who they hire, and looks for passion, values and engagement as well as specific skills. South State prioritizes soundness, profitability and growth—in that order—and wraps its cultural fabric around and throughout the company. A large part of that is accomplished through leadership, and the accountability that goes with it.
“If the culture is not strong and foundation is not strong, it will be much harder for a company to evolve,” he says.
It wasn’t in response to a cybersecurity event or a nudge from regulators that prompted Huntington Bancshares’ board to create a Significant Events Committee in early 2018.
Instead, says Dave Porteous, lead director at the $108 billion bank based in Columbus, Ohio, it was old-fashioned governance principles that drove Huntington’s board to establish the ad hoc committee responsible for responding to the biggest risk faced by banks today: cybersecurity threats.
“Particularly over the last 10 years, the world is changing so quickly it has really become incumbent upon all boards, in my view, to continually be evaluating their governance structure and whether or not they need to make adjustments … to how the world is changing,” Porteous says.
Ask any bank executive or director right now to name the things that cause them to lose sleep at night and cybersecurity will almost invariably be at the top of the list.
Millions of personal records have already been compromised globally, and it can cost even a small bank millions of dollars to rectify a single cyber event. Yet, while it is a common topic in boardrooms, it hasn’t yielded widespread governance restructuring at banks across the United States.
Bank Director’s 2018 Technology Survey found that 93 percent of the 161 chief bank executives, senior technology officers and directors said cybersecurity is an issue of focus by their board.
But a 2018 analysis by Harvard Law School found that just 7 percent of all S&P 500 companies have separate technology committees, though 29 percent of large public bank holding companies above $10 billion in assets have set up just such a thing. This is significant because, as the study noted, cybersecurity is often the responsibility of the technology committee.
Significant events have over time produced mandated changes in corporate structure, like the requirement in Dodd-Frank requiring banks above $10 billion in assets to have a separate risk committee, or the requirement in Sarbanes-Oxley that an audit committee oversee a bank’s independent auditor.
But Porteous argues that banks should not wait for changes in the law to force them into structural changes. The changes should emerge instead from ongoing conversations at institutions about new trends and threats.
“To me the critical thing is constantly be assessing and challenging yourself as a board on the way in which you govern and not to be afraid to make adjustments,” Porteous says. “In other words, create committees to address the current or upcoming issues that enhance the focus (of the board).”
For Huntington, the establishment of the Significant Events Committee was years in the making, but finally came after the board realized it was having similar discussions about the same topic at the board level and in separate committees.
“It was a natural thing for us to take these discussions we were having, both at the board meeting and various committee-level meetings, and then decide that we were spending a significant amount of time in those discussions that it was going to be critically important,” Porteous says.
When formed, the committee included Huntington CEO Stephen Steinour, who chaired the committee; the lead director; the chairs of the technology, risk and audit committees and the “lead cyber director,” the 2018 company proxy said. The committee has since been folded into the broader Technology Committee because of overlapping skill sets, Porteous says, but the bank can reestablish it or other ad hoc committees as necessary.
One such committee was Huntington’s Integration Committee, created when the bank acquired FirstMerit Corp. in 2016. The committee met three times in 2017 after the acquisition and was later dissolved.
But it’s not just cybersecurity or M&A that should qualify as a significant event worthy of a board’s attention. Recurring natural disasters, for instance, including hurricanes in the Southeast and wildfires in the West are examples that might merit a similar response.
Whatever the issue, Porteous suggests boards continually assess their governance structure through annual board-level assessments or just paying attention to what’s in the newspaper every day.
“It’s critical to make those adjustments or adapt to the changing world,” Porteous says.
Bank stocks have taken a dive in late 2018, and bank boards play a key role in the strategic decisions driving shareholder value. Scott Sommer and Steve Williams of Cornerstone Advisors explain the issues impacting shareholder value in 2019, including technology.
In governance circles today, the conversations about board performance and evaluations continue to advance.
Governance advocates, proxy advisors and institutional investors encourage varying approaches to evaluating directors, assessing board effectiveness, and raising the bar on expectations for director contributions and performance.
Many community bank directors, however, are reticent to go down the board assessment path, fearing that the process will somehow result in their removal from the bank’s board. The goal of any evaluation, however, should not necessarily be to weed out directors, but rather to highlight areas for board and director improvement, and encourage continual forward movement on good governance.
In our view, there are three general types, or levels, of board evaluation to consider:
Level 1: A general assessment of the board overall and how the group is functioning. This evaluation might include areas such as:
Do we have the right committee structure, leadership and meeting frequency?
Are we as a board focusing our time on the correct and critical topics?
Do we have an appropriate and valuable range of skills and experiences around the board table to govern effectively in today’s industry climate?
Level 2: This typically involves an element of “self-assessment,” focused on what individual directors believe they contribute. This analysis highlights contributions of a technical, industry, business, community or other relative area. Self-assessments also aggregate the collective skills sitting in the boardroom, and help to inform the board about where there are critical gaps in the needed skills.
Level 3: This is where some trepidation arises—the individual evaluation. This assessment involves each director providing confidential feedback on their fellow directors, and should always be facilitated by a third party. Using an outside resource to review and compile the data provides a level of professional insulation between directors, and ensures anonymity of the assessments.
Peer evaluations can serve an important function by informing directors as to how their peers view their contribution. When viewed in conjunction with self-assessment output, it can provide a comprehensive, objective look at how each director views their contribution relative to how their contribution is viewed by their colleagues.
Many board members fear an assessment will expose shortcomings as a director. However, the goal of evaluations is to highlight areas for improvement and strengthen governance—not necessarily cull the herd. There are plenty of examples of directors whose contribution had slipped a bit due to personal or business distractions without realizing this shift occurred. In these instances, peer feedback was instrumental in helping that director return to highly engaged participation.
It’s also common to see individual feedback highlight areas where directors needed updated training or a refresher course in bank operations or oversight, often resulting in additional training for all directors.
One of the hallmarks of the most effective boards is a desire for continuous improvement, and striving to become a “strategic asset board.”
To be sure, board members whose contributions have declined considerably and remained below expectations for an extended period might need a “tough love” conversation. A board seat is a precious thing, and every director must bring current and valuable skills and experiences to the board table.
Directors whose lengthy tenure or legacy contributions are simply not up to current needs and governance standards—and who lack the fortitude for improvement—should ask themselves whether the bank would be better served by a different individual in that seat. It takes real maturity, self-awareness and a view for the “greater good” for a director to make such a determination.
Boards have long held to age limits more than term limits as a vehicle to repopulate their boardroom. Yet as directors age, many institutions are raising or waiving the age requirements to retain experienced directors. Good reasons exist to keep veteran directors, but a board seat should be earned through performance. Seats should not be “institutionalized“ to an individual or family if those representing select interests are not qualified to contribute in a meaningful way and put the institution’s interests above their own.
The highest performing boards make it a policy to conduct some form of evaluation on a regular if not annual basis. Whether though a general, self or peer assessment process, more informed boards make better decisions around board composition and continued director service.
Boards with the strongest, most capable and engaged directors will have the greatest ability to survive and thrive in a consolidating industry. Boards that utilize some form of assessment are more likely to be among the survivors going forward.
As new types of risk – and new regulatory requirements – are introduced, bank directors play an instrumental role in making sure the executive team is properly addressing cybersecurity risks.
This can be an especially challenging responsibility as it is rare for board members to have the technical background or expertise to appropriately assess an entity’s cybersecurity risk management program without external resources. In many instances, directors find themselves in the uncomfortable position of relying primarily on management reports or the advice of third-party providers to meet their oversight responsibilities.
Annual scorecards from management and vulnerability assessments from third-party providers have value, but can make it difficult to compare and assess risk management programs with confidence.
To address this challenge, boards can consult new guides that offer ways to explore and dig into potential cyber risk management issues and other technical matters.
The Center for Audit Quality (CAQ), recently released a new publication, “Cybersecurity Risk Management Oversight: A Tool for Board Members.” The tool, like other emerging frameworks, is designed to help board members probe more deeply, challenge management assertions from a position of knowledge and understanding, and make more informed use of independent auditors.
Asking the right questions In addition to offering board members a high-level overview of cybersecurity risk management issues and board responsibilities, the tool offers a series of probing questions board members can use as they engage in discussions about cybersecurity risks and disclosures with management and with independent financial auditors.
The questions are organized into four groups:
Understanding how the financial statement auditor considers cybersecurity risk. These questions help board members understand the auditor’s approach to cybersecurity-related risks, and how such risks get addressed in the audit process.
Understanding the role of management and responsibilities of the financial statement auditor related to cybersecurity disclosures. These questions help board members explore compliance with current SEC guidance, as well as other regulatory and disclosure requirements.
Understanding management’s approach to cybersecurity risk management. These questions look beyond financial reporting and compliance, and begin to probe broader cybersecurity-related issues, including the governing framework, policies, processes, and controls the bank has in place to manage and mitigate cybersecurity risk.
Understanding how CPA firms can assist boards of directors in their oversight of cybersecurity risk management. These questions help board members learn about additional offerings CPA firms can provide to assist them, and what factors to consider when engaging outside auditors to perform readiness assessments and examinations.
Starting the conversation The CAQ says the cybersecurity oversight tool is not intended to be a comprehensive, all-inclusive list of questions for board members to ask. It also cautions against using the questions as a checklist for board members to use.
Rather, board members should look at the questions as conversation starters, examples of the types of issues they should raise with management and financial statement auditors. The purpose of the questions is to spark a dialogue to clarify responsibilities and generate a conversation and help board members develop a better understanding of how the company is managing its cybersecurity risks.
Expanding CPAs’ capabilities As noted, one group of questions is designed to help board members learn more about other cybersecurity assurance services offered by CPA firms. One example of such services is the new System and Organization Controls (SOC) for Cybersecurity examination developed by the AICPA.
The information within the report provides management, directors or clients a description of the organization’s cybersecurity risk management program and an independent opinion on the effectiveness of the controls in place.
As concerns over cybersecurity risks in banking continue to intensify, directors will find it increasingly necessary to be capable of effectively challenging executive management and financial auditors. This tool is one guide alongside other evolving frameworks and services, that can help boards fulfill their responsibilities while also adding significant value to the bank and its shareholders.
It’s an old phrase but still rings true today: An organization thrives when you get the right people in the right jobs.
That’s easy to say, but not always easy to do. Future leadership in banking is of great concern to boards today. And while there are myriad methods of finding good people, three key considerations in finding the right people include talent, or a transitioning generation in leadership; technology, or a heightened need for new and better ways to get the job done; and training, or existing employees looking for that golden career opportunity.
Talent: Transitioning Generations Understanding generational differences is critical if a bank is seeking to attract young talent. Failure to understand these differences will only result in frustration. For example, boomers and millennials may not see eye to eye on a number of things. Older workers talk about “going to work” each day. Younger workers view work as “something you do,” anywhere, any time. If you’re looking for younger talent, whether on your board or within your bank leadership group, take the time to understand these generational classes. The more you know about their needs, expectations, and abilities, the easier it will be to attract them to your organization, resulting in growth that thrives on their new talent.
For younger talent, the hiring process needs to be short and to the point, with quick decision making. Otherwise, they’re quickly scooped up by competitors. Another key area is a greater focus on company culture. Millennials, for example, are sensitive to the delicate balance between work and life. Some may easily turn down a decent paying job for one that provides more control over his or her schedule and life.
Take the time to read, learn, understand, and seek out that younger talent you believe will move your organization to the next level.
Technology: An Opportunity to Rethink What People Do In the time it takes to write, publish and read this article, the technology target for banks has moved exponentially. Keeping up requires a great deal of focus, investment and thinking outside the box. And because of the pace of change in technology, a chief technology officer (CTO) is a critical part of today’s banking leadership team.
The qualities needed in an effective CTO include the ability to challenge conventional wisdom, move decisively toward objectives and flexibility. Since long-term growth and expense management quite often are dependent upon the right technology, the CTO plays a major role in management’s long-term strategic planning for the bank. Even now, technology is performing the work entire departments used to do just a few years ago.
An effective CTO will help ensure the bank is ready to move into new growth phases of the business, including internet banking, enhanced mobile banking, cybersecurity, biometrics, and even artificial intelligence.
Training: The Value of Existing Employees While utilizing online recruiting systems can help you find good people, there could be gems right down the hall. Growing talent from within is too often overlooked. Traditionally, boards have felt this is a job for the CEO or human resources. But some have argued that a lack of leadership development poses the same kind of threat that accounting blunders or missed earnings do. This lack of leadership development has two unfortunate results: 1) individual employees seeking to make a greater contribution never get the opportunity to shine and 2) the bank loses a potential shining star to the competitor down the street.
Lack of an effective development program is shortsighted and diminishes the value of great employees. Today’s boards must take specific steps in becoming more involved in leadership development. First, encourage your executive team to be more active in developing the leadership skills of direct reports. Second, expand the board’s view of leadership development. Take an active role in identifying rising stars and let them make some of the board presentations. In this way, the board can assess for itself the efficacy of the company’s leadership pipeline. And meanwhile, the rising stars gain direct access to the board, gleaning new perspectives and wisdom as a result.
As boards consider their duties and responsibilities, identifying future leadership should be at or near the top of the list. Organizational growth depends on it and the bank will be better able to embrace an ever-changing generational, technological and business environment.
Over the past year and a half, there’s been a lot of good news for the banking industry. New regulators have been appointed who are more industry-friendly. Congress managed to not only pass tax reform, but also long-awaited regulatory relief for the nation’s banks. And the economy appears to remain on track, exceeding 4 percent gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the second quarter of 2018, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Bank Director’s 2018 Compensation Survey, sponsored by Compensation Advisors, a member of Meyer-Chatfield Group, finds that the challenges faced by the nation’s banks may have diminished, but they haven’t disappeared, either.
Small business owners are more optimistic than they’ve been in a decade, according to the second quarter 2018 Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Business Index survey. This should fuel loan demand as business owners seek to invest in and grow their enterprises. In turn, this creates even more competition for commercial lenders—already a hot commodity given their unique skill set, knowledge base and connections in the community. Technological innovation means that bank staff—and boards—need new skills to face the digital era. These innovations bring risk, in the form of cybercrime, that keep bankers—and bank regulators—up at night.
For key positions in areas like commercial lending and technology, “banks have to spend more,” says Flynt Gallagher, president of Compensation Advisors. “You have to pay top dollar.”
But a solid economy with a low unemployment rate—dropping to 3.8 percent in May, the lowest rate the U.S. has seen in more than 18 years—means that banks are facing a more competitive environment for the talent they need to sustain future strategic growth.
And regulatory relief doesn’t mean regulatory-free: With the legacy of the financial crisis, along with the challenges of facing economic, strategic and competitive threats, all of which are keeping boards busy, there’s more resting on the collective shoulders of bank directors than ever before, and boards will need new skill sets and perspectives to shepherd their organizations forward.
For more on these considerations, read the white paper.
To view the full results to the survey, click here.
For many bank boards of directors and senior management teams, an acquisition will be the most important deal they ever make. Unfortunately, even experienced acquirers make mistakes that can have a negative—and sometimes even disastrous—impact on the outcome. And they are all avoidable.
Be Able To Say Why One of the most common missteps is to pull the trigger on a deal without having a clear rationale for why a particular acquisition target—as opposed to other possible candidates—is the best strategic fit. “Some acquirers tend to be more opportunistic and try to assess on the fly whether or not the deal is a good fit, as opposed to knowing before hand that they really want to acquire institutions that have certain parameters,” says Rick Childs, a partner at the consulting firm Crowe LLP. “It may be that they make a certain level of money, or do a certain type of lending, or operate in a desirable geography.”
In almost every instance, doing no deal is better than doing the wrong deal. Says Childs: “My dad used to tell me a long time ago, when I would say that something was on sale, ‘Son, a bargain isn’t a bargain if you don’t need it,’ which is to say if it doesn’t really fit, you’re better to walk away from that and focus on… opportunities that would really advance your cause as an organization and produce the returns you need for your shareholders.”
Cultural Compatibility Having a well-developed a well-defined set of criteria in advance enables the acquirer to then assess critical elements such as the target’s culture—which is important because misaligned cultures can lead to significant problems after the deal has closed and the banks need to be integrated. “I find that many times buyers don’t take the time to learn whether the organizations are compatible,” says Gary Bronstein, a partner at the law firm Kilpatrick Townsend. “And this is especially important when the seller will become a significant part of the merged organization. Too often, says Bronstein, buyers fail to focus on this issue until the integration process begins. “And it becomes [apparent] that perhaps the cultures of the two organizations in terms of how hard they work, how customers are treated, what the philosophies are in terms of how they operate, might not be compatible and it makes it very difficult to integrate under those circumstances.”
Clear, Consistent Communication Bronstein also finds that acquirers sometimes fail to place a high enough emphasis on the importance on effective and honest communication with people at the acquired bank. “That is particularly [true] among CEOs of the two organizations,” he says. “I’ve seen many deals fall apart or deteriorate pretty quickly due to bad communication, or lack of thoughtful communication.” Candor is an especially important element of the communication process, Bronstein says. “I’ve seen situations where a buyer CEO will say one thing but then do another thing, and that just alienates people in the process. And it’s critically important to develop a… rapport early, because if things deteriorate early it’s hard to get back,” he cautions.
Consider The People Many acquirers also tend to wait too long to make critical people decisions that can impact the outcome of a merger. Bronstein divides these important people decisions into three categories. “Category number one is, who do you need long term, and [in] what positions?” he explains. “Who do I need for this larger organization, and what positions can I spot them in? The second category is, who do I need short term to get me through the transition? The common timeline for transition is the technology conversion, which will usually happen somewhere between three and six months after the transaction is closed. And the final thing is, who are the people that are closest to the customers that I really need to lock up with a non-compete so they don’t go next door and compete with me?”
Childs also stresses the importance of communicating these important personnel decisions throughout both organizations. Staffers at either bank who ultimately will not be part of the combined organization once the integration process has been completed should be informed “as quickly and as compassionately as you can,” he says. It’s equally important that employees who will be going forward with the new bank know that their jobs are secure. “Uncertainty breeds angst and anxiety that is going to affect how people treat their day-to-day job, and taking that away and reassuring them is really job number one for the CEO and the management teams.”