FASB Sheds Light On CECL Delay Decision


CECL-8-15-19.pngSmall community banks are poised to receive a delay in the new loan loss standard from the accounting board.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board is changing how it sets the effective dates for major accounting standards, including the current expected credit loss model or CECL. They hope the delay, which gives some banks an extra one or two years, provides them with more time to access scarce external resources and learn from the implementation lessons of larger banks.

Bank Director spoke with FASB member Susan Cosper ahead of the July 27 meeting discussing the change. She shed some light on the motivations behind the change and how the board wants to help community banks implement CECL, especially with its new Q&A.

BD: Why is FASB considering a delay in some banks’ CECL effective date? Where did the issue driving the delay come from?
SC: The big issue is the effective date philosophy. Generally speaking, we’ve split [the effective dates] between [Securities and Exchange Commission] filers or public business entities, and private companies and not-for-profits. Generally, the not-for-profits and private companies have gotten an extra year, just given their resource constraints and educational cycle, among other things.

We started a dialogue after the effective date of the revenue recognition standard with our small business advisory committee and private company council about whether one year was enough. They expressed a concern that one [extra] year is difficult, because they don’t necessarily have enough time to learn from what public companies have done, they have resource constraints and they have other standards that they’re dealing with.

We started to think about whether we needed to give private companies and not-for-profits extra time. And at the same time, did we need to [expand that] to small public companies as well?

BD: What does this mean for CECL? What would change?
SC: For the credit loss standard, we had a three-tiered effective date, which is a little unusual. Changing how we set effective dates would essentially collapse that into two tiers. We will still have the SEC filers, minus the small reporting companies, with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2020.

We would take the small reporting companies and group it with the “all-other” category, and push that out until Jan. 1, 2023. It essentially gives the non-public business entities an extra year, and the small reporting companies an extra two years.

BD: How long has FASB considered changing its philosophy for effective dates? It seems sudden, but I’m sure the board was receiving an increasing amount of feedback, and identified this as a way to address much of that feedback.
SC: We’ve been thinking about this for a while. We’ve asked our advisory committees and counsels a lot of questions: “How did it go? Did you have enough time? What did you learn?” Different stakeholder groups have expressed concern about different standards, but it was really trying to get an understanding of why they needed the extra time and concerns from a resource perspective.

When you think about resources, it’s not just the internal resources. Let’s look at a community bank or credit union: Sometimes they’re using external resources as well. There are a lot of larger companies that may be using those external resources. [Smaller organizations] may not have the leverage that some of the larger organizations have to get access to those resources.

BD: For small reporting companies, their CECL effective date will move from January 2020 to January 2023. How fast do you think auditors or anyone advising these SRCs can adopt these changes for them?
SC: What we’ve learned is that the smaller companies wait longer to actually start the adoption process. There are many community banks that haven’t even begun the process of thinking about what they need to do to apply the credit loss standard.

It also affords [FASB] an opportunity to develop staff Q&As and get that information out there, and help smaller community banks and credit unions understand what they need to do and how they can leverage their existing processes.

When we’ve met with community banks and credit unions, sometimes they think they have to do something much more comprehensive than what they actually need to do. We’re planning to travel around the country and hold meetings with smaller practitioners — auditors, community banks, credit unions — to educate them on how they can leverage their existing processes to apply the standard.

BD: What kind of clarity does FASB hope to provide through its reasonable and supportable forecast Q&A that’s being missed right now? [Editor’s note: According to FASB, CECL requires banks to “consider available and relevant information, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts,” when calculating future lifetime losses. Banks revert to their historical loss performance when the loan duration extends beyond the forecast period.]
SC: There are so many different aspects of developing the reasonable and supportable forecast in this particular Q&A. We have heard time and time again that there are community banks that believe they need to think about econometrics that affect banks in California, when they only operate in Virginia. So, we tried to clarify: “No, you need to think about the types of qualitative factors that would impact where you are actually located.”

The Q&A tries to provide an additional layer of clarity about what the board’s intent was, to help narrow what a bank actually has to do. It also provides some information on other types of metrics that banks could use, outside of metrics like unemployment. It talks about how to do the reversion to historical information, and tries to clarify some of the misinformation that we have heard as we’ve met with banks.

BD: People have a sense about what the words “reasonable” and “supportable” mean, but maybe banks feel that they should buy a national forecast because that seems like a safe choice for a lot of community banks.
SC: Hindsight is always 20-20, but I think people get really nervous with the word “forecast.” What we try to clarify in the Q&A is that it’s really just an estimate, and what that estimate should include.

BD: Is the board concerned about the procrastination of banks? Or that at January 2022, banks might expect another delay?
SC: What we’re really hoping to accomplish is a smooth transition to the standard, and that the smaller community banks and the credit unions have the opportunity to learn from the implementation of the larger financial institutions. In our conversations with community banks, they’re thinking about it and want to understand how they can leverage their existing processes.

BD: What is FASB’s overall sense of banks’ implementation of CECL?
SC: What we have heard in meetings with the larger financial institutions is that they’re ready. We’re seeing them make public disclosure in their SEC filings about the impact of the standard. We’ve talked to them extensively about some of how they’ve accomplished implementation. After the effective date comes, we will also have conversations with them about what went well, what didn’t go well and what needs clarification, in an effort to help the smaller financial institutions with their effective date.

2019 Mid-Year Bank M&A Outlook


merger-8-5-19.pngWhat might the second half of 2019 bring for bank mergers and acquisitions (M&A)?

The favorable drivers in the first half of 2019 — the regulatory landscape, enhanced earnings as a result of tax reform, desire for scale and efficiency, and the search for digital capabilities — will likely continue to be the catalysts for bank M&A activity in the second half of 2019. While the market has not seen a spike in the bank M&A deal volume, overall deal values continue to rise because of a few large transactions, including mergers with price tags of a $28 billion and a $3.6 billion. The following trends and drivers are expected to continue to have an impact on banking M&A activity in the second half of 2019 and beyond.

Intensifying Battle for Secured Customer Deposit Bases
U.S. banks’ deposit costs rose far more quickly than loan yields in the first quarter of 2019; further increases in deposit costs may prevent net interest margins from expanding in 2019. As the competition for deposits intensifies, buyers are increasingly looking for banks with a secured deposit base, especially those with a significant percentage. Moreover, as deposit betas accelerate — even as the Federal Open Market Committee slows rate hikes — it becomes more difficult for banks to grow deposits.

With the largest banks attempting to grow their deposit market share via organic customer growth, the regional and super regional banks are trying to develop similar presences through acquisitions. Banks that can navigate this rate environment ably should emerge as better-positioned acquirers via their stock currency, or sellers through the attractiveness of their funding base.

Favorable Regulatory Environment
Dodd-Frank regulations have eased over the past 12 months, increasing the threshold for added oversight and scrutiny from $50 billion in assets to $250 billion. Easing bank regulations and tax reforms that create surplus capital could continue driving regional and super regional consolidation. Moreover, banks with $250 billion to $700 billion in assets may continue to benefit in the second half of 2019 from a more-favorable regulatory landscape.

MOE’s Potential Change on the Competitive Landscape
There were a couple of mergers of equals (MOE) in the first half of 2019 that were welcomed by investors — an indication that the industry could be likely to see a rise in the volume of larger transactions in 2019. Regional banks that miss the MOE wave in the near term may soon find themselves without a “partner” after the initial wave of acquisitions occurs.

As the banks pressure-test their MOE strategy, the key may be to find a partner with strategic overlap to drive the synergies and justify the purchase price premium yet also provide an opportunity for growth and geographic footprint. Furthermore, unlike smaller tuck-ins, MOE requires additional strategic diligence and capabilities. This includes the ability to successfully integrate and scale capabilities, the ability to cross-sell to newly acquired segments, the ability to consolidate branches in overlapping markets and integrating divergent management processes and culture.

The Hunt for Digital Capabilities
Evolving consumer wants and the table stake needed to provide an integrated digital ecosystem are compelling many bank executives to differentiate themselves via technology and digital channels growth. Investors typically place a premium on digital-forward banks, driving up multiples for banks with efficient ecosystems of digital capabilities. The hunt for digital capabilities may provide an opportunity to not only add scale, but also transform legacy banks into agile, digital-first banks of the future.

Bank boards and executives should remain cognizant of above trends as they progress through their strategic M&A planning. Their resulting decisions — to be buyer, seller or an observer on the sidelines — may shape bank M&A activity in the second half of 2019 and into 2020.

Moreover, while the banks continue to assess the potential impact of the current expected credit loss (CECL) standard, the general market consensus is CECL may require a capital charge. As such, M&A credit due diligence should be treated as an investment in reducing future losses, even though the loan quality is currently viewed as benign. Successfully driving value from acquisitions while mitigating risks requires a focused lens on M&A strategy with the right set of tools, teams and processes to perform due diligence, execute and integrate as needed.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. In the United States, Deloitte refers to one or more of the US member firms of DTTL, their related entities that operate using the “Deloitte” name in the United States and their respective affiliates. Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Please see www.deloitte.com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms.

This publication contains general information only and Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. Deloitte shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

Copyright © 2019 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.

How CECL Impacts Acquisitive Banks


CECL-7-30-19.pngBank buyers preparing to review a potential transaction or close a purchase may encounter unexpected challenges.

For public and private financial institutions, the impending accounting standard called the current expected credit loss or CECL will change how they will account for acquired receivables. It is imperative that buyers use careful planning and consideration to avoid CECL headaches.

Moving to CECL will change the name and definitions for acquired loans. The existing accounting guidance classifies loans into two categories: purchased-credit impaired (PCI) loans and purchased performing loans. Under CECL, the categories will change to purchased credit deteriorated (PCD) loans and non-PCD loans.

PCI loans are loans that have experienced deterioration in credit quality after origination. It is probable that the acquiring institution will be unable to collect all the contractually obligated payments from the borrower for these loans. In comparison, PCD loans are purchased financial assets that have experienced a more-than-insignificant amount of credit deterioration since origination. CECL will give financial institutions broader latitude for considering which of their acquired loans have impairments.

Under existing guidance for PCI loans, management teams must establish what contractual cash flows they expect to receive, as well as the cash flows they do not expect to receive. The yield on these loans can change with expected cash flows assessments following the close of a deal. In contrast, changes in the expected credit losses on PCD loans will impact provisions for loan losses following a deal, similar to changes in expectations on originated loans.

CECL will significantly change how banks treat existing purchased performing loans. Right now, accounting for purchased performing loans is straightforward: banks record loans at fair value, with no allowance recorded on Day One.

Under CECL, acquired assets that have only insignificant credit deterioration (non-PCD loans) will be treated similarly to originated assets. This requires a bank to record an allowance at acquisition, with an offset to the income statement.

The key difference with the CECL standard for these loans is that it is not appropriate for a financial institution to offset the need for an allowance with a purchase discount that is accreted into income. To take it a step further: a bank will need to record an appropriate allowance for all purchased performing loans from past mergers and acquisitions that it has on the balance sheet, even if the remaining purchase discounts resulted in no allowance under today’s standards.

Management teams should understand how CECL impacts accounting for acquired loans as they model potential transactions. The most substantial change relates to how banks account for acquired non-PCD loans. These loans first need to be adjusted to fair value under the requirements of accounting standards codification 805, Business Combinations, and then require a Day One reserve as discussed above. This new accounting could further dilute capital during an acquisition and increase the amount of time it takes a bank to earn back its tangible book value.

Banks should work with their advisors to model the impact of these changes and consider whether they should adjust pricing or deal structure in response. Executives who are considering transactions that will close near their bank’s CECL adoption date not only will need to model the impact on the acquired loans but also the impact on their own loan portfolio. This preparation is imperative, so they can accurately estimate the impact on regulatory capital.

Evolving Considerations in the CECL Countdown


CECL-7-23-19.pngExecutives gearing up for the transition to the new loan loss accounting standard need to understand their methodologies and be prepared to explain them.

Many banks are well underway in their transition to the current expected credit loss methodology, or CECL, and coming up with a preliminary allowance estimate under the new standard. CECL will require banks to book their allowance based on expected credit losses for the life of their assets, rather than when the loss has been incurred.

The standard goes into effect for some institutions in 2020, which is slightly more than six months away. To prepare, executives are reviewing their bank’s initial CECL allowance, beginning to operationalize their process and preparing the documentation around their decision-making and approach. As they do this, they will need to keep in mind the following key considerations:

Bankers will need time to review their bank’s preliminary results and make adjustments as appropriate. Banks may be surprised by their initial allowance adjustments under CECL. Some banks with shorter-term portfolios have disclosed that they expect a decrease of their allowance under CECL, compared to the incurred loss estimate.

Some firms may find that they do not have the data needed to segment assets at the level they initially intended or to use certain loan loss methodologies. These findings will require a bank to spend more time evaluating different options, such as identifying simpler methodologies or switching to a segmentation approach that is less granular.

These preliminary CECL results may take longer to analyze and understand. Executives will need to understand how the assumptions the bank made influence the allowance. These assumptions include the periods from which the bank gathered its historical loss information for each segment, the reasonable and supportable forecast period, the reversion period, its prepayment assumptions, the contractual life of its loans—and how these interact. Bankers need to leave enough time for their institutions to iterate through this process and become comfortable with their results.

Incorporate less material or non-mainline loan asset classes into the overall process. Many banks spent last year determining and analyzing various loan loss methodologies and how those approaches would potentially impact their larger and more material asset classes. They should now broaden their focus to include less material or non-mainline asset classes as well.

Banks may be able to use a simplified methodology for these assets, but they will still need to be integrated into the bank’s core CECL process to satisfy internal controls and management and financial reporting.

Own the model and calculations. Executives will need to support their methodology elections and model calculations. This means they will need to explain the data and detailed calculations they used to develop their bank’s CECL estimate. It includes documenting why they decided that certain models or methodologies were the most appropriate for their institution and for specific portfolios, how they came to agree upon their key assumptions and what internal processes they use to validate and monitor their model’s performance.

Auditors and regulators expect the same level of scrutiny from executives whether the bank uses an internally developed model, engages with a vendor or purchases peer data. Executives may need specialized resources or additional internal governance and oversight to aid this process.

Know the qualitative adjustments. Qualitative adjustments may shift in the transition from an incurred loss approach to an expected lifetime one. Executives will need a deep understanding of the bank’s portfolios and how their concentration of risk has changed over time. They will also need to have an in-depth knowledge of the models and calculations their bank uses to determine the CECL allowance, so they can understand which credit characteristics and macro-economic variables are contemplated in the models. This knowledge will inform the need for additional qualitative adjustments.

Anticipate stakeholder questions. CECL adoption will require most banks to take a one-time capital charge to adjust the allowance. Executives will need to explain this charge to internal and external stakeholders. Moving from a rate versus volume attribution to a more complex set of drivers of the allowance estimate, including the incorporation of forecasted conditions, will require the production of additional analytics to properly assess and report on the change. Executives will need ensure their bank has proper reporting framework and structure to produce analytics at the portfolio, segment and, ultimately, loan level.

CECL Delayed for Small Banks


CECL-7-18-19.pngSmall banks hoping for a delay in the new loan loss accounting standard could get their wish, following a change in how the accounting board sets the effective dates for new standards.

On July 17, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed pushing back the effective date of major accounting changes like revenue recognition, leases and — key to financial institutions — the current expected credit loss model (CECL). The board hopes the additional time will offer relief to smaller companies with fewer resources and provide more space to learn from the implementation efforts of larger peers. Under the proposal, community banks and credit unions now have a new effective date of Jan. 1, 2023, to implement CECL.

The board’s proposal also provided relief for a new category they call “small reporting companies,” and thus simplified the three-tiered effective dates into two groups. The proposal retains the 2020 effective date for companies that file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that are not otherwise classified as a small reporting companies.

CECL will force banks to set aside lifetime loss reserves at loan origination, rather than when a loss becomes probable. The standard has been hotly contested in the industry since its 2016 passage, and banking groups and members of Congress had unsuccessfully sought a delay in the intervening years.

But on Wednesday, some finally got what they were looking for. The proposed CECL delay for many banks comes as FASB grapples with how it sets the effective dates for different standards, said board member Susan Cosper in an interview conducted prior to the July 17 meeting.

In the past, FASB would pass a new accounting standard and set an effective date for SEC filers and public business entities in one year, then give private companies and nonprofit organizations an extra year to comply. The gap in dates recognizes the resource constraints those firms may face as well as the demand for outside services, and provide time for smaller companies to learn from the implementation lessons of large companies. However, the board’s advisory councils said this may not be enough time.

“What we’ve learned … is that the smaller companies wait longer to actually start the adoption process,” Cosper says. “There are many community banks that haven’t even begun the process of thinking about what they need to do to apply the credit loss standard.”

The extra time should allow these companies the ability to digest and implement the credit loss overhaul using existing resources. During the meeting, FASB member R. Harold Schroeder said that bankers tell him they could quickly apply the CECL standard in a “compliance approach” as a “box-checking exercise” for their banks. But, they tell him, they need more time if they want to implement CECL in a way that allows them to use it to make business decisions.

“The companies I talked to are taking these standards seriously as an opportunity to improve; ‘We want the data to flow through our systems, but it takes more time,’” he said.

The board also adopted an SEC filer category, called “small reporting companies” or SRCs. The SEC defines a small reporting company as a firm with a public float of less than $250 million, or has annual revenues of less than $100 million and no annual float or a public float of less than $700 million. For CECL, SRCs have the same implementation deadline as their private and not-for-profit peers. Companies with a 2023 effective date have the option of adopting the standard early.

The proposal to extend the CECL effective dates for small companies received unanimous support from the board. The proposal now goes out for public comment.

“The process of gathering, cleaning and validating [loan loss] data has taken longer than we expected,” says Mike Lundberg, national director of financial institutions services at accounting firm RSM US. “Having a little more time[for banks] to run parallel paths or fine-tune their models is really, really helpful.”

Lundberg points out that small banks will now have nearly six years to implement the standard, which passed in 2016. He also warns against bankers’ complacency.

“[The implementation] will take a long time and is a big project,” he says. “It’s definitely a ‘Don’t take the foot off the gas’ situation. This is the time to get it right.”

FASB also offered additional assistance to financial institutions with a newly published Q&A document around the “reasonable and supportable” forecast, and announced a multi-city roadshow to meet with small practitioners and bankers. Cosper says the Q&A looks to narrow the work banks need to do in order to create a forecast and includes additional forward-looking metrics banks can consider.

“I think that people really get nervous with the word ‘forecast,’” she says. “What we tried to clarify in the Q&A is that it’s really just an estimate, and it goes on to describe what that estimate should include.”

Here’s How to Address CECL’s Biggest Question


CECL-4-26-19.pngA debate is raging right now as to whether the new loan loss accounting standard, soon to go into effect, will aggravate or alleviate the notoriously abrupt cycles of the banking industry.

Regulators and modelers say the Current Expected Credit Loss model, or CECL, will alleviate cyclicality, while at least two regional banks and an industry group argue otherwise. Who’s right? The answer, it seems, will come down to the choices bankers make when implementing CECL and their view of the future.

CECL requires banks to record losses on assets at origination, rather than waiting until losses become probable. The hope is that, by doing so, banks will be able to prepare more proactively for a downturn.

This debate comes as banks are busy implementing CECL, which goes into effect for some institutions as early as 2020.

Last year, internal analyses conducted by BB&T Corp. and Zions Bancorp. indicated that CECL will make cycles worse compared to the existing framework, which requires banks to record losses only once they become probable.

Both banks found that CECL will force a bank with an adequate allowance to unnecessarily increase it during a downturn. Their concern is that this could make lending at the bottom of a cycle less attractive.

The increase in provisions would “directly and adversely impact retained earnings,” wrote Zions Chief Financial Officer Paul Burdiss in an August 2018 letter, without changing the institution’s ability to absorb losses. BB&T said that adjusting its existing reserves early in a recession, as called for under CECL, would deplete capital “more severely” than the current practice.

BB&T declined to comment, while Zions did not return requests for comment.

The Bank Policy Institute, an industry group representing the nation’s leading banks, said in a July 2018 study that the standard “will make the next recession worse.” CECL’s lifetime approach forces a bank to add reserves every time it makes a loan, which will increase existing reserves during a recession, the group argued.

“The impact on loan allowances due to a change in the macroeconomic forecasts is much higher under CECL,” the study says.

And in Congressional testimony on April 10, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon said CECL could impact community banks’ ability to lend in a recession.

“I do think it’s going to put smaller banks in a position where, when a crisis hits, they’ll virtually have to stop lending because putting up those reserves would be too much at precisely the wrong time,” he said.

Those results are at odds with research conducted by the Federal Reserve and firms like Moody’s Analytics and Prescient Models. Some of the differences can be chalked up to modeling approach and choices; other disagreements center on the very definition of ‘procyclicality.’

Moody’s Analytics believes that CECL will result in “easier underwriting and more lending in recessions, and tighter underwriting and less lending in boom times,” according to a December 2018 paper. The Federal Reserve similarly found that CECL should generally reduce procyclical lending and reserving compared to the current method, according to a March 2018 study.

Yet, both the Fed and Moody’s Analytics concluded that CECL’s ability to temper the credit cycle will vary based on the forecasts and assumptions employed by banks under the framework.

“The most important conclusion is that CECL’s cyclicality is going to depend heavily on how it’s implemented,” says Moody’s Analytics’ deputy chief economist Cristian deRitis. “You can … make choices in your implementation that either make it more or less procyclical.”

DeRitis says the “most important” variable in a model’s cyclicality is the collection of future economic forecasts, and that running multiple scenarios could provide banks a baseline loss scenario as well as an upside and downside loss range if the environment changes.

The model and methodology that banks select during CECL implementation could also play a major role in how proactively a bank will be able to build reserves, says Prescient Models’ CEO Joseph Breeden, who looked at how different loan loss methods impact an economic cycle in an August 2018 paper.

A well-designed model, he says, should allow bankers to reserve for losses years in advance of a downturn.

“With a good model, you should pay attention to the trends. If you do CECL right, you will be able to see increasing demands for loss reserves,” he says. “Don’t worry about predicting the peak, just pay attention to the trends—up or down—because that’s how you’re going to manage your business.”

In the final analysis, then, the answer to the question of whether CECL will alleviate or aggravate the cyclical nature of banking will seemingly come down to the sum total of bankers’ choices during implementation and execution.

Focus On This One Area To Position Your Bank For Success


data-12-27-18.pngWhether it’s compliance with forthcoming regulations or simply giving your customers an enjoyable experience, banks are realizing that one thing is central to achieving successful results across their operations.

Data management and governance has become a central element for banks positioning themselves for the future in a digital-first world and as new credit reporting requirements, like the current expected credit loss (CECL) provisions, are put into effect.

Banks that embrace and establish a robust data governance process will be better positioned to accomplish its strategic initiatives, whether they be in customer acquisition or relationship management, or with efficiently meeting the new accounting standards.


customer-12-27-18-tb.pngHow Banks Can Make Use of Data-Driven Customer Insight
Most are familiar with the algorithms and machine learning employed by big tech companies like Google, Netflix and Amazon. Banks are beginning to employ similar strategies as the competition for new customers and new deposits remains high.

data-12-17-18-tb.pngFrom CRM to CECL: Why Improved Data Governance Is Imperative for Your Bank
Banks know they have mountains of data about their customers that can help deliver attractive experiences on a variety of platforms. But data governance is not only about controlling large volumes of data, it’s about creating trust in the quality of data.

Poor data governance practices can lead to poor decision making by bank management, which is a risk no institution can afford.

No matter what lies ahead for your bank, how your institution manages and utilizes data will be an essential piece to its strategic initiatives and goals.

Six Things To Know About CECL Right Now


CECL-11-13-18.pngMany banks began the transition to CECL in earnest when the final version was issued in 2016. While banks are in various stages, some are already working through more nuanced aspects of the transition.

Many lessons have been learned from actual CECL implementations, and here are some tips to assist bank directors as they guide management through the transition.

1. The quantitative impact of CECL adoption may be less straightforward than initially expected. Even before the final CECL standard was issued, industry observers tried to predict just how much the allowance would increase upon adoption. In truth, it will be almost impossible to estimate the impact of the transition for an individual institution. The actual impact will depend upon many bank-specific factors, the estimation method, the length of the reasonable supportable forecast, the size of today’s qualitative adjustment, and management’s outlook, to name a few. Additionally, some banks with short-term portfolios have been surprised to discover the CECL estimate may be lower than the current allowance due to a shift from an estimate based on a loss emergence period to one that considers the next contractual maturity date.

2. CECL may result in a requirement to manage model risk for unsuspecting institutions. Similar to reserving practices today, banks are employing a variety of approaches. General trends include the largest institutions employing statistical software to build custom in-house models, while the smallest institutions favor a less complex approach that relies on adjusting historical averages. Many institutions who are not using models are relying on “correlations” to support their adjustments. However, this practice needs to be managed carefully, as per regulatory definition, any method that applies a statistical approach, economic, financial, or mathematical theory to derive a quantitative estimate is considered a “model.” Therefore, using a correlation – regardless of whether it is identified in a spreadsheet, vendor solution, or anywhere else – to quantify the impact of a factor is by definition a model, and subject to model risk management. Institutions taking this approach to CECL should carefully consider the scope of model risk management, and avoid accidentally creating or misusing models.

3. Qualitative adjustments will still be necessary. Regardless of the method used to estimate the impact of forecasted conditions, there will still be a need to apply expert judgment for factors not considered in the quantitative (modeled) estimate. Even the most sophisticated models used by the largest banks will not consider every factor. Further, many banks prefer the flexibility to exercise judgment in their reserving process. While it’s not yet clear which factors the industry will use or how to quantify the lifetime impact, as it relates to regulatory and auditor oversight, the level of scrutiny around qualitative adjustments will not decrease from existing practice. Again, accidentally creating models is particularly important given the scrutiny on management judgment and the overall impetus to quantify it.

4. Think beyond compliance. One of the overarching goals of CECL is to better align credit loss measurement with underwriting and risk management practices. The transition to CECL presents banks with an opportunity to have unprecedented insight into the credit portfolio. For example, a comparison between the CECL estimate and the interest margin can provide insight into underwriting practices. But this can only happen if banks take a holistic approach to the transition and make the necessary investment in systems and reporting.

5. Reporting and analytics will be more important than ever. Bank directors will be responsible for answering shareholder questions related to the CECL reserve, which will be sensitive to changes in forecasted conditions. As a key constituent of the disclosures and internal management reports, bank directors have a responsibility to ensure a proper reporting framework is in place – one that integrates the data inputs and quantifies the change in expected credit losses at the instrument level. Attribution reports, for example, will be especially helpful in explaining why the allowance changed because they isolate and quantify the impact of individual variables affecting the reserve.

6. Be prepared for an iterative process, even after adoption. Translating the conceptual to operational can reveal unintended consequences and further questions. The industry has continued to work through implementation concerns since the final version was issued in 2016, including several meetings of the CECL Transition Resource Group. Industry best practices will evolve well after initial adoption.

Five Tips on Choosing the Right CECL Solutions for Community Banks


CECL-10-8-18.pngAny big accounting change—especially one as large as CECL (current expected credit loss)—is bound to cause some pain. But, there are ways to make sure your bank is not making the challenge bigger than it has to be. Here are five tips on selecting a calculation methodology that’s compatible with your institution.

1. Consider the complexity.
Banks can choose from several methodologies that range in complexity. The more complex the methodology, the more data needed—and the more inherent risk of error. Both the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and regulators have consistently indicated that complex CECL models aren’t required. Nevertheless, some community institutions seem to be choosing more complex methodologies over simpler solutions that can decrease cost and reduce risk.

Overall, the choice of a more complex methodology can impose additional costs and risks to a bank. If a community bank is going to use a complex methodology, it should go into it with clear understanding of the cost and risk involved.

2. Select your methodology first.
Regulatory agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FASB — have continually discussed how Excel is an acceptable tool for fulfilling CECL requirements. As a general rule, the more complex the methodology, the more likely you’ll need new software. Industry participants are becoming aware that they can use, with some adapting, methodologies similar to those they use today. That means they can continue to use Excel.

CECL software does have its advantages. For example, there’s functionality for quickly disaggregating the portfolio to a finer degree and the ability to explore various methodologies, which could be beneficial. But, new software won’t eliminate all of the hard work of making estimates requiring a managerial decision.

3. Don’t panic about the reasonable and supportable forecast requirements.
The accounting standard provides a framework for incorporating a reasonable and supportable forecast. The standard doesn’t require fancy and sophisticated forecasting techniques with regression equations. Using charts with historical economic information compared to long-term trend lines can be a way to reasonably support a forecast. This framework is illustrated within the accounting standard and consists of comparing the general direction of two economic indicators (unemployment and real estate values) and using historical loss periods with similar directional trends as a basis for qualitative adjustments.

4. Start with what makes sense and add complexity as needed.
The more complex the methodology, the more historical, loan-level data will be required. Many institutions won’t have accurate and complete data from several years ago readily available. They could do a tremendous amount of work right now to obtain that historical data. A better solution might be for those institutions to start changing their processes for the current year, so that going forward, they’ll have the correct data. In the meantime, they can use a less complex methodology that’s acceptable to regulators, such as the weighted average remaining maturity that doesn’t require loan-level information.

5. Ignore the hype and do what’s right for your institution.
Much of the focus in the industry now is on the big banks that are closest to adoption. A big, complex institution will require a complex CECL solution, so much of the dialogue in the industry relates to those complex methodologies. But, what’s good for your bank? Much of the industry buzz around advanced methodologies and CECL software has little to do with the needs of community institutions. The adoption deadline for community banks, which is still a couple of years away and simpler than that for large banks, is not an argument for procrastination. Rather, it’s a reminder that community institutions can craft solutions appropriate to their own needs that are efficient, effective, and economical.

Some community banks are still not working on CECL with necessary diligence and speed. Others are introducing complexity that makes the process more difficult than it has to be. An approach that recognizes there’s work to do—but understanding it can be minimized—is the right CECL strategy for the large majority of banks.

A Multifaceted Approach to Managing CRE Concentration Risk


Concentration risk is drawing scrutiny from financial regulators, who are focusing on lenders’ commercial real estate (CRE) concentrations. Financial services organizations are responding to this by looking for ways to improve their CRE risk management and credit portfolio management capabilities.

Lending institutions with high CRE credit concentrations and weak risk management practices are exposed to a greater risk of loss. If regulators determine a bank lacks adequate policies, credit portfolio management, or risk management practices, they may require it to develop more robust practices to measure, monitor, and manage CRE concentration risk.

For several years, federal regulatory agencies have issued updated guidance to help banks understand the risks. In 2006, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a guidance related to CRE concentrations followed by a statement in 2015 titled “Statement on Prudent Risk Management for Commercial Real Estate Lending.” Noting that CRE asset and lending markets are experiencing substantial growth, the 2015 guidance pointed out that “increased competitive pressures are contributing significantly to historically low capitalization rates and rising property values” and said “many institutions’ CRE concentration levels have been rising.”

Since the 2006 guidance, additional regulatory publications related to CRE concentrations have been released. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in 2010 began a shift, as banks with less than $10 billion in assets were exempt from more stringent requirements, according to a Crowe timeline analysis.

CRE-concentrations-small.png

Looking forward, the 2020 transition to the current expected credit loss (CECL) model for estimating credit losses will likely affect loan portfolio concentrations as well.

At the community bank level, CRE concentrations have been increasing. In 2016, CRE concentrations in smaller organizations had reached levels similar to mid-2007, according to Crowe’s analysis.

Comparison-small.png

These trends led regulators to sharpen their focus on CRE concentrations.

In one Crowe webinar earlier this year, 76 percent of the participants said their banks had some concern over how to better mitigate the risks associated with growing CRE concentrations.

In addition, 77 percent reported they received feedback within the past two years from regulators or auditors about CRE concentrations. The number of banks concerned about CRE concentration growth will likely continue to rise.

Approach to CRE Concentration Risk
The most effective methods for addressing concentration risk involve an integrated, holistic approach, which encompasses four steps:

  1. Validate CRE data. Banks must examine loan portfolio databases and verify the information is classified correctly. Coding errors and other inaccuracies often present a distorted picture of CRE concentrations.
  2. Analyze concentration risk. Banks can perform a risk analysis to expose both portfolio and loan sensitivity. Well-planned and carefully executed loan stratification can help management have a deeper understanding of their concentrations. Banks, even those not required to perform stress testing, should incorporate stress testing at the loan and portfolio levels.
  3. Mitigate CRE risk. Banks should establish policies and processes to monitor CRE loan performance and to adjust the mix of the portfolio as their risk appetite changes. Oversight of credit portfolio management is critical, as is an effective management information system.
  4. Report to management and the board. Reporting on a regular basis should include an update on mitigation efforts for any identified concentrations. Banks with higher levels of CRE loan activity might invest in dashboard reporting systems. The loan review and internal audit departments also should present additional reporting.

Loan Review and Stress Testing
Benefits can be gained by implementing a more dynamic loan review function that takes advantage of technology to identify portfolio themes and trends. The loan review function should identify if management reporting lacks granularity or other forms of risk associated with appraisal quality and underwriting practices.

Stress-testing practices can offer additional understanding of the effects economic variables might have on the portfolio. Tweaking several inputs can reveal how sensitive the bank’s models are to various scenarios. Stress testing can help facilitate discussions to better understand the loan portfolio and to identify better-performing borrowers and segments.

Other Best Practices
Other effective practices include establishing a CRE committee, creating a CRE dashboard, and adapting reporting functions to incorporate the loan pipeline. This approach can help management envision what concentrations will look like in the future if potential opportunities are funded. As CRE concentrations continue to attract regulatory scrutiny, risk management practices will become even more important to banking organizations.