The Big Picture of Banking in Three Simple Charts


banking-3-22-19.pngOne thing that separates great bankers from their peers is a deep appreciation for the highly cyclical nature of the banking industry.

Every industry is cyclical, of course, thanks to the cyclical nature of the economy. Good times are followed by bad times, which are followed by good times. It’s always been that way, and there’s no reason to think it will change anytime soon.

Yet, banking is different.

The typical bank borrows $10 for every $1 in equity. On one hand, this leverage accelerates the economic growth of the communities a bank serves. But on the other, it makes banks uniquely sensitive to fluctuations in employment and asset prices.

Even a modest correction in the business cycle or a major asset class can send dozens of banks into receivership.

“It is in the nature of an industry whose structure is competitive and whose conduct is driven by supply to have cycles that only end badly,” wrote Barbara Stewart in “How Will This Underwriting Cycle End?,” a widely cited paper published in 1980 on the history of underwriting cycles.

Stewart was referring to the insurance industry, but her point is equally true in banking.

This is why bankers with a big-picture perspective have an advantage over bankers without a similarly deep and broad appreciation for the history of banking, combined with knowledge about the strengths and infirmities innate in a bank’s business model.

How does one go about gaining a big-picture perspective?

You can do it the hard way, by amassing personal experience. If you’ve seen enough cycles, then you know, as Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., has said: “You don’t run a business hoping you don’t have a recession.”

Or you can do it the easy way, by accruing experience by proxy—that is, by learning how things unfolded in the past. If you know that nine out of the last nine recessions were all precipitated by rising interest rates, for instance, then you’re likely to be more cautious with your loan portfolio in a rising rate environment.

You can see this in the chart below, sourced from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’ popular FRED database. The graph traces the effective federal funds rate since 1954, with the vertical shaded portions representing recessions.

Fed-Funds-Rate.png

A second chart offering additional perspective on the cyclical nature of banking traces bank failures since the Civil War, when the modern American banking industry first took shape.

This might seem macabre—who wants to obsess over bank failures?—but this is an inseparable aspect of banking that is ignored at one’s peril. Good bankers respect and appreciate this, which is one reason their institutions avoid failure.

Failures.png

Not surprisingly, the incidence of bank failures closely tracks the business cycle. The big spike in the 1930s corresponds to the Great Depression. The spike in the 1980s and 1990s marks the savings and loan crisis. And the smaller recent surge corresponds to the financial crisis.

All told, a total of 17,365 banks have failed since 1865. A useful analog through which to think about banking, in other words, is that it’s a war of attrition, much like the conflict that spawned the modern American banking industry.

A third chart offering insight into how the banking industry has evolved in recent decades illustrates historical acquisition activity.

Acquisitions.png

Approximately 4 percent of banks consolidate on an annual basis, equating to about 200 a year nowadays. But this is an average. The actual number has fluctuated widely over time. Twitter_Logo_Blue.png

From 1940 through the mid-1970s, when interstate and branch banking were prohibited in most states, there were closer to 100 bank acquisitions a year. But then, as these regulatory barriers came down in the 1980s and 1990s, deal activity surged.

The point being, while banking is a rapidly consolidating industry, the most recent pace of consolidation has decelerated. This is relevant to anyone who may be thinking of buying or selling a bank. It’s also relevant to banks that aren’t in the market to do a deal, as customer attrition in the wake of a competitors’ sale has often been a source of organic growth.

In short, it’s easy to dismiss history as a topic of interest only to professors and armchair historians. But the experience one gains by proxy from looking to the past can help bankers better position their institutions for the present and the future.

Take it from investor Charlie Munger: “There’s no better teacher than history in determining the future.”

Exclusive: How U.S. Bancorp Views Expansion


bancorp-3-14-19.pngGreat leaders are eager to learn from others, even their competitors. That’s why Bank Director is making available—exclusively to our members—the unabridged transcripts of the in-depth conversations our writers have with the executives of top-performing banks.

Few banks fit this description as well as U.S. Bancorp, the fifth-largest retail bank in the United States. It has generated one of the most consistently superior performances in the banking industry over the past decade. It’s the most profitable and efficient bank among superregional and national banks. It’s the highest-rated bank by Moody’s. It’s also been named one of the world’s most ethical companies for five years in a row by the Ethisphere Institute. And it has emerged as a leader of the digital banking revolution.

Bank Director’s executive editor, John J. Maxfield, interviewed U.S. Bancorp Chairman and CEO Andy Cecere for the first quarter 2019 issue of Bank Director magazine. (You can read that story, “Growth Through Digital Banking, Not M&A,” by clicking here.)

In the interview, Cecere sheds light on U.S. Bancorp’s:

  • Strategy for expanding into new markets
  • Progress on the digital banking front
  • Perspective on the changes underway in banking
  • Experience through the financial crisis

The interview has been edited for brevity, clarity and flow.

download.png Download transcript for the full exclusive interview

How A New Court Decision Could Change Bank M&A


merger-3-11-19.pngA recent decision by the Delaware Supreme Court relating to a merger between two pharmaceutical companies that was terminated before closing could have implications on bank mergers and acquisitions.

On Dec. 7, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in Akorn v. Fresenius Kabi that a Material Adverse Effect (“MAE”) had occurred with respect to Akorn under the terms of its merger agreement with Fresenius.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s determination that (1) Akorn had suffered an MAE under the terms of the agreement that excused Fresenius from its obligation to close the transaction, and (2) Fresenius properly terminated the merger agreement because of Akorn’s breach of its regulatory representations and warranties under the merger agreement, which gave rise to an MAE, and Fresenius had not materially breached the merger agreement (which would have prevented it from exercising its termination rights).

Why the Akorn Case Is Important

  • This is the first ruling in Delaware that an MAE had occurred in a merger transaction, allowing the buyer to walk away from a signed merger agreement.
  • The lower court’s opinion provides unprecedented guidance for future negotiation and litigation of MAE clauses.
  • The decision is applicable to all industries, including the banking industry, and makes it clear that, first, the heavy burden to establish an MAE with respect to the target remains with the buyer.

How The Case Impacts Bank M&A

  • Merger partners should carefully consider the categories of events or changes, as well as any specific events, that should be excluded from the MAE definition, ensuring that the definition accurately reflects the agreed upon allocation of risk between the parties.
  • Sellers should exclude industry-wide changes impacting the seller, while buyers should be mindful to provide that broad industry changes that disproportionately affect the seller are not carved out from the definition.
  • Typical carve-outs from the MAE definition in a bank merger agreement include: changes in laws and regulations affecting banks or thrift institutions, changes in GAAP, changes in the value of securities or loan portfolio or value of deposits or borrowings resulting from a change in interest rates, and changes relating to securities markets in general.
  • Buyers who are uncomfortable with the broad definition of an MAE, even following Akorn, and are significantly larger than the seller may wish to consider inclusion of a few specific financial closing conditions to supplement the broad MAE clause.
  • Buyers in the bank M&A context should in good faith continue the regulatory approval process even while contemplating terminating the deal over a possible MAE — having “clean hands” matters.

How the Court Found an MAE
Fresenius, a German pharmaceutical company, and a U.S. generic drug manufacturer, Akorn, formally agreed in April 2017 to merge.

Shortly after, Akorn’s financial performance “fell off a cliff;” its revenues declined the next four quarters by 29 percent, 29 percent, 34 percent and 27 percent, respectively. Its operating income plummeted 84 percent, 89 percent, 292 percent and 134 percent, respectively, during the same period.

Fresenius terminated the merger agreement in April 2018, asserting that Akorn had suffered a general MAE. Fresenius further asserted it had an explicit right to terminate the merger agreement because Akorn breached its regulatory compliance representations and warranties. Akorn’s lawsuit followed, seeking for the court to force Fresenius to close the transaction.

The Court of Chancery determined Akorn suffered a general MAE, which resulted from issues that disproportionately affected Akorn compared to similar companies in its industry. Focusing on the plain text of the merger agreement, the court determined that Akorn bore the general risk of the MAE and through several carve-outs to the provision, Fresenius bore the “systemic” risks related to Akorn’s industry. However, through specific exclusions from these carve-outs, the risk was shifted back to Akorn in the event that the risks disproportionately affected Akorn’s business as compared to other participants in its industry. In analyzing whether the effect was “material,” the court stated the effect should “substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally-significant manner.”

In other words, the court determined that Akorn’s dramatic downturn in performance was significant because it had persisted for a year and had no sign of abating, rejecting Akorn’s argument that any assessment of the decline in its value should be measured not against its performance as a standalone entity but against its value to Fresenius as a buyer.

Conclusion
This case is directly applicable to the banking industry. Many banks suffered dramatic declines in earnings during the financial crisis that would be considered durationally significant within the framework reinforced by Akorn. Causes included massive credit losses, drastic margin compression and the regulatory reaction to the crisis. Banks need to take into account their risk profile and that of their merger partner when negotiating the MAE definition and consider how it would work under a variety of adverse economic environments.

Three New Ways the FDIC Is Helping Community Banks


regulation-3-8-19.pngIf there’s one takeaway from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s latest annual report, it’s that there’s a new sheriff in town.

The sheriff, Jelena McWilliams, isn’t literally new, of course, given the FDIC’s new chairman was confirmed in May 2018. Yet, it wasn’t until last month that her imprint on the FDIC became clear, with the release of the agency’s annual report.

In last year’s report, former Chairman Martin Gruenberg spent the first half of his Message from the Chairman—the FDIC’s equivalent to an annual shareholder letter—reviewing the risks facing the banking industry and emphasizing the need for banks and regulatory agencies to stay vigilant despite the strength of the ongoing economic expansion.

“History shows that surprising and adverse developments in financial markets occur with some frequency,” wrote Gruenberg. “History also shows that the seeds of banking crises are sown by the decisions banks and bank policymakers make when they have maximum confidence that the horizon is clear.”

The net result, wrote Gruenberg, is that, “[w]hile the banking system is much stronger now than it was entering the crisis, continued vigilance is warranted.”

Gruenberg’s tone was that of a parent, not a partner.

This paternalistic tone is one reason that bankers have grown so frustrated with regulators. Sure, regulators have a job to do, but to imply that bankers are ignorant of the economic cycle belies the fact that most bankers have more experience in the industry than regulators.

This is why McWilliams’ message will come as a relief to the industry.

It’s not that she disagrees with Gruenberg on the need to maintain vigilance, because there’s no reason to think she does. But the tone of her message implies that she views the FDIC as more of a partner to the banking industry than a parent.

This is reflected in her list of priorities. These include encouraging more de novo formations, reducing the regulatory burden on community banks, increasing transparency of the agency’s performance and establishing an office of innovation to help banks understand how technology is changing the industry.

To be clear, it’s not that Gruenberg didn’t promote de novo formations, because he did. It was under his tenure that the FDIC conducted outreach meetings around the country aimed at educating prospective bank organizers about the application process.

But while Gruenberg’s conversation about de novo banks was buried deep in his message, it was front and center in McWilliams’ message, appearing in the fourth paragraph.

“One of my top priorities as FDIC Chairman is to encourage more de novo formation, and we are hard at work to make this a reality,” wrote McWilliams. “De novo banks are a key source of new capital, talent, ideas, and ways to serve customers, and the FDIC will do its part to support this segment of the industry.” Twitter_Logo_Blue.png

To this end, the FDIC has requested public comment on streamlining and identifying potential improvements in the deposit insurance application process. Coincidence or not, the number of approved de novo applications increased last year to 17—the most since the financial crisis.

The progress on McWilliams’ second priority, chipping away at the regulatory burden on community banks, is more quantifiably apparent.

The FDIC eliminated over 400 out of a total of 800 pieces of outstanding supervisory guidance and, in her first month as chairman, launched a pilot program that allows examiners to review digitally scanned loan files offsite, reducing the length of onsite exams.

Relatedly, the number of enforcement actions initiated by the FDIC continued to decline last year. In 2016, the FDIC initiated 259 risk and consumer enforcement actions. That fell to 231 the following year. And in 2018, it was down to 177.

“We will continue [in 2019] to focus on reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens for community banks without sacrificing consumer protections or prudential requirements,” McWilliams wrote. “When we make these adjustments, we allow banks to focus on the business of banking, not on the unraveling of red tape.”

Another of McWilliams’ priorities is promoting transparency at the agency. This was the theme of her first public initiative announced as chairman, titled “Trust through Transparency.”

The substance of the initiative is to publish a list of the FDIC’s performance metrics online, including call center response rates and turnaround times for examinations and applications. In the first two months the webpage was live, it received more than 34,000 page views.

Finally, reflecting a central challenge faced by banks today, the FDIC is in the process of establishing an Office of Innovation that, according to McWilliams, “will partner with banks and nonbanks to understand how technology is changing the business of banking.”

The office is tasked with addressing a number of specific questions, including how the FDIC can provide a safe regulatory environment that promotes continuous innovation. It’s ultimate objective, though, is in line with McWilliams’ other priorities.

“Through increased collaboration with FDIC-regulated institutions, consumers, and financial services innovators, we will help increase the velocity of innovation in our business,” wrote McWilliams.

In short, while the industry has known since the middle of last year that a new sheriff is in town at the FDIC, the agency’s 2018 annual report lays out more clearly how she intends to govern.

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 Big Banks Are Back


banks-1-28-19.pngIs it now a big bank world that the rest of the industry is just living in?

One could justifiably come to that conclusion based on comments by Tom Michaud, president and chief executive officer at the investment bank Keefe Bruyette & Woods during a presentation on the opening day of Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired conference Sunday in Phoenix.

Approximately 1,300 people are attending the 25th anniversary of Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired event at the JW Marriott Phoenix Desert Ridge resort, which will run through Tuesday.

It’s no secret the four largest U.S. banks—JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup—hold dominant positions in the country’s banking market. These four megabanks control approximately 45 percent of the U.S. deposits. But historically, large institutions have been less profitable than much smaller ones in part because their size and complexity have made them more difficult to manage.

That is now changing, according to Michaud.

Bank of America, for example, posted a return on tangible common equity (ROTCE) in 2017 of 10.8 percent. The bank’s ROTCE rose to 15.4 percent in 2018 and is projected to hit 15.9 and 16.5 percent in 2019 and 2020, respectively.

Similar ROTCE increases are forecasted for JPMorgan, Wells and Citi through 2020.

The reason these banks are now operating at a much higher level of profitability is in part because their management teams have figured out how to turn their enormous size into an advantage. Although analysts, consultants and the banks themselves have often touted the advantage of size, it has had an averaging effect on their financial performance as they have grown increasingly larger in recent years.

“It seems now that the scale argument has a lot more traction,” said Michaud.

Just three years ago, the most profitable U.S. banks based on their performance metrics were in the $5 billion to $10 billion asset category—just large enough to gain some benefits from scale but still small enough to escape the averaging effect. This so-called “sweet spot” shifted in 2017 to banks with assets greater than $40 billion, and Michaud expects these large institutions to again claim the sweet spot in 2018 by an even wider margin once the industry’s profitability data are finalized.

One important place large banks have been able to use scale to their advantage is in technology. The U.S. economy is in the midst of a digital revolution, and the banking industry is being forced to embrace digital distribution of consumer products like checking accounts and mortgages. “Consumers really like the digital delivery of retail banking services,” Michaud said.

And it’s the national and super-regional banks that are capturing the greatest share of “switchers”—consumers who are leaving their current bank for another institution that offers a better digital experience. Michaud cited data from the consulting firm AT Kearney showing that national banks are capturing about 41 percent of the digital switchers, with super-regionals taking 28 percent. Even direct banks at 11 percent have been gaining a larger share of switchers than regional banks, local banks and credit unions.

The advantage of scale becomes most apparent when you look at the amount of money large banks are able to invest to upgrade their digital capabilities. Each of the big four banks are expected to invest a minimum of $3 billion a year over the next few years in technology—and some of them will invest significantly more. For instance, JPMorgan’s annual technology spend is expected to average around $10.8 billion.

While not all of that will be invested in digital distribution, the country’s largest bank is investing heavily to build a digital banking capability capable of penetrating any consumer market anywhere in the country.

Benchmarking Best Practices



Data has never been more important for the banking industry. In this video, Eric Weikart, a partner at Cornerstone Advisors, interviews South State Bank Senior Vice President Jamie Kerr about the bank’s disciplined approach to data and benchmarking. She also explains the importance of incorporating benchmarking into South State’s culture.

  • Developing key metrics
  • Using data daily